Do you play "under powered" classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Pretty much as title says.

Every now and then we see someone showing how class X is rubbish (rogues for example)and how other classes outpace them later on. But does this stop you guys from playing these classes which are considered to be under-powered?


Pretty much as title says.

Every now and then we see someone showing how class X is rubbish (rogues for example)and how other classes outpace them later on. But does this stop you guys from playing these classes which are considered to be under-powered?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generally, yes, though I also tend to avoid overpowered classes as well. I might dip a couple levels of monk or fighter, but they each have classes that do their schtick but better.

The benefit of an overpowered class, though, is that you can hold back until you actually need to go crazy; you can't take an underpowered class and abruptly stop sucking.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally? I've played Fighters briefly a couple of times, and more Rogues than any other single Pathfinder class. I even did pretty well as a Rogue, since I'm pretty good at optimization when I put my mind to it.

But honestly, especially by the time I played the second relatively long-term Rogue, there were so many better, more fun, ways to do more or less the exact same character as a different class that I felt like I was playing with a handicap, and not the fun kind that makes things more challenging in a cool or interesting way, the painful kind where you feel like accomplishing anything is just harder and more frustrating than it needs to be.

Which would be why I strongly feel that playing such classes is a bad call barring Lore Wardens, Ninjas, or extensive House Rules. And even Lore Wardens and Ninjas are really only ideal for specific niches. So...I don't generally do that any more.

Oh, and for the record, my list of such classes is real short (Fighter, Rogue, non-Archetype Monk...the third I've never even considered playing having seen someone else do it, with good rolled stats, and suck anyway).


Yes

Silver Crusade

Yes, because it doesn't matter how "underpowered" or "overpowered" the class may or may not be. All that matters is that you're playing a character you enjoy without detracting from the fun of the GM or other players. If the character I want to play fits best as a rogue, I don't care what else I could play that's better. I don't care if another class has all the same benefits and then more if I simply don't want the "more" the other class offers. It's a matter of vision and intent.

EDIT: yes to your title, since your post and your title are asking opposite questions.


I've played every class in the game, and have found that all of them have their merits. If you change your class, change your expectations to fit the class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do play "underpowered" classes. The class's power (or lack of) doesn't determine if I play aclass or not. It is if I can come up with a decent concept that I would enjoy playing.


I DO play classes that are underpowered (ie martials) but I stay away from the worst ones (fighter and rogue) at least for single class builds.

Sovereign Court

I do play them though I tend to multi-class the crap out of underpowered classes. The underpowered classes seem to synergize well with other classes as dips. Its been ages though since I went single class with a rogue or fighter.

With all the supplement additions and options its not a huge pain point for me that underpowered classes exist. It would be nice if they didnt for the folks who are bothered by it. Though, I am certainly not begging for a new edition.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Normally, yes, I do play classes that are "underpowered" if they are fulfilling the role I need to play. If I have played the same role recently, I'll take a different approach (including class), but it just all depends on what I want to accomplish.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Since my non-optimised fighter regularly out-damages the party's non-optimised wizard and non-optimised paladin, with the non-optimised rogue having an absolute blast and our non-optimised bard buffing us all nicely, and we all completely outshine the cleric cohort, I'd say that I do.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Rogue, Cavalier, Fighter and vanilla Monk? Barring house-rules, No. I don't. I did in the past, on multiple occasions... But not anymore. Never again. I just don't see the point.

I don't give a damn about the "official" fluff of each class. I role play whatever character concept I want with whatever class I want. I don't need "Rogue" written on my character sheet to play a sniveling scoundrel, just like I don't need the word "Fighter" to role play an armored warrior.

While I don't usually try to build and play the most powerful character ever, I won't take an obviously limited and ineffective choice just because its name happens to match a description of what I want my character to be, even though its mechanics fail to deliver.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes I do play the 'under powered' classes often. As I have really never found them to be under powered at all.


I generally play in a group with three players and the GM, and we use Adventure Paths and occasional Paizo modules with very little alteration. Due to the small party size every character is expected to contribute significantly in most situations, especially combat.

I find that a fighter works very well (great AC, damage output, and nice bits like armor training). Rogues on the other hand don't do well due to lack of defense, and difficulty getting flanks in such a small group (even with a flank, damage output is meh).

I tend to enjoy designing characters in a slightly different way then the class intended. Greataxe wielding bard, archery cleric, tower shield barbarian, etc.

We also have an unofficial agreement to not focus on action-denial/Save-or-Suck builds. Even if a character is playing a full caster, they don't spam color spray or blindness all the time.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
SpartanDude wrote:

Pretty much as title says.

