what drives you away from a class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe using low int, but you don't have to do that with any class.
I tend to veer more towards the dex monkey classes as opposed to super strong PCs. So there's nothing that really turns me off a class. Aside from maybe the antipaladin, because I don't like playing jerks longterm. Aside from that, anything else can have a very interesting RP base. So... yeah, gonna get long and ramblyish. Sorry.

I'd say playing a class or character with low cha isn't my style. But I play a cha 7 witch who's ugly and blunt.

I guess I'd like to try to play every class eventually.

But of the classes I've played. I've loved them. And none of my characters are super optimized.

Gunslinger- playing an archetype, it's tons of fun. She's usually drunk. I love having bullets that can be set up so I can be ready to overcome any sort of DR I run into. Silvered bullets, ghost Salt Bullets, Cold Iron bullets... pretty much anything for any situation. I'm really enjoying the versatility of the class's damage output.

Cavalier- I'd only ever play a mounted cavalier that's small sized, so I can fit places. (My friend plays a gnome who rides a T-Rex called Fluffy). So I run the huntmaster, with a single dog. My BF plays her twin brother. They do crazy tripping stuff, and Attacks of Oppertunity.
The mount can be cumbersome, but there are ways around it (small size or archetypes). The normal cavaliers can give their stuff to their friends. So that's fun.

Cleric- I like the channel, and being able to hit things. I'm playing one who's gonna get a snake companion, and boon companion, and things will get insane by high level because of one of my chosen domains. (serpent and conversion inqusition).

Paladin- I don't see why everyone is whining about the alignment restriction. You don't have to have a stick up your holy bottom to be Lawful Good. My Paladin of Arshea is extremly laid back, is a complete dexiden and is one day going to be able to base her AC around the fact that she's really, really sexy. The stuff I can pull with her (bless weapon + improved critical + dervish dance + dex monkey) is somewhat awesome when I'm fighting evil things. Hitting a critical threat and autocomfriming at 15+ (so long as it beats the AC overall of course) agaist evil things is tons of fun.

Oracle- I've played this the least. But so far it's been fun. He's still level one and I'm waiting for the right time to play the little slutty tiefling where I WON'T weird everyone with the manwhore that is Erkos. But that's aside the point. I like the cha based spontaneous casting of the oracle. Their curses are fun for RP reasons, and it's intresting to come up with alternate reasons than the canon ones for them. Such as consumed, which I play as him being severely asthmatic.

Witch- Playing a healing hex hedgewitch. She's ugly, blunt, and weak. But brilliant. She can heal and she knows everything about everything. I love the familiar aspect of this class (but I love familiars in general). Being able to hide in the background and offer healing by having my little bird land on them is awesome.

I'm currently building a Swashbuckler for the moment Kitsune become PFS legal. I love the names of the class abilities. And it really looks superfun.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

To the Bard haters!

Play an Arcane Duelist - do it! I tell thee, just do it once!

Bards are AWESOME

/rant


LazarX wrote:
Bardarok wrote:

The magus is my favorite class and i use a lot of dwarven magus npcs. However I ban deverish dance and change spell critical to use the weapons multiplier, I really don't know why it is held to x2 in vanilla rules myself.

.

Possibly because it gets really sick when you add in metamagic, and the sheer number of dice you can get with the higher level spells? Not to mention novaing with a spell stored spell and crating with that as well? (one thing a blade bound magus can't do with his baby Stormbringer).

Magus crit fish enough as it is... do you really need to encourage them more?

The average damage is not changed comparing the currently legal scimitar 30% x2 critical rate vs the other extreme the warpick 10% x4 rate. Just changed to more burst less consisistant. I see nothing wrong with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The biggest single thing that will turn me off from a class is getting 2 skill points as a base. Being able to contribute outside of fights is pretty important roleplay/gameplay wise. While the wizard gains obvious benefits for being int based, the fighter, cleric, sorcerer and paladin are seriously shafted. A big disparity between being a core class or a base class.

