|
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.
Repeating crossbows of endless ammunition are pretty nice. And if you allow 3.5 weapons, so is the great crossbow. Other than that, they are pretty sub-par. But they are simple weapons, and generally better than a sling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I always hated crossbows. Take too long to load!"
- Yoren of the Nightwatch
You are basically giving a portrait of Majin Etna from the Disgaea videogame series :)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.
close enough.
But a more youthful Koakuma, Swap the Ear Wings for Etna's Tail. was what i was going for.
I'm playing a prepared caster now and I'm really annoyed by it. The in potentia power is limited by all that book-keeping making it impractical for me to use. And I'm only a Cleric. I don't have a spellbook to worry about.
I also really WANT to play a Cavalier, but the way my group works with all the dungeons the viability of it is exceedingly limited. The moment I get a chance, I'm taking it!
Magus, Wizard, Alchemist, and to a lesser extent Cleric don't do much for me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also really WANT to play a Cavalier, but the way my group works with all the dungeons the viability of it is exceedingly limited. The moment I get a chance, I'm taking it!
Play a small race then. Medium sized mounts can fit almost anywhere in a dungeon. Halfling Cavalier on a Wolf is common (They even have their own order), or if you want to get more exotic, a Grippli riding a giant frog or a Goblin on a Goblin Dog would both be interesting characters.
|
|
Play a small race then. Medium sized mounts can fit almost anywhere in a dungeon. Halfling Cavalier on a Wolf is common (They even have their own order), or if you want to get more exotic, a Grippli riding a giant frog or a Goblin on a Goblin Dog would both be interesting characters.
I also really WANT to play a Cavalier, but the way my group works with all the dungeons the viability of it is exceedingly limited. The moment I get a chance, I'm taking it!
I believe there was also a feat in the Animal Archive (Narrow Frame, I think) that allowed a Large mount to squeeze without taking the AC and attack penalties, which opens the cavalier's options up a bit.
For classes: I'm bad at Inquisitors and Magi. Have never really gotten the hang of either one.
For races: I'm not a fan of Drow, Duergar, Svirfneblin... The "evil opposite" races, I guess I would call them... And I really don't like Vishkanyas.
For me, I do not want to play a gunslinger, magi, ninja, or most 3pp classes.
Some I might not want to play based on the setting of the game.
Races, I have never felt the need to go past a few. Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, and Half-Elf.
Note just because I don't want to play these does nto mean I dislike them. It is just I didn't want to play them for myself. :-)
Fighter, Rogue and Cavalier are on my permanent (?) "no thanks" list.
I could probably enjoy playing any class except Cavalier, unless I take an archetype to swap out the mount.
I just hate mounts.
I also have a preference for lightly armored/unarmored classes. But I could probably bust out heavy armor if I must.
|
I'm not a fan of the cleric, and I don't know why since I like both druids and oracles.
The only other class is the gunslinger, I just don't like their particular niche, it's to genre dependent, what if there isn't any firearms.
Race wise I don't like that they changed half-orcs to another can anything race. I wish they had keep them as brutes.
I hate any race played by dwarf haters on this thread til now and going forward. I like Half Orcs Dwarves humans half elves aasimar tieflings drow svirfneblin duerger elves(wizards only). Recognize the paradox and walk away.
I'm willing to try any class. When I make a character I usually base it around a role-playing concept rather than whether it's over or under-powered. I found that with a bit of effort on my part under-powered classes are still fun, and it's easy to tone down anything OP so it doesn't steal the show.
Most of the time I let other players choose what they want to be first and then try and fill in the largest gap in the party. By doing that I've had a lot of fun playing classes that I may not have otherwise chosen.
When I was younger I almost exclusively played spell-casters and wouldn't touch fighters, rogues, etc. but as I've gotten older I've come to appreciate those classes more and find that the game is still enjoyable if I play one.
i just basically have an interesting (to me) build idea for pretty much every class, but if I had to put one at the back of the pack it would probably be sorcerer
not a knock on the sorcerer but in playing both a witch and a wizard at the moment, adding another caster class is probably going to be a ways away for me
I can see myself playing any class with the right archetype. But Witch is probably the weakest choice for me.
