what drives you away from a class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My Dragon Disciple bard took Oratory: motivational speaker. The funny thing is, everyone else seems to roll better even when I'm not using my perform ability. I just look at them and say "You can do it!"

My father made a bard who took Oratory: self narration. We also had someone do Oratory: film noir. It makes for some fun at the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For that rousing speech -- continuing the performance could consist of repeating key snippets of the original speech. "Use the Force, Luke" would probably qualify as a full round of Bardic Performance.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Zalman wrote:
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.

My bad then. Sorry to blow up at you. I just read that as "bards aren't real adventurers like drill sergeants aren't real soldiers" and saw red a bit.


Summoning monsters just is to much work to do all the time, so even though there a good class, summoners


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Actually, this thread suggests a real reason that a drill sergeant would not be appropriate in an adventuring party -- if the rest of the party are supposed to be recruits that he is instructing, he would be too many levels above them for game balance.


The only ones that really seem to stick in the "Meh" categories for me class wise are as follows:

Magus: It's most likely because I've not bothered to truly understand what they're capable of, also probably because I've seen so many threads where it's max this damage touch spell and do that. So, perhaps once I look into it further I won't be so "Meh" about the class. One archetype that seemed like it could be fun though was the bladebound and that was more for RP reasons.

Paladin: This one I'm on the fence with. I take it more as a challenge than anything, but a challenge I'm sort of not sure I want to accept. I know there are different ways to role-play a paladin, but it feels like a lot of freedom is taken out of RP due to mechanics. That said, I've been studying up on RPing a paladin lately and I'm slowly coming around to one I think I could live with, if not have fun with.

Bards: I quite can't figure out why I never want to play a bard. I know they are good. I know it. For some reason or another they just don't make me want to play them. Maybe it's the association of them being the goofs that are hopping around playing a flute while everyone else is cutting down foes. Maybe they just don't feel to me like they're quite effective in a specific role outside of knowing a lot of stuff about things (knowledge) and skills. I like skill monkey types though so I'm not sure that is it.

Cleric: I may play this some day, but I feel like I'd always play an Oracle before I would play a cleric. Necromancer? I'd probably go juju oracle. I don't mind full casters. Hell I love me some wizards and sorcerers. Maybe it's them originally having to follow a particular deity. None of my characters tend to follow a deity in any way, but I and my characters don't hate deities perse. I guess I prefer my particular characters to rely on themselves and the party more so than that of a deity. I may play one some day, it might just be restrictive thinking keeping me from playing one. Who knows, I may enjoy one if I tried it.

It's not to say I couldn't enjoy playing these classes at all or hate them, it's just that they wouldn't be my first picks unless they screamed being the right choice for a concept. The rest of the classes I'm fine with.


What also drives me away from classes is having really few skills.
This happens most often with classes like Fighters, Cavaliers, Clerics and Barbarians... low Int can be fun to roleplay but it also sucks sometimes that you can do so little outside of combat. Having few skills can really harm a character's ability to succeed at anything. This is why I never really understood the hate for the Rogue other than the fact that he is fully outclassed by a Ninja.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Flavor. I have no interest in playing an antipaladin or a vivisectionist because they just aren't the kind of roles I want to play as a player. I have to be in a particular mood to play a cleric or inquisitor--especially with Golarion's "must worship a deity" restriction. (I can believably portray a religious zealot long enough for the typical NPC encounter, but as a PC it'd wear pretty thin, like having a catch phrase.)

Shadow Lodge

Atarlost wrote:
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...

Moses—Severe Shuddering, probably unable to speak in stressful situations, like combat or important meetings. Very close to tongues curse. Very similar to Deganawida, founder of the Iroquois Confederacy btw.

Joan—Seeing as it’s big pat of what got her killed, works as a campaign specific curse.

Tiresias—Blind, not exactly the blind curse. Also, had his/her gender changed (tell me many GMs wouldn’t have a blast with that one) twice.