Secondly I hate inflexibility, I like the ability to adapt to situations because you have spells or abilities, that can counter serious effects. So being strong mcfighty is nice until some casts a spell/SLA/SU then you're just a sitting duck.

For specifics

Rogue: They're really cool for many reasons but plagued with multiple weakness and straight up outclassed by the ninja (multiple classes + archtypes too). To me the ninja is what the rogue should have been.

Gunslinger: full BAB vs touch plays out as broken in many APs. This broken nature becomes more apparent when it's a banned player class and our GM uses them against us.

Sorcerer: I love the flavour but mechanically they suffer from broken spell progression, pathetic skill ranks, poor class skills and their "advantage" of casting spells "frequently" is worth 1 extra spell per day for all their weaknesses.

Monk: For all the reasons everyone already knows.


Deadalready wrote:

The biggest single thing that will turn me off from a class is getting 2 skill points as a base. Being able to contribute outside of fights is pretty important roleplay/gameplay wise. While the wizard gains obvious benefits for being int based the fighter, cleric, sorcerer and paladin are seriously shafted. A big disparity between being a core class or a base class.

Secondly I hate inflexibility, I like the ability to adapt to situations because you have spells or abilities, that can counter serious effects. So being strong mcfighty is nice until some casts a spell/SLA/SU then you're just a sitting duck.

For specifics

Rogue: They're really cool for many reasons but plagued with multiple weakness and straight up outclassed by the ninja (multiple classes + archtypes too). To me the ninja is what the rogue should have been.

Gunslinger: full BAB vs touch plays out as broken in many APs. This broken nature becomes more apparent when it's a banned player class and our GM uses them against us.

Sorcerer: I love the flavour but mechanically they suffer from broken spell progression, pathetic skill ranks, poor class skills and their "advantage" of casting spells "frequently" is worth 1 extra spell per day for all their weaknesses.

Monk: For all the reasons everyone already knows.

Gunslingers are not THAT broken... in order to hit touch AC they have to be within 1 range increment, which tends to put them in melee combat. And it takes A LOT to get a gunslinger to be able to do more than 1 shot a round...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CommandoDude wrote:


Oracle: Ew, I'd rather just go Cleric. I can't really put my finger down on why I don't like this class.

One thing I've noticed with this class and cleric is that some people's perception of RW religion effect how they perceive these classes.

I love the Oracle but I think it matches up with my views of RW spirituality, and is great for representing figures like Moses, Joan of arc, a lot Native American figures I know about, legendary figures like Tirsias and Odin.

Meanwhile, the cleric (to me) represents the guy I went to school with and then went to seminary. From a rp perspective that's pretty boring.

Meanwhile, I've gotten into passionate arguments with people who see, say Moses, as one of the first clerics of their Jewish/Christian tradition (and which their clerics are the spiritual descendants of) and the Oracle as something weird/alien/heretical i.e. outside of what doesn't square very well with how they view the sacred.

Hope that was helpful,

Kerney


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Point pools. I don't see the point of pools no matter how much others drool over them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Point pools. I don't see the point of pools no matter how much others drool over them.

Rounds of rage = points of rage.

rounds of bardic music = points of bardic music

channel energy uses = channel energy points

Vancian spell casting = lots of different point pools for the same thing. A sorcerer just has 9 point pools, a wizard has a 1 point large point pools for every slot.

HP = health point pool

bombs per day = bomb points

A lot of mechanics break down into point pools, there are even mechanics that use multiple rounds of a "rounds per day" ability such that they basically function like point pools.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Point pools. I don't see the point of pools no matter how much others drool over them.

Rounds of rage = points of rage.

rounds of bardic music = points of bardic music

channel energy uses = channel energy points

Vancian spell casting = lots of different point pools for the same thing. A sorcerer just has 9 point pools, a wizard has a 1 point large point pools for every slot.

