Why You No Likey PF's New Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've now heard a couple gamers, including the irrepressible Freehold DM, say that they don't like the new classes.

I can wrap my head around not liking a particular class for one reason or another -- "the summoner is OP" or "I don't like guns in my fantasy" -- but a generalized dislike for a group of classes whose only shared trait is a lack of antiquity is such a foreign concept to me.

So help me to understand...why don't you?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Because I don't like new classes in general. I was ecstatic when pathfinder put out archetypes and I was hoping they would continue in this vein and perhaps expand upon it. But when they started putting out new base classes, espcially ones I have had poor experiences with such as the ninja and samurai, I was dissapointed. Still noone is forcing me to play with them, so I will continue to ignore them.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Fundamentally, because they don't need to exist. They should be archetypes for the existing classes, not entirely new things in themselves.

Then again, I also think most of the core classes don't need to exist as separate entities either. Paladin should be a cleric archetype, for example.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Because I don't like new classes in general. I was ecstatic when pathfinder put out archetypes and I was hoping they would continue in this vein and perhaps expand upon it. But when they started putting out new base classes, espcially ones I have had poor experiences with such as the ninja and samurai, I was dissapointed. Still noone is forcing me to play with them, so I will continue to ignore them.

Ninja is not a base class. It's an archetype of Rogue. They just turned it into a quasi-class to make it easier due to the sheer number of changes, but the underlying class is still rogue.

Same applies to Samurai.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If paladin were a cleric archetype, practically every single class feature would be changed. The only one I can think of that they share without significant modification is Aura.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Because I don't like new classes in general. I was ecstatic when pathfinder put out archetypes and I was hoping they would continue in this vein and perhaps expand upon it. But when they started putting out new base classes, espcially ones I have had poor experiences with such as the ninja and samurai, I was dissapointed. Still noone is forcing me to play with them, so I will continue to ignore them.

I dont understand how your statement can be true. 6 of the 10 new base classes (assuming the ninja and samurai count as new classes in your mind) came in the same book as archetypes. We new about the classes before the archetypes as archetypes werent part of the playtest, the new classes were. Subsequent to that, there was then 1 new base class (magus) and a TON of archetypes in ultimate magic, and 1 new class and 2 new alternate classes which are basically big archetypes in ultimate combat, along with a ton of new archetypes.

Unless you somehow were unaware of the 6 new classes in the advanced players guide, and then did not read through the apg in order. Your statement is impossible. It is not possible for you to have been exstactic about archetypes, and then be disappointed as paizo 'poured out new base classes'. Since the 'pouring on' added 2 of 8 classes, and 2 alternate classes which are conceptually similar to archetypes, just with greater changes. They could have been listed in the format of archetypes as the abilities changed were one for one.

I am not saying you have to like new classes, or that you cant wish there were only archetypes added. But your statement is either a distortion of the truth, or a rediculous hyperbole. Paizo certainly hasnt 'poured on the base classes'. Its added 8 to the game since the game came out in 2009. Thats 2 a year.

@OP - I love the new base classes, I think they add alot to the game. I think new base classes is the best way to add options to the game. They are self contained, easier to manage and easier to balance then any other method of adding options. Though I wouldnt mind more from paizo, I am perfectly happy with the state of things, as quality work coming out of 3pps keeps me in new classes to play with and keep me excited about the next character I am going to play. And paizo's open relationship and policy of using alot of 3pps as free lancers means that 3rd party material is of the highest quality it has ever been.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

People have varying tastes. That's all there really is to it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh, APG added classes which (I think many would agree) were radical changes to core classes:

  • Oracles are a mash of clerics and sorcerers,
  • Cavaliers are paladins without as strict a code (and no need to kill everything in sight),
  • Alchemists are weird bard things (as are inquisitors), and
  • Witches are heavily altered wizards with a touch of cleric.

Of all of them, the summoner is perhaps the most "offensive" change to a class: instead of the druid (PC) being aided by a companion, the companion is being aided by the summoner (PC). Arguably, it adds a bit more customization with the evolution points, but it is an odd shift of focus. If anything, I'm a bit miffed that the summoner gains both the Summon X SLAs and the eidolon. I would have rather the class were forced to choose one or the other, more in line with the nature bond.

Silver Crusade

60 people marked this as a favorite.

The only class should be fighter. Everything should be an archtype of the fighter.