Every now and then we see someone showing how class X is rubbish (rogues for example)and how other classes outpace them later on. But does this stop you guys from playing these classes which are considered to be under-powered?

No.

Every character I play, regardless of class, is as powerful as I choose to make it.

As a corollary statement: no class I play is overpowered unless I choose to make it so.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Rogue, Cavalier, Fighter and vanilla Monk? Barring house-rules, No. I don't. I did in the past, on multiple occasions... But not anymore. Never again. I just don't see the point.

I don't give a damn about the "official" fluff of each class. I role play whatever character concept I want with whatever class I want. I don't need "Rogue" written on my character sheet to play a sniveling scoundrel, just like I don't need the word "Fighter" to role play an armored warrior.

While I don't usually try to build and play the most powerful character ever, I won't take an obviously limited and ineffective choice just because its name happens to match a description of what I want my character to be, even though its mechanics fail to deliver.

This. So much this. Infinite this.

Class is not concept, concept is not class.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:
Class is not concept, concept is not class.

Thirded.

Dark Archive

While there are some classes that I avoid, the ones that I play are not chosen based on their relative power/tier/whatever.
Group balance/variety and the mood of the moment are the main factors that weight in.


Mostly the figther characters get discarded when having very few options becomes boring. And rogues start to anonym me around level 7 when you start to feel the gab to the Real martials.
I have Lots of concepts for the character types but atm i try to fit them in to other classes.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can these threads be combined?


I've played two Rogues in 3.5, but they were pretty specific concepts and Rogues were better off in 3.5 then in PF.

I'll hop on the class is not a concept, concept is not a class train while I'm here also.


I play whatever fits my character concept the best, and this sometimes happens to be one of these underpowered classes. Sometimes I have a complicated feat combo that requires levels in fighter or sometimes I wanna do some crazy kung fu stuff that only the Monk can pull off.

Dark Archive

There was a time in 3.0 that Psychic warriors were considered weak buy I still enjoyed it very much. For a lo.g time though, that class had moved up to tier 3, do not the dame thing amore.

I can agree to play one, two, maybe even more levels of fighter, but only as a multiclass. Even then, it would mot be long before deadicating more to the casting class.

I would love to play the psychic rogue, a full class intemed for the 3.5 expanded Psionics handbook, but left on the cutting room floor. You can find it for free in wizards 3.5 archive of web enhancements. But I am incredibly unlikely to play a rogue again.


I have played some classes that were considered "under-powered" as most of the time being powerful is not the point of my groups games. That said I did play a monk and built him to specifically be the most powerful character in a campaign, taking advantage of rules that people in my group don't know or care about to understand. That was lots of fun...


Sometimes, and I always regret it. I don't have to always be the best, but I hate sitting around not being able to contribute, and I hate not having options at the table.


"Power level" has never been a consideration which I have selected a class.


My first character was a poorly optimized Monk.

It wasn't fun and I'm not doing it again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If i'm a stronger optimizer than my group, i'll pick a weaker class/concept to put the breaks on my natural inclinations. Likewise if my group is hardcore gamers, i'll play something strong so i don't hold them back. It's all about the group dynamics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've run multiple AP's with core Fighters, monks and rogue's in them as players. They tend to be as effective as anyone in the narrative sense, and I've yet to see any of them not have fun because of the limitations of their class.


Rogue is one of my favorite classes and on more than a few occasions I've played monk and cavalier. I play fighter and gunslinger on and off too.

They can be a lot of fun. Have to be careful because it's so easy to just find another class to do it twice as good and it's very easy to be "cheesy" with something like a rogue in an attempt to make it effective and my experience seems to indicate that people hate cheese more than power. Even if that cheese doesn't do anything impressive.


I love to find ways to play low-power but quirky tactics in a high-power way. They don't need to be very effectiv but at least work somewhat good. By quirky I mean that it needs to feel different and not the same as a more effectiv tactic.
Tactics, in the case of Pathfinder, are builds.


I played a monk/fighter at the start of Carrion Crown. It was not fun.

CC spoiler:
We only found 1 magic weapon for two pure martials, had no option to buy a second and had to fight three incorporeal "bosses". That was three long and tough fights in which I could do nothing except soak some damage and try aid another. Three sessions of wasted time.


I normally just play wizards, but for a home brew evilish campaign I just joined I am running a Cerebremancer(psion/wiz)

Edit: I more then try to make sure everyone has time to shine, but when OH (bleep) moments happen I can pull stops and save the day.


I play fighters and rogues as needed, but honestly have never seen a cavalier or monk in any of my games.