Oracles of Delphi—Clerics or duel class commoner/clerics rather than pathfinder Oracles. Of course I never mentioned them. Never the less, they bring up a related note dealing with religion. Imagine if in pathfinder many clerical divination spells had material component: hallucinogenic drugs. It would certainly be atmospheric. It would match many if not most religions in history.

But it would make a certain segment of the player base freak because it is very un PC and foreign to mainstream modern religious practices.

Simularly, IRL, we are not used to our religious figures being blind, or stuttering, or crippled, or being epileptic or whatever. But this was not quite uncommon in past societies and in fact, the separation caused by disability seems to have spurred religious experiences from what we can tell, very much like the Oracle. Moses, going up Mt. Sinai and having his experience after is a prime example of this.

And both of this and religious use of drugs, similarly, are a little off putting to some people.

Odin—could work as modified blindness curse and is shamanistic as heck.

I could go on and I agree that the curses don’t match exactly to RW/legendary figures, they do fit the general outline of many figures throughout history and legend, but they are the things that aren’t part of current mainstream thinking. This very thing makes the class uncomfortable for some people and attractive to others.

End thread diversion.


Yeah, I make the curse optional. Take it or leave it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My bard is a quite effective archer in addition to a skill monkey. And to me, a bardic performance is like a stirring speach or battlecry. A well built bard is anything but passive, can drop in status effects, buff allies, and contribute damage themselves. You may not be the best in the party at something, but you pretty muh never have an excuse for passivity - there is always something you can contribute.


Ssalarn wrote:
My bad then. Sorry to blow up at you. I just read that as "bards aren't real adventurers like drill sergeants aren't real soldiers" and saw red a bit.

No worries, I agree that such a statement would be obnoxiously uninformed (particularly in my case, since my entire knowledge of drill sergeants derives from film). I appreciate the lesson in any case :-)

Also, nothing against anyone else playing a Bard, just not my thing.


A lack of fiddly bits that play off of each other.

A lack of viable options (all magi look the same)

Not capable in combat: i can have fun role playing anything on my own thanks, I need class mechanics to be useful in combat.

Fails to mechanically perform its thematic goals (the rogue isn't actually that great at skills, the swashbuckler isn't any more mobile than any fighter in a chain shirt)

Grand Lodge

Last one today, I promise! But the rogue discussion made me remember two classes I'd left out:

Samurai/Ninja
Love: Both improve upon their counterparts in every conceivable way. The Ninja gets better talents and weapon proficiencies, the Samurai gets better order abilities and powerful "Resolve" mechanic. Actually both are really well designed, and from a mechanical standpoint, this is where we should have started.
Hate: Because they're Eastern they're automatically superior. This is why I hate Asian stuff in games - fluff would be fine, but if you don't want to play something Asian, you forfeit the mechanical benefits of rules that appear to be written to appease a bunch of weeaboo fanboys.


stuart haffenden wrote:

To the Bard haters!

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

Bards are AWESOME

/rant

I cant bring myself to give up Bardic knowledge, it's my favorite class feature in the whole game.


Simon Legrande 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.

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.

Alright, settle down there sensitive Sally, that post was genuine. If, proclaimed by you, simple addition and subtraction is work you might be in the wrong hobby. Nobody ever questioned your intellect but you. We simply pointed out that VG have no bookkeeping.


GypsyMischief wrote:
Simon Legrande 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.

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.

Alright, settle down there sensitive Sally, that post was genuine. If, proclaimed by you, simple addition and subtraction is work you might be in the wrong hobby. Nobody ever questioned your intellect but you. We simply pointed out that VG have no bookkeeping.

And my response was:

Video games? *forehead smack* Why didn't I think of that? /sarcasm

I play many video games. That has nothing to do with enjoying TT games. And simple addition and subtraction are work when they detract from the fun of the game. Especially when I'm the one doing all the calculations because the guys I play with are not human calculators, if you catch my drift. People who aren't into Mathfinder are not lesser players because they don't like what you do. Hearing Lern2Play noob gets tiresome after a while.


Martial classes by and large I tend to avoid, as I find the "I run in and attack...the following round, I attack, attack, attack" play style very boring. As a result, I mostly stick to casters. But I try to be flexible, and if I have a good concept for a fighting character and the group could use one, I'll play one.