HP = health point pool

bombs per day = bomb points

A lot of mechanics break down into point pools, there are even mechanics that use multiple rounds of a "rounds per day" ability such that they basically function like point pools.

Having typed all that out, can you guess which classes I tend to avoid? There is a limit to the amount of junk I'm willing to track to play the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
CommandoDude wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:
I feel like the Law-Chaos spectrum is weird.
The solution is to read lots of Warhammer 40k.

Or Michael Moorcock (Elric Saga, et al.)

Back to the subject...

w01fe01 wrote:
just wondering what makes you look at a class and go "eww"

I'm speaking more as a GM than a player...

1. Any class that requires the GM to do a ton of extra bookkeeping to keep the player honest.

2. Classes that require their own point-based subsystems (e.g. monk and the ki pool, gunslingers and Grit, etc.)

3. Classes that put extra combatants in the battle (animal companions, eidolons, etc). In my opinion, having extra combatants in the battle drags out combat and lets the players with multiple combatants hog too much of the spotlight during the game. (Ditto the Leadership feat.)

4. Classes that allow too many options in the heat of the moment-- this tends to promote player paralysis and taking way too long on their turn to declare an action.

I can deal with a character with one of these, but with two or more, I usually say, "no."

(Summoners hit all four... one of the many reasons I ban them at my table.)


Simon Legrande wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Point pools. I don't see the point of pools no matter how much others drool over them.

Rounds of rage = points of rage.

rounds of bardic music = points of bardic music

channel energy uses = channel energy points

Vancian spell casting = lots of different point pools for the same thing. A sorcerer just has 9 point pools, a wizard has a 1 point large point pools for every slot.

HP = health point pool

bombs per day = bomb points

A lot of mechanics break down into point pools, there are even mechanics that use multiple rounds of a "rounds per day" ability such that they basically function like point pools.

Having typed all that out, can you guess which classes I tend to avoid? There is a limit to the amount of junk I'm willing to track to play the game.

So do you only play rogues and fighters?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey now... Rogues have 1/day talents to track. That's like a pool, albeit a very limited one (lolrogues).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Point pools. I don't see the point of pools no matter how much others drool over them.

Rounds of rage = points of rage.

rounds of bardic music = points of bardic music

channel energy uses = channel energy points

Vancian spell casting = lots of different point pools for the same thing. A sorcerer just has 9 point pools, a wizard has a 1 point large point pools for every slot.

HP = health point pool

bombs per day = bomb points

A lot of mechanics break down into point pools, there are even mechanics that use multiple rounds of a "rounds per day" ability such that they basically function like point pools.

Having typed all that out, can you guess which classes I tend to avoid? There is a limit to the amount of junk I'm willing to track to play the game.
So do you only play rogues and fighters?

I love playing fighters and rogues in spite of everyone on the Paizo forum telling me how worthless they are. Right now I have two campaigns going, one I have a Paladin the other I have A Dragon Disciple bard. That's about the limit of my patience. I can’t recall if I have ever played a strict full caster.

I'm here to play a game, not practice my accounting skills.


Simon Legrande wrote:
I'm here to play a game, not practice my accounting skills.

Why not both?

I didn't choose the accountant life, the accountant life chose me


Have you considered picking up video games, Simon? You might enjoy those more since you have a computer keeping track of all your pools for you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Have you considered picking up video games, Simon? You might enjoy those more since you have a computer keeping track of all your pools for you.

Love it or leave it? Is that really the direction we're going to go?


Bards, bards, bards, and also ... bards! Singing and dancing just isn't my idea of an adventurer. The flavor of the class is enough to send me screaming -- I don't care if it's God-like in power.


Kerney wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:


Oracle: Ew, I'd rather just go Cleric. I can't really put my finger down on why I don't like this class.

One thing I've noticed with this class and cleric is that some people's perception of RW religion effect how they perceive these classes.