Barbarian - Angry Fighter
Cleric - Devout Fighter
Paladin - Devout Fighter/police officer
Druid - Nature Fighter
Ranger - Special Ops Fighter
Wizard - Scrawny fighter whos smarter than the jocks and got picked on in fighter school but grows up to bend the forces of the universe to his will
Sorcerer - Fighter whos parents/grandparets/ancestors weren't from around here
Rogue - sneaky underhanded fighter
Monk - Fighter who was too poor to buy armor and weapons so he learned to move fast or get beat up

Of course all of the new classes are just Fighters as well, but you get the point.

;)


13 people marked this as a favorite.

First -- didn't we just have this thread?

Second, since you asked, I don't like the new classes because:

(1) They're conceptually redundant.
(2) They pointlessly compound Pathfinder's already excessive mechanical complexity.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

My general opinion is that PF's full classes have steadily decreased in quality since CRB, culminating in the mess of the Gunslinger. APG classes were still above the 5 on a ten scale (except the lack of a mountless cav), Magus right at a 5, and the UC classes in the gutter.

I don't like the Magus because its schtick is goofy, and some of the ancillary mechanics are gamey and stretch toward the OP end. I've seen all too well how I have to build combats specifically to avoid the whip wielding tripper magus who pretty well dominated most fights.

I specifically don't like the two alternate classes (Ninja and Samurai) because I don't like Asian in my PF. Some folks don't like aliens, lasers, or plane hopping; I don't like Asian or Lovecraft. Mechanically, I find they pander to a demo that I'm not in, and just assume they don't exist. (Monks are Friar Tuck monks, btw)

I don't like gunslingers because the gun rules that Paizo included with them do not work for me. Part of this has to do with ingrained crit fail mechanics, part of it has to do with free touch attacks all day long, and part of it has to do with cascading dice using all sorts of game breaking feat and equipment combinations. I've attempted house rules to reconcile my discomforts, but I have yet to find any solution to bring guns (which are fantasy OK in my games) and gunslingers to my table.

Silver Crusade

On a more serious note...

I enjoy the new classes. I have dabbled with a Magus, Oracle, Ninja, and Summoner. I have a Cavalier in Society play (and he's human! The Horror!), a Witch in Rise of the Rune Lords, and a Gunslinger/Ranger in a game with my kids.

Honestly the only one I had reservations about was the Alchemist and not becuase I think it's a bad class. I simply have a hard time conseptualizing it as a player class. I think it makes an EXCELENT NPC be it ally or enemy. It's simply hard for me to wrap my head around a low level alchemist (before he can have magical bags to hold all of his crap) adventuring and keeping his bombs/extracts/etc stocked and ready to go.

There are, of course, ways to make this work. A carriage/covered wagon comes to mind with all of their alchemical whos-a-whats-its rattling around inside would probably be the most iconic.

Or for Society play having a base of operations where you keep your lab and simply taking enough for the journey (which are typicaly fairly short).

Or, probably the most simple solution, the type of game. If you are playing an urban themed game then thematicaly an Alechmist can have a lab that he keeps all of his ingredients in.

Now, I know as the class stands none of this is truly neccessary. Abstraction and all. But they are things that help my little brain with the class.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:

First -- didn't we just have this thread?

We did, and we'll have it again and again, like a recurring Time Loop, because gamers love nothing more than rehashing pointless debate.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I've now heard a couple gamers, including the irrepressible Freehold DM, say that they don't like the new classes.

I can wrap my head around not liking a particular class for one reason or another -- "the summoner is OP" or "I don't like guns in my fantasy" -- but a generalized dislike for a group of classes whose only shared trait is a lack of antiquity is such a foreign concept to me.

So help me to understand...why don't you?

WotC ran into the exact same problem in 3rd Edition and 4th Edition as Paizo is running into now.

New books make money (or at least get people to hang onto DDI accounts longer, which means more money), and both WotC and Paizo have to sell books as part of their business model.

Many new classes don't need to exist. The ninja is an obvious example in Pathfinder; you could just add ninja-flavored feats into the game, or maybe an archetype, or just portray an NPC rogue that is a "ninja". The vampire (what were they thinking!) is an obvious example in 4e.

Sturgeon's Law: Many new classes are bad in some way. The summoner is horrendously overcomplicated and fixates on one of the worst parts of Pathfinder balance. What role is it supposed to fill in the party? Why not play a sorcerer who takes lots of Summon Monster spells instead, and can do other stuff too? (Isn't there a way to trade out those now-useless lower-level summons once you've gained some levels?)

Other new classes are often incredibly overpowered or underpowered. Unfortunately every new class is cool, and sometimes cooler than the last one, which means instead of letting go of a bad class, people demand fixes and support. That means new feats and archetypes at the last.