I prefer spontaneous casters over prepared ones, with the exception of the Oracle...I just don't like the curse mechanics. I really wish there was a spontaneous full divine caster that didn't have the curses.


EntrerisShadow wrote:

Last one today, I promise! But the rogue discussion made me remember two classes I'd left out:

Samurai/Ninja
Love: Both improve upon their counterparts in every conceivable way. The Ninja gets better talents and weapon proficiencies, the Samurai gets better order abilities and powerful "Resolve" mechanic. Actually both are really well designed, and from a mechanical standpoint, this is where we should have started.
Hate: Because they're Eastern they're automatically superior. This is why I hate Asian stuff in games - fluff would be fine, but if you don't want to play something Asian, you forfeit the mechanical benefits of rules that appear to be written to appease a bunch of weeaboo fanboys.

I disagree with this. It's easy to simply look at the Samurai and Ninja and assume that all things Asian are better, but that's without context.

The Ninja is better than the Rogue in just about every way possible, yes. But that is because the Rogue is one of the weakest classes in the game. And even if it is better than the Rogue in every way, the Ninja still pales in comparison to other more powerful martials.

The Samurai on the other hand looks better because the Cavalier as a class itself fills a more specific niche while the Samurai takes a more general role that can be applied to a greater amount of situations. Should the Samurai have been the base class and the Cavalier the alternate? Maybe. But the Samurai is in no way better than the Cavalier in every conceivable way. Mounted combat is one of these ways. Team support is another one of these ways.

It seems strange to me that the class name is a deal breaker for quite a few people. Maybe it's just me, but the class name is just a name. Especially in these two cases, it's incredible easy to just use the class mechanics and call it something else, like a Knight or Assassin. You don't even need to change any of its class abilities to make it non-Asian.


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

On the subject of drill sergeants, read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Pay particular attention to the character of Fleet Sergeant Zim.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Lyra Amary wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Last one today, I promise! But the rogue discussion made me remember two classes I'd left out:

Samurai/Ninja
Love: Both improve upon their counterparts in every conceivable way. The Ninja gets better talents and weapon proficiencies, the Samurai gets better order abilities and powerful "Resolve" mechanic. Actually both are really well designed, and from a mechanical standpoint, this is where we should have started.
Hate: Because they're Eastern they're automatically superior. This is why I hate Asian stuff in games - fluff would be fine, but if you don't want to play something Asian, you forfeit the mechanical benefits of rules that appear to be written to appease a bunch of weeaboo fanboys.

I disagree with this. It's easy to simply look at the Samurai and Ninja and assume that all things Asian are better, but that's without context.

The Ninja is better than the Rogue in just about every way possible, yes. But that is because the Rogue is one of the weakest classes in the game. And even if it is better than the Rogue in every way, the Ninja still pales in comparison to other more powerful martials.

The Samurai on the other hand looks better because the Cavalier as a class itself fills a more specific niche while the Samurai takes a more general role that can be applied to a greater amount of situations. Should the Samurai have been the base class and the Cavalier the alternate? Maybe. But the Samurai is in no way better than the Cavalier in every conceivable way. Mounted combat is one of these ways. Team support is another one of these ways.

It seems strange to me that the class name is a deal breaker for quite a few people. Maybe it's just me, but the class name is just a name. Especially in these two cases, it's incredible easy to just use the class mechanics and call it something else, like a Knight or Assassin. You don't even need to change any of its class abilities to make it non-Asian.

Gotta agree with this. Ninja is better than the Rogue, yes, but for it to be balanced with the other classes in the game it had to be. Rogue is fundamentally weaker than the other classes, so a class on par with them is going to be better by default.

And the Cavalier and the Samurai do different things. Samurai is better for players who do something like PFS, where they can't anticipate party composition or necessarily trust in the competence and ability to work in a team of their fellow players. A Cavalier who's part of a coordinated and experienced group of players actually brings way more to the table than a Samurai, whose mechanics are very self-centered.