I love the Oracle but I think it matches up with my views of RW spirituality, and is great for representing figures like Moses, Joan of arc, a lot Native American figures I know about, legendary figures like Tirsias and Odin.

Meanwhile, the cleric (to me) represents the guy I went to school with and then went to seminary. From a rp perspective that's pretty boring.

Meanwhile, I've gotten into passionate arguments with people who see, say Moses, as one of the first clerics of their Jewish/Christian tradition (and which their clerics are the spiritual descendants of) and the Oracle as something weird/alien/heretical i.e. outside of what doesn't square very well with how they view the sacred.

Hope that was helpful,

Kerney

That reminds me. I hate oracle curses. They don't actually represent anyone.

Moses' "curse" was that he was a poor public speaker. Possibly he stuttered. There is no such curse, but it could be represented by dumping charisma: something you can't do on an oracle but can do on a cleric.

Joan of Arc had no "curse" except being the wrong gender and social class for her calling.

Tiresias had a curse. Win? Nope. There is no blindness curse.

The oracles at Delphi had no curses unless they were brought on by overexposure to the halucinogenic gases rising from the crack in the rocks the temple there was built on after they had started prophesying.

Paul might be a possible success as some scholars believe his "curse" was poor vision, but this occured late in life. During the segment of his ministry that would be considered to involve divine casting he didn't have a curse.

Odin gave up an eye for understanding. What book is the "no depth perception" curse in again? Nope. Odin inspired oracle is also not going to work.

I'm not thinking of any oracles that the oracle class actually represents.

Then there's the "why are you adventuring with someone who can barely see or can't hear?" problem for everyone else in the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Have you considered picking up video games, Simon? You might enjoy those more since you have a computer keeping track of all your pools for you.

To respond in the manners in which this comment was intended:

Hurr durr, Thx for pinting dat out. I nvr would of that of dat b4.

I love the people who think that because you don't want a game to be work you must be an idiot incapable of simple addition and subtraction.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Have you considered picking up video games, Simon? You might enjoy those more since you have a computer keeping track of all your pools for you.
Love it or leave it? Is that really the direction we're going to go?

Well seeing as you specifically said you dislike tracking ANY SORT OF RESOURCE yourself, a computer game would be a better fit since a computer tracks stuff liek mana, spells, rounds of perform, ect... seeing as 90% of the classes have SOME SORT of limited resource...


K177Y C47 wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Have you considered picking up video games, Simon? You might enjoy those more since you have a computer keeping track of all your pools for you.
Love it or leave it? Is that really the direction we're going to go?
Well seeing as you specifically said you dislike tracking ANY SORT OF RESOURCE yourself, a computer game would be a better fit since a computer tracks stuff liek mana, spells, rounds of perform, ect... seeing as 90% of the classes have SOME SORT of limited resource...

I never said any such thing.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Have you considered picking up video games, Simon? You might enjoy those more since you have a computer keeping track of all your pools for you.
Love it or leave it? Is that really the direction we're going to go?
Well seeing as you specifically said you dislike tracking ANY SORT OF RESOURCE yourself, a computer game would be a better fit since a computer tracks stuff liek mana, spells, rounds of perform, ect... seeing as 90% of the classes have SOME SORT of limited resource...

Wrong, I said I dislike point pools. Exactly because there are enough other things to track already. You like them? You use them. I'll just be happy that I can tailor the rules to play the game I want to play.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Have you considered picking up video games, Simon? You might enjoy those more since you have a computer keeping track of all your pools for you.
Love it or leave it? Is that really the direction we're going to go?

That's not the direction I was going. I love video games, and a large part of that is similar to the same reasons I don't like playing wizards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:
Bards, bards, bards, and also ... bards! Singing and dancing just isn't my idea of an adventurer. The flavor of the class is enough to send me screaming -- I don't care if it's God-like in power.