With one exception* I haven't thought of any character concepts for the Paladin that I wouldn't rather kit out as an Inquisitor or Cavalier/Samurai. The Paladin is a mechanically strong class but I don't like the code and detect evil is a plot-breaker.
* The only archetype that replaces detect evil is the Holy Gun, which I might play in a campaign with Advanced Firearms and a GM that won't try to force a fall** with Paladin Code.
** Or one that would be willing to houserule an Unholy Gun archetype for the Anti-Paladin, I'd kind of prefer that actually.
"11 classes?" you say? Yup. There aren't any others. Cavalier, Oracle, (shudder) Gunslinger... those do not exist.
They totally do exist - have a look at the PF SRD, Paizo has added quite a bit to the original 3.5 OGL material.
They totally do exist - have a look at the PF SRD, Paizo has added quite a bit to the original 3.5 OGL material."11 classes?" you say? Yup. There aren't any others. Cavalier, Oracle, (shudder) Gunslinger... those do not exist.
He knows they exist, but since he dislikes them, he's engaging in a bit of hyperbole by denying their existence.
Kind of like how some people say there were no Highlander sequels.
Kind of like how some people say there were no Highlander sequels.
That's a weird example. There definitely were none. Ever. And there shouldn't be. Just like there's no focus on teamwork feats on any of the classes, or a mounted combat class. That would be silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kind of like how some people say there were no Highlander sequels.That's a weird example. There definitely were none. Ever. And there shouldn't be. Just like there's no focus on teamwork feats on any of the classes, or a mounted combat class. That would be silly.
I kinda wish they had made a sequel to The Matrix.
Alchemist
The mechanics just feel wrong to me.
|
Alchemist. i just don't like the fluff. I'm ok with gunslingers for some reason however...
Oracle. I want my spontaneous divine caster to have the option to NOT have a required defect. It's really unnecessary imo.
Cavalier. Everything I conceptualize as a cavalier ends up being either a fighter, a paladin, or a ranger.
Inquisitor. For some reason the I just can't figure out what the class is supposed to "do", and that uncertainty drives me away. Some day I'll play one. Some day...
Also, most prestige classes. To be fair, they're kinda built on the "If you want to do this one thing, it'll be great! If not... well, it sucks." I don't care for most of the APG ones (read: the ones that are just class A plus class B).
Monk-Yeah it is proving to be better than I thought, but it is still to much work when I can take another class and get equal results with less effort.
Rogue-I can get whatever I want from it by playing a bard, ranger, or maybe even an inquisitor.
Cavalier/Samarai-Too pigeonholed into the mounted combat thing. If you are not using a small race it is harder to make work.
Ninja-I just don't like the class that much, as a player. I don't care for mystical ninjas, now maybe if I changed the flavor it might work.
Highlander sequels?
That's like saying Matrix sequels. Or an animated series with no coherent story.
EDIT: Wait, someone already made that joke. Um... Stargate Universe? Good thing that never existed.
|
Rogue:
Too Weak and MAD to be Fun in a typical game. Maybe the Ninja is okay, I haven't tried it or seen it in action yet.
All the Rogue stuff can also be done just as well by a Ranger or Bard.
Rogue is good as a short dip for another class without a sneak attack option to get some sneak attack.
Monk:
Too Weak and MAD to be Fun in a Typical Game.
While an imperfect replacement, a Monk themed Fighter, Ranger, Magus, Paladin, or Cleric is generally a better fit.
I would enjoy giving those classes decent and compatible archetypes for being Unarmored, Unarmed, Asian Weapons-Themed, and Combat Maneuver Specialized, Ideally in ways where you could mix and match any or all of the above. Maybe the Paladin Archetype could also have a variant on the paladin code that's more ascetic monk feeling. Then throw in "Masterwork Clothing" which can take on Armor Enhancements, and you've got perfect asian-themed martial characters.
Barbarian:
Third weakest class.
While it can keep up in combat okay-ish so long as you aren't using any class that's a higher tier than Ranger or Paladin, and your casters are either blaster wizards or heal-bot clerics, that's not a big accomplishment. The fighter still outdamages it, generally out AC's it, the Ranger keeps up in Melee, has spells and an animal companion, and out-skills it, and the paladin does all of the above. You have a sub-par fighter who can't really do anything outside combat, except that he has uncanny dodge, and averages +1hp/level.