Being "Asian" has nothing to do with any power discrepancies; one class isn't actually more powerful (possibly the opposite), and the other was improving on a chassis so subpar that it was nearly impossible to make a good class and still have it compare.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ed Reppert wrote:
On the subject of drill sergeants, read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Pay particular attention to the character of Fleet Sergeant Zim.

When someone uses the name Zim with space travel, all I can think is "GIR."


Simon Legrande wrote:
GypsyMischief wrote:
Simon Legrande 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.

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.

Alright, settle down there sensitive Sally, that post was genuine. If, proclaimed by you, simple addition and subtraction is work you might be in the wrong hobby. Nobody ever questioned your intellect but you. We simply pointed out that VG have no bookkeeping.

And my response was:

Video games? *forehead smack* Why didn't I think of that? /sarcasm

I play many video games. That has nothing to do with enjoying TT games. And simple addition and subtraction are work when they detract from the fun of the game. Especially when I'm the one doing all the calculations because the guys I play with are not human calculators, if you catch my drift. People who aren't into Mathfinder are not lesser players because they don't like what you do. Hearing Lern2Play noob gets tiresome after a while.

I never implied that you're lesser, or whatever, but...minor resource tracking detracts from PF's fun for you? Ah, well perhaps it's less the math, and more your fellow players making you do their math. Hinty hint: Stop doing their math. They're grownups, they'll figure it out.


Simon Legrande wrote:

My Dragon Disciple bard took Oratory: motivational speaker. The funny thing is, everyone else seems to roll better even when I'm not using my perform ability. I just look at them and say "You can do it!"

My father made a bard who took Oratory: self narration. We also had someone do Oratory: film noir. It makes for some fun at the table.

I don't understand. Bards have tons of effective pools and so does the paladin.

Instead of one pool they have many pools. Bards have one for bardic music and every level of spell casting. Paladins have pools for smite, divine bond, lay on hand, and binary pools for every spell slot.

What would be the issue if all that pulled from one general pool of points? How is that keeping track of more resources?


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
On the subject of drill sergeants, read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Pay particular attention to the character of Fleet Sergeant Zim.
When someone uses the name Zim with space travel, all I can think is "GIR."

Read the book. Seriously. :-)

Grand Lodge

Lyra Amary wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

Last one today, I promise! But the rogue discussion made me remember two classes I'd left out:

Samurai/Ninja
Love: Both improve upon their counterparts in every conceivable way. The Ninja gets better talents and weapon proficiencies, the Samurai gets better order abilities and powerful "Resolve" mechanic. Actually both are really well designed, and from a mechanical standpoint, this is where we should have started.
Hate: Because they're Eastern they're automatically superior. This is why I hate Asian stuff in games - fluff would be fine, but if you don't want to play something Asian, you forfeit the mechanical benefits of rules that appear to be written to appease a bunch of weeaboo fanboys.

I disagree with this. It's easy to simply look at the Samurai and Ninja and assume that all things Asian are better, but that's without context.

The Ninja is better than the Rogue in just about every way possible, yes. But that is because the Rogue is one of the weakest classes in the game. And even if it is better than the Rogue in every way, the Ninja still pales in comparison to other more powerful martials.

The Samurai on the other hand looks better because the Cavalier as a class itself fills a more specific niche while the Samurai takes a more general role that can be applied to a greater amount of situations. Should the Samurai have been the base class and the Cavalier the alternate? Maybe. But the Samurai is in no way better than the Cavalier in every conceivable way. Mounted combat is one of these ways. Team support is another one of these ways.

It seems strange to me that the class name is a deal breaker for quite a few people. Maybe it's just me, but the class name is just a name. Especially in these two cases, it's incredible easy to just use the class mechanics and call it something else, like a Knight or Assassin. You don't even need to change any of its class abilities to make it non-Asian.

While it's true that the Ninja isn't necessarily better than other classes, I'm talking about when we compare apples to apples. The Ninja isn't going to outpace a wizard, but it is strictly better than its western counterpart. Just like wakizashis and katanas are flat-out superior to short swords and long-swords, respectively.