Fortunately, you can very easily reflavor the bard into something less dorky.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Things that turn me off to a given class-

I don't like 1 dimensional classes. The Fighter is one of the big perpetrators here; he's the best at combat but is so deficient elsewhere that it's just hard for me to stay interested for more than a 1 off campaign.

I prefer classes who approach teamwork from the perspective of good + good = great, as opposed to good + subpar = functional. Examples of the former equation, in my opinion, would be the Bard, the Inquisitor, and the Cavalier, who are strong in their own right and get even better when they have an ally to blend their resources and abilities with. An example of the latter would be the Rogue, whose Sneak Attack ability is highly conditional and often desperately reliant on allies, and who can't stay competitive in combat without it.

Poorly balanced classes are unappealing to me. I'm looking at you Summoner, with your full-casting+ disguised as 3/4 casting and your desecration of the crafting system.

Classes that ignore really basic design principles that should be no brainers like "Don't balance a class feature against wealth because cash flow is managed differently in every campaign" or "Don't balance a positive with a negative because players will inevitably find a way to overcome the negative and you'll have huge imbalance not just between the class and other classes, but within the class itself". The Gunslinger is a big perpetrator here. I like the idea of the Gunslinger, and I like Grit and Deeds, but firearms are a mess at the very core and it bleeds into everything that touches it.


Ssalarn wrote:
"Don't balance a positive with a negative because players will inevitably find a way to overcome the negative and you'll have huge imbalance not just between the class and other classes, but within the class itself".

TL;DR Spellcasting.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Have you considered picking up video games, Simon? You might enjoy those more since you have a computer keeping track of all your pools for you.
Love it or leave it? Is that really the direction we're going to go?
That's not the direction I was going. I love video games, and a large part of that is similar to the same reasons I don't like playing wizards.

I owe you an apology, then. Few people here would say such a thing with sincerity, so I hope you understand my reaction.


Zhayne wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Bards, bards, bards, and also ... bards! Singing and dancing just isn't my idea of an adventurer. The flavor of the class is enough to send me screaming -- I don't care if it's God-like in power.
Fortunately, you can very easily reflavor the bard into something less dorky.

Eh, not really. Perform is a major source of bardic abilities. Are you suggesting a bard that doesn't perform? What's the point then of being a bard? Be that performance an oration, song, dance, or puppet show, there's just no place for such silliness in any concept of an adventurer that I enjoy.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Cavalier can grab Shake It Off, an excellent Teamwork feat, which he gets a bonus off of just from his mount without counting in any of his other allies. Considering the mount gets the bonus as well and the options for increasing animal companion saves are so limited for non-casters, this is a smart choice that almost any Cavalier should consider. He's also got Banner, which is like Bravery++ for the entire group (or entire army), Greater Banner which boosts against charm and complusion and can give allies rerolls, and can further boost his Will save via his choice of Order. He has far more options for boosting saves than the Fighter, and many of those options improve the rest of the group as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generaly, if I read through a class' mechanics and don't think of an idea I'd enjoy playing, I pass on it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Bards, bards, bards, and also ... bards! Singing and dancing just isn't my idea of an adventurer. The flavor of the class is enough to send me screaming -- I don't care if it's God-like in power.
Fortunately, you can very easily reflavor the bard into something less dorky.
Eh, not really. Perform is a major source of bardic abilities. Are you suggesting a bard that doesn't perform? What's the point then of being a bard? Be that performance an oration, song, dance, or puppet show, there's just no place for such silliness in any concept of an adventurer that I enjoy.

Perform: Oratory can be a lot of things. Make a drill sergeant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Bards, bards, bards, and also ... bards! Singing and dancing just isn't my idea of an adventurer. The flavor of the class is enough to send me screaming -- I don't care if it's God-like in power.
Fortunately, you can very easily reflavor the bard into something less dorky.
Eh, not really. Perform is a major source of bardic abilities. Are you suggesting a bard that doesn't perform? What's the point then of being a bard? Be that performance an oration, song, dance, or puppet show, there's just no place for such silliness in any concept of an adventurer that I enjoy.