New classes add complexity to the game. I can't recognize Pathfinder parties anymore. (Same with 4e; I've literally seen two wizards played in my entire 4e career, and one is a wizard PC I've had for one session. Why play a wizard when there's 5 other controller classes out there?)

Adventure Paths are generally written assuming a standard fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue party that no one sees anymore. In fact, I never see parties covering all the roles anymore, even when he have a ridiculous 8 person party (and this is in both PF and 4e). The usual retort is for the DM to write their own campaigns but that's time-consuming, to say the least.

In a Kingmaker campaign I was in, we were attacked by birds that could inflict blindness on you permanently. Half the PCs were blinded. Good thing we had a cleric who could fix it, even if they had to wait the next day to prepare the proper spell. Oh wait, no, we had my druid (druids cannot cast Remove Blindness, and we weren't high enough level to cast Heal) and the oracle (whose players wasn't even there) didn't have that spell on their list of known spells, probably on the grounds that permanent blindness doesn't come up often enough to make giving up a slot for that worthwhile. And no, we can't have a series of scrolls of every such spell at such low-level. Oracles simply can't do a cleric's job, but most people think they can just substitute an oracle for a cleric.

It didn't hit us in this campaign, as traps were few and far between, but how many rogues still have trapfinding these days?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kimera757 wrote:

Adventure Paths are generally written assuming a standard fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue party that no one sees anymore. In fact, I never see parties covering all the roles anymore, even when he have a ridiculous 8 person party (and this is in both PF and 4e). The usual retort is for the DM to write their own campaigns but that's time-consuming, to say the least.

In a Kingmaker campaign I was in, we were attacked by birds that could inflict blindness on you permanently. Half the PCs were blinded. Good thing we had a cleric who could fix it, even if they had to wait the next day to prepare the proper spell. Oh wait, no, we had my druid (druids cannot cast Remove Blindness, and we weren't high enough level to cast Heal) and the oracle (whose players wasn't even there) didn't have that spell on their list of known spells, probably on the grounds that permanent blindness doesn't come up often enough to make giving up a slot for that worthwhile. And no, we can't have a series of scrolls of every such spell at such low-level. Oracles simply can't do a cleric's job, but most people think they can just substitute an oracle for a cleric.

Right because expecting a DM to know the limitations of his player's PCs is just too time consuming. Or maybe the DM actually wanted you to have to overcome a little adversity rather than have everything reset to prefect after every fight (or, at most, after 24hours). Naw. Everyone knows that is a Not Fun thing so cannot be done anymore.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The more options you provide for players, the more complexity the GM has to deal with.

"More options" is not always a good thing; a balance must be achieved. Just like the art of good writing is cutting away all unnecessary words, the art of good gamecrafting is cutting away all but the most essential rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Witch uses spell slot preparation, but I hate that in all classes. Otherwise it looks like a really decent class and a much better way to fill the role of sorcerers.

Inquisiters have interesting fluff, but the crunch is lacking. Judgement just doesn't seem that interesting. But it uses spontaneous casting, which is a big improvement.

Cavalier just doesn't really offer anything interesting other than mounted combat. I rather take a fighter or a bard.

Alchemist is a fun idea, but it seems weird to have him make temprary potions that he can only use himself. Seems more like a refluffed sorcerer than a crafter of alchemical items.

Summoners are all about their pet, and I don't even like animal companions. One player, one character for me.

Oracles are cool though. It does not use silly preparation and moves away from the tank-priest that is the cleric.

And just for the protocol, I don't like clerics, druids, monks, paladins, and wizards either.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Calybos1 wrote:

The more options you provide for players, the more complexity the GM has to deal with.

"More options" is not always a good thing; a balance must be achieved. Just like the art of good writing is cutting away all unnecessary words, the art of good gamecrafting is cutting away all but the most essential rules.

I can totally understand that, but what I dont understand, is why people think that adding to existing classes adds less to the complexity of the game then a new class. For me, individual classes (if they are not endlessly expanded on) is less complex and more self contained then if you add a dozen new archetypes and feats to an existing class.

Lets take an example. The cleric and the Oracle. If the core rulebook Cleric has complexity C, and the feats spells and other non-class options from the core rules that work with a cleric have complexity X. Then a given PC cleric has a complexity C*X.