Maybe I'll take another look at the Samurai vs Cavalier, but that was just my experience. Resolve is technically more self-centered than Tactician, but again, it's just too much work to bother giving your teammates that boost. He trades out Cavaliers Charge for Weapon Expertise and then gets Mounted Archery to replace Expert Trainer at 4th level, which again are just flat out better. Tactician doesn't really catch up to Resolve until 9th Level when it becomes a swift action, but even then it still lags. Honorable Stand replaces Mighty Charge, which trades out situational Improved Crit/Keen for a bunch of immunities. It still gets Banner, which is the primary way that the Cavalier supports allies, and it can take any order - like Order of the Lion - that offers further party buffs.

Really, the only area in which the Cavalier is a better "team player" than a samurai is with bonus teamwork feats through Tactician, and most of the core teamwork feats suck. You'll take Outflank and Paired Opportunist and then the rest are just too situational to matter. They require a lot of coordination and effort for very little payoff, which is why, again, I hate Teamwork Feats as class features.

I understand that you can just rename whatever you want, much like you can play anything and make it a 'rogue', and that's usually what I do. (Ki pool becomes luck, etc.) but I still roll my eyes every time some new Asian-themed anything comes out because I know it's going to be presented as superior, and given superior mechanics, despite that being utterly asinine and often historically inaccurate.

Of course, some of my bias does come from high school. Running with a more geeky crowd than most there was never a shortage of otakus who couldn't shut up about the superiority of katanas and kung fu to anything that could even be tangentially related.


What drives you away from a class?

Losing spellcaster/manifester levels for a level in a prestige class. I want/need to be able to cast 9th Level spells/powers at Level 20, game writers, don't take that away from me!

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

EntrerisShadow wrote:

While it's true that the Ninja isn't necessarily better than other classes, I'm talking about when we compare apples to apples. The Ninja isn't going to outpace a wizard, but it is strictly better than its western counterpart. Just like wakizashis and katanas are flat-out superior to short swords and long-swords, respectively.

Maybe I'll take another look at the Samurai vs Cavalier, but that was just my experience. Resolve is technically more self-centered than Tactician, but again, it's just too much work to bother giving your teammates that boost. He trades out Cavaliers Charge for Weapon Expertise and then gets Mounted Archery to replace Expert Trainer at 4th level, which again are just flat out better. Tactician doesn't really catch up to Resolve until 9th Level when it becomes a swift action, but even then it still lags. Honorable Stand replaces Mighty Charge, which trades out situational Improved Crit/Keen for a bunch of immunities. It still gets Banner, which is the primary way that the Cavalier supports allies, and it can take any order - like Order of the Lion - that offers further party buffs.

Really, the only area in which the Cavalier is a better "team player" than a samurai is with bonus teamwork feats through Tactician, and most of the core teamwork feats suck. You'll take Outflank and Paired Opportunist and then the rest are just too situational to matter. They require a lot of coordination and effort for very little payoff, which is why, again, I hate Teamwork Feats as class features.

I understand that you can just rename whatever you want, much like you can play anything and make it a 'rogue', and that's usually what I do. (Ki pool becomes luck, etc.) but I still roll my eyes every time some new Asian-themed anything comes out because I know it's going to be presented as superior, and given superior mechanics, despite that being utterly asinine and often historically inaccurate.

Of course, some of my bias does come from high school. Running with a more geeky crowd than most there was never a shortage of otakus who couldn't shut up about the superiority of katanas and kung fu to anything that could even be tangentially related.

Ninja / Rogue is that whole "shiny fresh Pathfinder apple vs. stinky old 3.5 apple full of legacy worms" thing; you can pick any skill-monkey class and find that it's equally superior to the Rogue. The Ninja is comparable to the Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Bard. It's really not his fault that the Rogue isn't.