Heck, it can be war cries, directions given in battle, etc. The bard fits the flavors and mechanics of a general of an army better than a fighter does.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Bards, bards, bards, and also ... bards! Singing and dancing just isn't my idea of an adventurer. The flavor of the class is enough to send me screaming -- I don't care if it's God-like in power.
Fortunately, you can very easily reflavor the bard into something less dorky.
Eh, not really. Perform is a major source of bardic abilities. Are you suggesting a bard that doesn't perform? What's the point then of being a bard? Be that performance an oration, song, dance, or puppet show, there's just no place for such silliness in any concept of an adventurer that I enjoy.
Perform: Oratory can be a lot of things. Make a drill sergeant.

Sure, you could just shout at your party members, which I suppose would make you "tougher" than, say, a puppeteer. Still not my idea of an adventurer though (and notice that in real life, drill sergeants are in fact trainers, not themselves adventurers). I'll pass.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Zalman wrote:


(and notice that in real life, drill sergeants are in fact trainers, not themselves adventurers). I'll pass.

This is absolutely insulting and I'd ask you to take it back, immediately. Drill Sergeants are soldiers who've proven their worth in many MOS and mlitary occupations who have been selected by the armed services to pass their skills and knowledge on to the next generation. Literally every drill sergeant I trained under was a decorated veteran, several of whom chose to continue on as trainers because their heroism on the battlefield led to issues that prevented them from continuing in their former responsibilities. Regardless of whether or not you agree on the bard thing, implying that a drill sergeant is "just a trainer" and not a real soldier is a display of such profound ignorance I don't even know where to begin.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't like classes with limited options. I like having a lot of tools at my disposal. As a result, I like gish classes, but tend to avoid martials, except for the monk and a few classes from ACG.

Zalman wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Zalman wrote:
Bards, bards, bards, and also ... bards! Singing and dancing just isn't my idea of an adventurer. The flavor of the class is enough to send me screaming -- I don't care if it's God-like in power.
Fortunately, you can very easily reflavor the bard into something less dorky.
Eh, not really. Perform is a major source of bardic abilities. Are you suggesting a bard that doesn't perform? What's the point then of being a bard? Be that performance an oration, song, dance, or puppet show, there's just no place for such silliness in any concept of an adventurer that I enjoy.

I made a bard that gives a rousing speech when he performs. Rather than talking in the middle of battle, he simply give the speech at the start and the supernatural power of his speech continues to resonate in the hearts of his comrades until he chooses to "end" the "performance." It works pretty well, considering every movie with pre-modern war scenes has a hero give a speech before a climatic battle.


Things that turn me off:

When classes are more or less telling you how to interpretate or roleplay a class. (Luckily this is always in your own control in the end, and there are always archtypes for different flavours)

For example:
Although I like the Alchemist for his unique abilities and versatility, I do think that the class was designed too much with Dr. Jekyll & Hyde in mind. Not every chemist is a self-harming split-personality maniac in my mind. I also think that many of their discoveries and optional builds are a bit too weird and twisted (Tumor familiars? Vestigial arms from another fetus? Are you kidding me?) I also hate the idea of a 'vivisectionist'. (I wonder if most players even know what that word even means.) I mean, I'm not saying that necromancy isn't twisted at times but the Alchemist really delves into the stuff that makes me go "I don't even want to bother with this weird stuff when a player comes up with it all by himself, and it's in the fricking rulebooks!". It's like alchemists are somehow almost the same as 'twisted chirurgeons'. At times as a GM I'd almost feel inclined to give them an alignment restriction like "any non-good" because I've never seen anyone play an Alchemist that was on the Good-axis anyway.