Now you want to add options to the game for divine casters. You can either A, add to the cleric, or B, add the Oracle(a simplification I know, but bare with me. Lets say the oracle takes up 4 pages of material (I dont have my book handy but the actual number of pages isnt important). If you JUST add that 4 pages to the game lets say its Complexity is O. Assuming all or most of the feats/spells/items that work with the cleric work to some degree of with the oracle, then the Oracle's complexity is O*X. A player will then have to choose either a cleric or an oracle (baring some odd multiclassing). So the complexity the DM has to deal with is either C*X or O*X.

If you instead add the same page count (4 pages) of archetypes or subdomains or alternate clesses or what have you for the cleric class isntead of the oracle with a Complexity of Y. Then you are adding to the complexity of the cleric class, making its potential C*X*Y.

Adding new classes instead of expanding existing classes reduces the complexity of a given party, because the choice of class narrows down drastically what is available to a given character. It does not reduce overall number of possibilities in the game, but it does reduce what the dm has to manage as any given party levels up.

Its also easier to manage balance. Developers have self contained sets of options to work with. You dont have to worry if Archetype A from Book 1 will be a problem with Option B from Book 2 by a different author 3 years from now. That other author will be writing a different class and can stringently control how his class interacts with other options.

Lets look at an example. Lets again look at some divine characters, in this case, the divine warriors, the Inquisitor and the Paladin. Both cast divine spells, have a holy warrior sort of theme, and could with a flexible enough base class be made with the same class. You could have an archetype or alternate class that altered the paladins spellcasting, bab and skills to make it more casty/skilled and less fighty.

But you then have to worry about their options inter mixing. Giving bane and judgements to an inquisitor with the lower bab and Hit Die is fairly balanced. If somehow a paladin could take those options in addition to his smite, and maybe doesnt have lay on hands or his auras, you have now drastically upped the combat potential of paladins. I am not saying this would happen, but what I am saying is there is less design space within a single class trying to stretch it to fit different flavors of a similar idea, then there is making a separate class for each flavor. There is also more room for abuse, or 'broken' combinations.

Like I said, if you are someone who doesnt want to expand the game, and wants to stick with core rules or maybe just the core and a little else, and then just add flavor and adventures, I totally get that. I also get the idea of from a flavor perspective not wanting to add additional concepts (ninja, samurai, gunslinger or even the magus) to the game. But if you DO want options added to the game, and your concern is of game balance and complexity, I dont understand how ramping up the options for existing classes is better then adding new self contained classes.


I've actually seen some people say they don't like Alchemist because the flavor doesn't fit. Yep, apparently "guy who makes potions (some of which are unstable and some of which have side effects)" doesn't fit in a fantasy setting.

Liberty's Edge

In this "i'll have a half cap, double decaf latte with a twist of lemon" society we live in. People want choices and the good folks at paizo want money.

I agree with freehold dm. I dont care for the alchemist, gunslinger, ninja, samurai. It just does not work for me, still no one is forcing me to play them so they will continue to be ignored except for the NPC alchemist.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I worry about complexity and balance, as above.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I do like all the new pathfinder classes quite a bit. Honestly Paladin should be moved into being an Archetype for Cavalier like it was back in Unearthed Arcana.

Alchemists are fine. Gunslingers work fine in the right setting and can be fun. Don't know why people would complain about ninja or samurai when we've got monks.

I'd imagine people hate on them because nerds enjoy hating on things.


Cavalier could stand to be an alignment agnostic Paladin alt-class, at least then it would have worthwhile class features (let's put it this way: their main feature is a WORSE version of what Druids, Rangers, Paladins as well as some Oracles, Clerics, Inquisitors AND Sorcerers can get as ONE ability and Summoners get a better version of as their main ability).

Gunslinger was actually a Fighter alt-class during the playtest (though that did present a legitimate problem as not being able to dip fighter is a pain in the ass for a martial class).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo was in a hurry to get out the APG - running behind on their timeline, so they rushed the summoner into it well before it was ready. The messy mechanics of the eidolon are strong evidence of that. The fact that so many of ultimate magic's FAQs are related to the Synthesist and Master Summoner archetypes does nothing to help ease my dislike of this class. /SummonerHateRant

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I dunno. Maybe because some of the classes are inherently complex to play (alchemist and summoner, here's looking at you), or perhaps people just prefer the good ol-fashioned core.