I might give a barbarian a chance in a low powered game. But he really just doesn't have enough class features.
Gunslinger:
I just hate this class.
The gun mechanics in Pathfinder make me unhappy, and have done so since the playtest. To me we have an absolutely terrible category of weapon, with a class that gets all kinds of options designed to make the weapon a viable option. If this class could use bows instead of guns to do their stuff, they would be crazy overpowered, but because pathfinder guns are terrible, it's not. That to me, just Screams bad design.
Paladin:
Mechanically, they're quite well designed. I would like them and rangers better if their casting progression started at level 1 and just improved slowly and stopped at L4, but I'm just not a fan of "Spellcasting once you hit level 4."
However, I find the sort of character you need to build to make a Paladin often causes as much inner party conflict as a Rogue who keeps robbing the party. Eventually it comes to a showdown between players who are on the side of the paladin against players who have become the paladin's enemy, and I'm just kindof tired of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think you might wanna take another look at a well built Barbarian Darkholme.
They make Fighters cry in the corner. The Fighter's all like "Oh I can do 2 extra damage with an extra 1 or two to-hit!"
And the Barbarian's like "I can make Saves you could never hope to make with Superstition!" and the Fighter's lip starts to quiver. "And I can Sunder magic!" and the lump grows in his throat. "And I have POUNCE!" and the Fighter breaks down into an inconsolable mass of snot and tears.
Barbarian is actually deemed stronger than fighter for multiple reasons
Rage gives bonuses equivalent and sometimes higher than weapon training without the drawback of being tied to a single weapon, and if you are good at judging difficulty, then you have enough rage for all the important fights
+2 to hit, +3 to damage, +2 to fortitude and will saves and +2HP per level is a good trade off for -2 AC, even at 1st level
the fighter doesn't match this with his signature weapon until 5th level, where he blew 2 feats and can only get +2 to hit and +3 to damage with one specific weapon. barbarian gets it with any 2hander he pleases.
in fact, the fighter's 11 bonus feats over 20 levels is more like 6-7 bonus feats over 20 levels because at 1st, 4th, 8th, and 12th level, they are blowing a feat on their signature weapon
and considering that groups rarely pass 13th-15th
and that the fighter isn't always guaranteed his signature weapon
and because furious enhancement cancels out gloves of dueling
it is more like
+2 to hit, +3 to damage, +2 to fortitude and will, +2 HP per level, and use of rage powers for a -2 AC tradeoff. limited to a number of rounds per day, but usable with any 2hander you loot, plus a single feat can make that +3 to fortitude and will with +3 HP per level instead of +2
a 5th level fighter who blows 2 of his 3 bonus feats, has +2 to hit and +3 to damage with one specific weapon that isn't guaranteed to be upgraded. he has +1 to hit and damage with all other weapons in that group
a 10th level fighter who blows 3 of his 6 bonus feats, has +4 to hit and +4 to damage with one weapon, +2 to hit and damage with the rest of the group, and +1 to hit and damage with a second group
a 10th level barbarian has; +3 base natural armor from beast totem cancelled out by -3 for reckless abandon, +2 to hit and +3 to damage with all 2handed weapons, ignores power attack penalties duie to reckless abandon, has +4 to saving throws against spells, spell like abilities and supernatural abilities, pounce, DR5/-, +3 to fortitude and will saves, ignores power attack penalties, and +30 HP and all he needed was 5 rage powers and a feat he would have taken anyway. for a net -2 to AC
Net to Hit/Damage with all groups
+5/+3
13th level
Fighter who blows 4 of his 7 bonus feats has +5 to hit and plus 7 to damage with 1 weapon, +3 to hit and damage with the rest of the group, +2 to hit and damage with a second group, and +1 to hit and damage with a third
a 13th level barbarian has; +4 base natural armor from beast totem cancelled out by -4 for reckless abandon, +3 to hit and +4 to damage with all 2handed weapons, ignores power attack penalties due to reckless abandon, has +5 to saving throws against spells, spell like abilities and supernatural abilities, pounce, DR6/-, +4 to fortitude and will saves, ignores power attack penalties, and +52 HP and all he needed was 5/6 rage powers and a feat he would have taken anyway. for a net -2 to AC
Net To Hit/Damage with all groups
+7/4
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Lumiere Dawnbringer: I'd love to have you in one of my games, I seriously doubt that you'd last more than 3 sessions (number crunchers rarely do)
Watch out, we got a badass over here.