I have the same 'roleplaying' issue with the Inquisitor. The inquisitor desciption I hear is usually: "The inquisitor is like a cleric, only he is more extreme and he acts more like a badass and cares less about the rules." The players I've seen handling Inquisitors tend to be real zealots almost as bad as the people that don't understand how to be a Paladin and not be an ass. I don't necessarily see inquisitors as zealots. To me they're more like specialized hunters or mercenaries in service of churches.

It also irks me in a similar manner with classes that really lean towards specific stuff like how the Magus almost has to use one-handed-high-crit-range weapons. There really aren't that many one-handed-high-crit-range weapons to choose from and if I were a Dwarf then I really wouldn't want to run around wielding a scimitar which is one of the most non-dwarven weapons I can think of.

On a completely different note, I really hate the Summoner class.
The Summoner was seemingly built with two different archetypes in mind that don't really fit very well together imho. On one side of the coin, the Summoner was designed to be a class that could summon lots of creatures, on the other side of the coin, the Summoner was designed to have one big badass summon. I would rather have seen a Summoner who is more like a Pokémon trainer who just gets more Eidolons over time, or just really focuses on one Eidolon. The Summoner could have been the ultimate pet-class with lots of cool tag-team abilities but no, it's just a really wobbly unbalanced class with too much stuff going on but at the same time the Summoner has no utility or roleplaying value inherently whatsoever.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Zalman wrote:
...in real life, drill sergeants are in fact trainers, not themselves adventurers...
...every drill sergeant I trained under was a decorated veteran, several of whom chose to continue on as trainers... implying that a drill sergeant is "just a trainer" and not a real soldier is a display of such profound ignorance I don't even know where to begin.

While I take your meaning and largely agree, he said adventurer, not soldier. The difference between an adventurer and a soldier? A soldier knows when to shut up and move. A soldier knows when not to take initiative. And a soldier isn't in it for the money. (Well, technically, not all adventurers are in it for the money, but you'd never know it from the way most players act!)

Anyhow, I'd argue that the officer ranks are the ones who are trained more specifically in strategy, logistics, oratory and leadership. Sergeants (aside from special tech training) handle more tactical and direct leadership work - though obviously there's some overlap. If I absolutely had to choose Pathfinder classes (the 4E Warlord fits better), I'd probably give Bard to officers and Cavalier to sergeants. (Yes, wise guys, I know they don't ride horses. The cavalier has other class features, ya know.)

On topic, the one thing that makes me steer clear of a class is seeing it slobbered over in these threads. Not just admired, but given such adulation that you start to feel like the poster had to stop several times while writing in order to wipe the sweat from his forehead and palms.


Ssalarn wrote:
Zalman wrote:


(and notice that in real life, drill sergeants are in fact trainers, not themselves adventurers). I'll pass.
This is absolutely insulting and I'd ask you to take it back, immediately. Drill Sergeants are soldiers who've proven their worth in many MOS and mlitary occupations who have been selected by the armed services to pass their skills and knowledge on to the next generation. Literally every drill sergeant I trained under was a decorated veteran, several of whom chose to continue on as trainers because their heroism on the battlefield led to issues that prevented them from continuing in their former responsibilities. Regardless of whether or not you agree on the bard thing, implying that a drill sergeant is "just a trainer" and not a real soldier is a display of such profound ignorance I don't even know where to begin.

Oh my, no offense intended! My point is not that real-life Drill Sergeants are incapable as soldiers, rather that the role of a Drill Sergeant is one of training, not adventuring. Undoubtedly, real-life drill sergeants are chosen for just the reasons you enumerate, and I never meant to suggest otherwise.


wraithstrike wrote:
The ranger's animal companion is not that bad when favored enemy is in play because it also benefits from favored enemy just like the ranger does. It can provide a good boost the ranger's DPR.

except...as i said, i dont like favored enemy mechanic either

or favored terrain

or the companion being more weak (without a feat) and being harder to replace

yup...only thing i like about ranger is you can build a semi competent switch hitter...wich i never care to do anyways

51 to 100 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / what drives you away from a class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.