For me, I'm good either way. I always found the base 11 to be the most boring back in 3.5 days, since the other base classes were so cool both flavor and ability wise (warlock, binder, shadowcaster, dragon shaman, archivist...ah, those were the days). At least in PF the base 11 are just as interesting and super cool as the add-ons, without too much tinkering to make them so. Perhaps this is enough for some. Perhaps buying another book just so that you can moniter your players is a hassle (though the srd exists, it is a bit of a pain to sift through, so I suppose I could understand that). Or, when right down to it, people might not like the flavor of the new classes. I mean, they do have a somewhat different feel. That said, I am also confused as to what "feel" they don't like. None of them is similar enough so that they can really be considered to share common traits. And with the exception of the summoner, none are universally objectionable in terms of power level...so...I dunno.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

"I hate how many class options there! Why back in my day we only needed a four man band of Fighter, Thief, Wizard and Priest*. Hell, that was already two options to many. I mean the Thief is clearly just a Fighter and should have been a subclass. A Priest is just a Wizard with different spell list! Can you believe people want to add complexity by giving people more options!

None for me thanks, these newfangled classes just increase complexity. No, no if they wanted to reduce complexity everyone should be a Fighter subclass Thief, with the Bard widget running the Ranger skill tree.** See how much less complicated that is! Course back in the day all games were stuffed full of homebrew, just make up the classes you need, no need to get them published in some big fancy book with a logo on it! So just do it yourselves all my fellow option haters. No need to thank me, you all can go back to your spontaneous casting and Channeling and your disco music."***

*None of the above is intended to be accurate... or fact checked.
** This post is sarcasm and if it took you this long to realize it blame it on the internet.
*** I mean really stop having fun guys, amirite?


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I've now heard a couple gamers, including the irrepressible Freehold DM, say that they don't like the new classes.

I can wrap my head around not liking a particular class for one reason or another -- "the summoner is OP" or "I don't like guns in my fantasy" -- but a generalized dislike for a group of classes whose only shared trait is a lack of antiquity is such a foreign concept to me.

So help me to understand...why don't you?

Because... Meh? I don't have a real, deep, logical reason why I don't like, they just feel extremely bland.

I like the Magus, but it's out of bias for being a huge Duskblade fan originally(which is all the Magus really is, just lots of bells and whistles added). It mixes arcane and swordplay well, I dig it.

I like the Inquisitor too, because I've always been a fan of the Van Helsing-style monster hunter, and had to use Rangers to fill that niche before.

Everything else just looks and feels like a hamfisted, slapped-together mush of wizard and cleric variants(or Knight, even). They all could have simply been archetypes for core classes and none would be the wiser.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

First -- didn't we just have this thread?

We did, and we'll have it again and again, like a recurring Time Loop, because internet users love nothing more than rehashing pointless debate.

Fixed that for you.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thought gamers loved nothing more than Mountain Dew. Although I notice that most of the older gamer crowd I hang out with have given the stuff up after three or four kidney failures. ;)

As for the new classes; I dislike the Alchemist out of simple 'magical purist' contrariness, the Summoner for doing what a Conjurer wizard does, except without having to obey the Conjurer wizard's rules, and the Gunslinger for... well, giving players the notion that I'll switch from classic fantasy to steampunk if they just whine sufficiently - and also for the notion that it's not fighters who have true grit.

On the other hand, I like the Cavalier very much (full BAB, heavy armor, a good list of class skills and moderate skill points to spend on 'em, strategic planning and - in the case of certain Orders - special abilities that help the party focus fire) though the mount leaves me cold; and the Oracle and Inquisitor fill in gaps in the oft-neglected 'divine caster' end of classes, and do it colorfully. Toward the Witch I am indifferent; and of the Ninja and Samurai I am cheerfully ignorant (I don't own UC and neither class concept, in my view, is necessary given the range of classes and archetypes already available.)


I don’t like it and agree with James Jacobs on the Summoner. Broken and bad.

No Guns please.

Cavalier is Boring. Sad but true. Needs more.

But Oracle & Inquisitor are AWESOME, Witch is solid, and alchemist is not bad, altho some of the archetypes are off the rail. Oracle was the needed spont Divine caster, with cool flavor and was Needed. Inquisitor was the paladin of any alignment some folks have been asking for.

So, in general I like them.


PsychoticWarrior wrote:
Right because expecting a DM to know the limitations of his player's PCs is just too time consuming. Or maybe the DM actually wanted you to have to overcome a little adversity rather than have everything reset to prefect after every fight (or, at most, after 24hours). Naw. Everyone knows that is a Not Fun thing so cannot be done anymore.

I know the DM, obviously. He put in the encounter because it was in the AP. That was it. Please do not presume to read a stranger's mind over the internet.

deuxhero wrote:
I've actually seen some people say they don't like Alchemist because the flavor doesn't fit. Yep, apparently "guy who makes potions (some of which are unstable and some of which have side effects)" doesn't fit in a fantasy setting.