In fact, my group wonders why the cavalier was even made.


Mmm so far the only classes i have made to play as a character is rogues, bards, fighters, and sorcerers. I have created and played many different types of classes as bosses or enemies as a gm, but as a player i just love those 4 equaly and have alot of fun with them.


I'm in the, "Fighter, Rogue, core-Monk" camp, and I can honestly say that I've totally given up on Rogue and core-Monk.

But I have a weak spot in my heart for Fighters.
Not because they're good; they're not.
Not because I particularly enjoy what the class does; I don't.
But simply because this game is SUPER-loaded with a ton of feats that are absolute trash, but required to get to the feats I do want, and Fighter is simply the easiest way to perfectly build the "feat build" that I want to play.

If they'd redesign feats and thresh the wheat from the chaff? I'd give up on Fighters entirely too.

Scarab Sages

MagusJanus wrote:

I play fighters and rogues as needed, but honestly have never seen a cavalier or monk in any of my games.

In fact, my group wonders why the cavalier was even made.

I've seen halfling and gnome cavaliers labeled as horribly overpowered, one-shotting nearly everything they hit.

I am currently playing a monk in one of my games, with no issues.


I'd dip them but not play a straight version probably. Especially not archetyped. I do consider them for builds time to time. And there's this one archetype for the harrow handbook rogue that I'd actually strongly consider going straight rogue for (I think, I don't have it yet).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love monks.


Maybe I was lucky, made good choices, or I don't know what else, but I've really never had troubles with any class and never understood all the whining about the "underpowered".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd happily play some of the NPC classes too if it was allowed. Personally i think it would be a hoot!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
SpartanDude wrote:

Pretty much as title says.

Every now and then we see someone showing how class X is rubbish (rogues for example)and how other classes outpace them later on. But does this stop you guys from playing these classes which are considered to be under-powered?

Yes, I'll play "under-powered" classes if it fits the character concept. Frankly, player skill and how well the character is developed to suit the campaign/specific scenario has more to do how "powerful" the character is than what class they are. Also, how often a character can meaningfully contribute has a lot to do with certain perceptions; many of the people who blather on about "under-powered" classes tend to pigeon-hole them into being "one-trick-ponies" because they focus on doing only one thing with them. However, there are usually options available where "under-powered" classes can consistently contribute, even if they aren't always "the star" of a given encounter.

That said, classes do have level ranges where they have an easier time shining relative to other classes. Once you get past 9th/10th level or so, 9-level casters ("Tier 1" classes) start to take over the game. However, depending on the party and the campaign, either this may not be much of an issue (due to the campaign ending around that time; PFS, for example, stops at 12th level) or the party emphasizes teamwork more (where the "most efficient" solution is often to buff the non-casters and send them against the BBEG, while the casters take out the minions to clear the way).


Why is everyone putting quotes around power?


I play whatever I feel like, because I find that contribution is not about character class, but about build choices within that class as you level (skill ranks, feats, gear). Even a common can be fun... maybe.

Shadow Lodge

Personally I've never felt like I was useless, not contributing, or not having fun playing these Underpowered classes[which I have played on more than one occasion]. Heck, I'm not sure I can recall ever not having fun in a game before[really, if you don't have fun, why play?]. But I have seen my character be weaker then others at the table, and that I could have changed my class and been more effective while fulfilling the same concept. Never enough to regret the class I chose, nor enough to consider retraining though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Probably. I don't have the system mastery to be over "powered", resist the Build threads and roleplay like my life depended on it. I am sure there are DPR'ers that loathe me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EvilPaladin wrote:
Personally I've never felt like I was useless, not contributing, or not having fun playing these Underpowered classes[which I have played on more than one occasion]. Heck, I'm not sure I can recall ever not having fun in a game before[really, if you don't have fun, why play?]. But I have seen my character be weaker then others at the table, and that I could have changed my class and been more effective while fulfilling the same concept. Never enough to regret the class I chose, nor enough to consider retraining though.

The people I typically see having the least amount of fun are the people who "demonstrate system mastery," to use the lingo on here. In other words, the powergamers. Mainly because my group does a lot of noncombat roleplay.


I regularly see fighters, rogues, and cavaliers at my table. No one has complained yet about feeling underpowered. I'm firmly convinced that the idea of underpowered classes is primarily the province of power gamers.


Maybe, what counts as underpowered? I'm mainly saddled with low level play (never had a campaign get over 6) and it's consistently been that how over/underpowered anyone's particular character is depends on whether they wore their clever pants and how much the dice hate you.

1 to 50 of 391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do you play "under powered" classes? All Messageboards