Seriously, what was the point of this line?
"People who can do simple addition can't cut it in the real world"?
|
Alchemist - My only experience with one was incredibly negative. Action economy kills it. Also I can't come up with a character that isn't either Jekyl or Ziggs or somewhere in between them.
Barbarian - I really don't dig barbarians. The dumb angry warrior is just not something I like to play. I like the natural theme and would consider some kind of lycanthropic character, potentially... but largely? Nope.
Gunslinger - I hate that the Gunslinger monopolises firearms and makes all other classes struggle to use them at all, even in advanced gun tech settings. I hate firearm mechanics overall. I hate grit and think it's incredibly stupid and terribly written. Overall the class is just bad and I feel like Paizo really dropped the ball on it.
Inquisitor - Clerics are hard for me to play... rogues are even harder for me to play. Inquisitor combines both and makes it really unappealing. The mechanics are cool, but I find it hard to come up with a character that isn't Alucard.
Rogue - The flavour is cool, but anything a Rogue can do, a Bard/Ranger/Ninja can do better. Sadly.
While those are good archetypes (though they negate one of the small advantages Fighter has: Speed in armor), I'm not sure how a Reach weapon exactly invalidates Pounce as a worthy addition to any martial's arsenal.
|
|
You've already been pounced by a raging barbarian, are you even still alive to counter-attack? If so, he'll probably live through yours and full attack you again (this time without provoking), and at this point you're dead. In a pure martial dpr race, first one to full attack wins almost every time.
You've already been pounced by a raging barbarian, are you even still alive to counter-attack? If so, he'll probably live through yours and full attack you again (this time without provoking), and at this point you're dead. In a pure martial dpr race, first one to full attack wins almost every time.
That's what focus-fire is for. First, the Barbarian plows into the enemy, then the other PCs hit the same guy, hopefully killing him before he can counterattack.
|
|
Any time I've seen anyone track performance, a Greatsword Fighter outdoes the Greatsword Barbarian. The barbarian doesn't always have rage. The fighter almost always has his favored weapon, and even with rage on, the fighter out-DPR's him.
Pounce is pretty useful though.
But even if you're right, and the Barbarian can keep up to a fighter in melee, he's is way less useful out of melee. He has way less class features than pretty much any class, and he is very much a 1-trick-pony
Someone just said fighter was useful out of combat to defend themselves, and that barbarian was a one trick pony.
I don't think your playing the same game as me.
Edit: To elaborate, the barbarian gets 4+ skill points and rage powers over the fighter. These rage powers can do a variety of things that feats just can't, in particular the superstitious line. The fighter has 2+ skll points, which is absolutely awful imo, and he doesn't get perception in class. Meanwhile, the barbarian gets 4+ and does get perception and several other skills in class. Rage is up almost all the time, especially at later levels.
Fighter has higher to hit and damage than the Barbarian, even with Rage. And has much better AC (Barb has better touch AC, though).
The barbarian, however, gets more attacks (come and get me), can full attack more often (pounce), and can seriously mess up SLA-using monsters (witch hunter).
So it's mostly a question of quality vs. quant..."more dakka".
EDIT: I agree that 2 + Int skills is unfortunate and I don't like Fighters having it, but I don't think 2 less skill points is such a huge difference. One plus side is that if Fighter's not planning to use trip or other Int 13 requiring maneuvers, he can safely dump the hell out of int to 7 and only lose 1 skill point. And can use Human bonus skill points and favored class bonus to still get 3 per level. Barbarian has more to lose from an Int dump. And if he does want to trip, he can go Lore Warden, lose very little, and get 4 + int skills on top of a lot of CMB bonuses.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Lumiere Dawnbringer: I'd love to have you in one of my games, I seriously doubt that you'd last more than 3 sessions (number crunchers rarely do)
Oh so math and strategy can't coexist? What fallacy shall I call this?