The alchemist does a lot more than make potions, and much of the stuff it does doesn't fit the flavor of an alchemist. Where is all this Mr. Hyde stuff coming from? I don't recall medieval alchemists making monsters anywhere.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kimera757 wrote:


deuxhero wrote:
I've actually seen some people say they don't like Alchemist because the flavor doesn't fit. Yep, apparently "guy who makes potions (some of which are unstable and some of which have side effects)" doesn't fit in a fantasy setting.
The alchemist does a lot more than make potions, and much of the stuff it does doesn't fit the flavor of an alchemist. Where is all this Mr. Hyde stuff coming from? I don't recall medieval alchemists making monsters anywhere.

Huh? You just said it, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Thats where it comes from. Since when are all the themes in pathfinder strictly medieval european fantsay? Golarion is a kitchen sink, it has all sort of themes including stuff that is drawn from relatively modern concepts, IE alkenstar, or the shackles, or the monk. The game in general has not fit the purely medieval mold for a long time, if it ever did. The dying earth series which the vancian magic system is based on was post apocalyptic, not medieval fantasy.


Runelord Zutha rules the RPG world!!

Enough is enough we don't need any more base classes, archtypes, prestige classes etc.


I judge them individually.

I like the Alchemist, Oracle, Gunslinger, Ninja, and Magus.
I don't like the rest.
Of course, I would be unlikely to ban any of them, because even if I don't like them, my players might.

For the record, I also hate about half of the original classes, too. :)

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist: Like, good flavor, mutiple viable builds, one bad kit that got banned in PFS and one overpowered 2nd level spell, but otherwise good.

Oracle: Like all around. Makes divine combatant viable; and lots of options.

Gunslinger: Ban. Both for power reasons (even Jason admits they can do 100+ damage and never miss non-monks around 10 levels) and flavor (you really have to stretch, unless your guys have guns too).

Ninja: Mostly upgrade to rogue. Awesome, and an excuse to have Cha on your rogue.

Cavalier / Samurai: Horse guys, a little weak, but "fine", dunno if I would play one, but have no issues with them.

Magus: Solid, good damage, the Eldrich Knight we always wanted.

Summoner: Overpowered under-thought class that needs banning.

Witch: A from-the-beginning mystic theurge (effectively) with nice hexes. I've banned Slumber Hex from my home game; but otherwise I like them, and have seen many fun builds.

So overall they are good; really the two you mentioned (out-of-flavor gunslingers and overpowered summoners) are the only ones I have issues with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kimera757 wrote:
Please do not presume to read a stranger's mind over the internet.

That rule, all by itself, would destroy Internet discussion forums entirely.


Calybos1 wrote:
Kimera757 wrote:
Please do not presume to read a stranger's mind over the internet.

That rule, all by itself, would destroy Internet discussion forums entirely.

I'll weaponize it!

*bwahahahahahahahahaha*


Curiously, I think all classes should had been designed like those. Rogues should have had ki points (with anotger name) since the begining. Fighters should have grit/resolve. Every class should have some skills and skill points to be something more than a pokemon who can barely say his own name and strike things. All claases should have unique cool abilities like arcana or hexes or misteries.
I actuslly love the new classes


Actually in many cases I prefer the new classes to the old. I get that the Core had to include the standard classes of previous editions, and while I liked the better class builds, no dead levels, etc., in many ways, I was going 'ho-hum' waiting for new classes to truly get me invested in Pathfinder.

I prefer witch to every other arcane caster. I prefer Oracle to every previous flavor of Cleric. I prefer samurai to the cavalier, but I would only play a samurai that included one of the Rite Publishing Way of the Samurai archetypes available to them. I wouldn't play a samurai without such an archetype.

In the old days, I would play a fighter only as the martial half of some multi-class arcane/martial build. With the existence of Magus, I never plan to play a fighter again.

Since traps were almost never used in 30 years worth of homebrew campaigning, I far, far prefer the ninja to the standard rogue. That said, if I were building a ninja, I'd have based it off of monk, not rogue. In fact, when Paizo, included Spiderwalk and Cloudwalk feats for the monk in the APG, I was almost certain that Paizo's ninja was going to be based on monk. I was shocked when it was revealed to be based off rogue.

I don't care for summoners, but then I didn't care for summoning specialist wizards in any previous edition, so my problem isn't the class so much as the concept of the class. I don't care for gunslingers, again not for the class, but I don't care for guns in my game.

All in all, I'm glad for the existence of the new classes and prefer most of them to the standard vanilla classes. As with anything, preferences differ for everyone, so I can't see a thread like this to ever reach a common consensus.

When running a homebrew campaign, I always limit what classes, archetypes and races are allowed before character generation. As a GM, I'm never buried in class options, because I've already determined which options will be played and which won't. I will never be surprised.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Curiously, I think all classes should had been designed like those. Rogues should have had ki points (with anotger name) since the begining. Fighters should have grit/resolve. Every class should have some skills and skill points to be something more than a pokemon who can barely say his own name and strike things. All claases should have unique cool abilities like arcana or hexes or misteries.

I actuslly love the new classes

Cool unique abilities, sure.

I prefer not to have them all built around ki/arcane/grit point type things. It's not a mechanism I'm too fond of, but more importantly, I like different classes having different mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemists making golems and homunculi is part of the medieval shtick. The mutagens were probably intended to give a Jekyll & Hyde flavor, but it could easily be interpreted as part of the hermetic alchemist's eternal quest for union with THE ONE through personal improvement.

As for bombs, you won't believe how easy it is to cause explosions when working with precious metals. Dissolve silver in spirit of hartshorn? Boom. Dissolve gold in aqua regia, then add spirit of hartshorn? Boom. Quicksilver, spirit of wine, and aqua fortis? Boom. Copper powder and litharge? Boom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forget Samurai and Ninja. They aren't classes, despite the fact that I don't llike them.

Gunslingers have their place, I suppose. But, for me, it would have to be a setting built for guns. I don't like just having them randomly show up.

I may be preludiced against the Magus, because the only person I have known to play one didn't really read the rules. Consequently, for a while, everything he did was overpowered. Then he whined when we showed him it didn't work the way he thought. Plus it just basically made the EK irrelevant... and I always liked the EK.

Alchemist... I want to like. I just can't get over it conceptually in my head. The thought of someone mixing volatile chemicals in 6 seconds or less, in the middle of a battle...

Cavalier. Meh. Why, really?

Inquisitor. I really like it. But, it's probably not necessary.

Oracle. Love it.

Summoner. Just not needed. Confusing, overpowered when misunderstood, and only does things that other classes can do.

Witch. Love it.

My 2 cp.


Hypergolic and acid-base reactions are extremely rapid. Mix quicklime with bitumen, and add water, and it will ignite. Same with glycerin (from soap-making) and Condy's crystals.

White phosphorus (which can be harvested from urine and bone) and lye produce a vapor that ignites on contact with air. White phosphorus itself also ignites on contact with air, and must be stored wet.

I could go on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:

"I hate how many class options there! Why back in my day we only needed a four man band of Fighter, Thief, Wizard and Priest*. Hell, that was already two options to many. I mean the Thief is clearly just a Fighter and should have been a subclass. A Priest is just a Wizard with different spell list! Can you believe people want to add complexity by giving people more options!

None for me thanks, these newfangled classes just increase complexity. No, no if they wanted to reduce complexity everyone should be a Fighter subclass Thief, with the Bard widget running the Ranger skill tree.** See how much less complicated that is! Course back in the day all games were stuffed full of homebrew, just make up the classes you need, no need to get them published in some big fancy book with a logo on it! So just do it yourselves all my fellow option haters. No need to thank me, you all can go back to your spontaneous casting and Channeling and your disco music."***

*None of the above is intended to be accurate... or fact checked.
** This post is sarcasm and if it took you this long to realize it blame it on the internet.
*** I mean really stop having fun guys, amirite?

And it gets even worse! Once a class is added to the game, everyone is forced to have one in their party! Don't like summoners and ninjas? Too bad, you absolutely have to use them in your game! Are you a DM and you don't understand a class? Or can't fit it in your setting? Too bad, you must let your players use them, since banning does not exist. And refluffing-to-fit-your-setting is DEFINITELY not allowed.****

****Footnotes 1-3 in Anzyr's post apply to this one as well.


Basically, I'm sure there are plenty of ways to mix up something that will ignite within a few seconds or when thrown, but I don't know what those are, since such things were never covered in chemistry class.

Then again, neither was magic, which is inexplicably intertwined with the alchemist's abilities. Conceptually, alchemists have a lot in common with the monk. But instead of punching things and running up walls, alchemists pore over powders and potions, and meditate on grand ideas.


As for the Summoner, I feel like they were somewhat of a nod to the Bartimaeus Trilogy by Johnathan Stroud (with the exception of the armor and weapon proficiencies, obviously).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

It's not that I dont like them, but I dont generally have any interest in playing them. I prefer the fighter/cleric/magicuser/thief party. I can accept paladins, rangers and druids but even including barbarians in a game is a bit of a stretch for me.

As a general rule, I view fantasy RPGs with those four classes as the baseline. When I see additional classes, it usually seems to me the designers give them some schtick that's noticeably better than what the 'core four' can do and it just rankles in some ill-defined way which makes me uninterested in playing them. I dont really care about balance, but there's something that bothers me about what I consider 'gimmicky' classes.


Steve Geddes wrote:

It's not that I dont like them, but I dont generally have any interest in playing them. I prefer the fighter/cleric/magicuser/thief party. I can accept paladins, rangers and druids but even including barbarians in a game is a bit of a stretch for me.

As a general rule, I view fantasy RPGs with those four classes as the baseline. When I see additional classes, it usually seems to me the designers give them some schtick that's noticeably better than what the 'core four' can do and it just rankles in some ill-defined way which makes me uninterested in playing them. I dont really care about balance, but there's something that bothers me about what I consider 'gimmicky' classes.

Of course, wizards and clerics are still generally considered the powerhouses of the game. Despite all the gimmicky classes.


Jeez, I should have guessed this would be a hot button topic.

Freehold DM wrote:
Because I don't like new classes in general. I was ecstatic when pathfinder put out archetypes and I was hoping they would continue in this vein and perhaps expand upon it. But when they started putting out new base classes, espcially ones I have had poor experiences with such as the ninja and samurai, I was dissapointed. Still noone is forcing me to play with them, so I will continue to ignore them.

Yes, but do archetypes have hottie iconics? ;)

Kimera757 wrote:
Many new classes don't need to exist. The ninja is an obvious example in Pathfinder; you could just add ninja-flavored feats into the game, or maybe an archetype, or just portray an NPC rogue that is a "ninja". The vampire (what were they thinking!) is an obvious example in 4e.

Haha, yeah, the vampire is a great example of why I ignore post-PHB3 classes. :/

Kimera757 wrote:
New classes add complexity to the game. I can't recognize Pathfinder parties anymore. (Same with 4e; I've literally seen two wizards played in my entire 4e career, and one is a wizard PC I've had for one session. Why play a wizard when there's 5 other controller classes out there?)

I've had similar experiences, but I rather like the variety of splat-parties.

Getting stuck with ability drain sucks, but personally I'd call that a game design flaw. Why write semi/permanent injuries into the game that only one class is equipped to deal with? If nobody of that specific class is present, it creates a strong incentive to simply walk the injured PC off the nearest cliff and introduce his twin brother to the party.

Different strokes, and all that. :)

Thalin wrote:
Witch: A from-the-beginning mystic theurge (effectively) with nice hexes. I've banned Slumber Hex from my home game; but otherwise I like them, and have seen many fun builds.

You know, after I read this, I went and read up on the witch. And it's almost the mystic theurge base class I always wanted...except that its spell list is unique and quirky. (Why is CSW level 4?) And some of the hexes are just random and useless. (Child-scent, lol wut? Ur kidding rite?)

It's happily SAD though, which is an improvement over 3.5's various theurge options. I'll have to try it out next time I play with Freehold and the NYC gang!


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

It's not that I dont like them, but I dont generally have any interest in playing them. I prefer the fighter/cleric/magicuser/thief party. I can accept paladins, rangers and druids but even including barbarians in a game is a bit of a stretch for me.

As a general rule, I view fantasy RPGs with those four classes as the baseline. When I see additional classes, it usually seems to me the designers give them some schtick that's noticeably better than what the 'core four' can do and it just rankles in some ill-defined way which makes me uninterested in playing them. I dont really care about balance, but there's something that bothers me about what I consider 'gimmicky' classes.

Of course, wizards and clerics are still generally considered the powerhouses of the game. Despite all the gimmicky classes.

I wouldnt really know about that, but I dont consider balance to be very important. In my head, magic users are supposed to be better than anything else.

It's not so much a balance issue as some cosmetic thing which bothers me. (When barbarians came out it really irked me that they had d12 hit points - it just seemed like it had to be 'a little bit better' than a fighter, even though they couldnt use magic as a kind of offset. It wasnt that I considered them unbalanced, it was something purely cosmetic, I think..)

I appreciate I'm not being terribly clear. I'm struggling to articulate what my objection is..

1 to 50 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why You No Likey PF's New Classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.