On the Cavalier... Expert Trainer is required for Horse Master, pretty much essential if you decide to multi-class for any reason. Cavalier's Charge is a +2 to hit with any melee weapon and removes the AC penalty for charging, so I wouldn't say that the Samurai's Weapon Expertise is so decisively better. Situationally better, maybe.
Of the Teamwork feats, the following are all awesome even if the only characters benefiting are the cavalier and his mount: Paired Opportunists, Precise Strike, Broken Wing Gambit, Coordinated Charge, Escape Route, Feint Partner, Pack Attack, Seize the Moment, Shake it Off, And Tandem Trip (syncs well with other Cav abilities). Coordinated Maneuvers, Coordinated Defense, Duck and Cover, Enfilading Fire, and Target of Opportunity can all be very powerful if you've got a consistent team. Coordinated Charge and Target of Opportunity in particular are very powerful as they allow you to take full-round and standard actions as immediate actions, drastically improving the groups action economy and leading to quicker conflict resolution. Target of Opportunity even syncs up well in groups with casters.


Squeakmaan wrote:
If a class is too powerful I avoid it. If it shows up in the optimizing threads, i generally avoid it.

Second this although it tends to be archetypes (Invulnerable Rager anyone?) I prefer my characters to be survivable with good offensive capabilities but unique and MY thought process behind them (not just maximised mechanics) and so...

Rangers: Situational abilities and not enough armour, and as you WILL have to hold the line at some point when that time does arrive they are not survivable enough in my experience.

Rogues: Perversely I feel the need to play these because they have been given such a raw deal in Pathfinder to prove that they are viable: One trick ponies (sneak attack) and very much the glass cannon. Even less survivable than the ranger.

Monk: Just... too MAD to be good offensively and defensively. They can excel at either, both is far more difficult to design however.

Gunslingers: Guns? Just no. No.

Summoners: Too, too, too over-powered. What were they thinking?

Witch: Too repetitive to play, *cackle*.

Alchemist: Again too powerful. The quality control on class balance must have had an off-year when these classes were developed.

You can probably tell I am not shivering with anticipation at the new classes being play-tested...


strayshift wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
If a class is too powerful I avoid it. If it shows up in the optimizing threads, i generally avoid it.

Second this although it tends to be archetypes (Invulnerable Rager anyone?) I prefer my characters to be survivable with good offensive capabilities but unique and MY thought process behind them (not just maximised mechanics) and so...

Rangers: Situational abilities and not enough armour, and as you WILL have to hold the line at some point when that time does arrive they are not survivable enough in my experience.

Rogues: Perversely I feel the need to play these because they have been given such a raw deal in Pathfinder to prove that they are viable: One trick ponies (sneak attack) and very much the glass cannon. Even less survivable than the ranger.

Monk: Just... too MAD to be good offensively and defensively. They can excel at either, both is far more difficult to design however.

Gunslingers: Guns? Just no. No.

Summoners: Too, too, too over-powered. What were they thinking?

Witch: Too repetitive to play, *cackle*.

Alchemist: Again too powerful. The quality control on class balance must have had an off-year when these classes were developed.

You can probably tell I am not shivering with anticipation at the new classes being play-tested...

How the heck is alchemist overpowered.... heck, if anything Alchemists and Inquisitors are seen as shining examples of jus the right level of balance...

Witch does not need to be repetitive. If you are only spamming Cackle+Evil Eye that if your own perogative. They have a completely viable spell list, and plenty of nift features via archetypes (Scarred-Witch Doctor can actually make an interesting tank for instance).

Summoners are not quite as OP as you may think. They are broken because they cause a lot of trouble from people not knowing the mechanics. Additionally, they have a very high base power, but their cealing is still no where near teh power of the true full casters...

If you think monks don't excel at its not your fault.. they are STUPID tough to build.. but Lormyr did disprove the myth that they cannot be good at offense and defence at the same time (I think it was in the thread vs marthkus about how Fighters were better than monks at high levels or something)


K177Y C47 wrote:
How the heck is alchemist overpowered.... heck, if anything Alchemists and Inquisitors are seen as shining examples of jus the right level of balance...

Too many times where a GM let the party alchemist nova against a dragon in an enclosed space instead of playing the dragon as something other than a mindless ooze with a breath weapon.

As for witch.... There ain't nothin' repetitive about reach bestow curse. Evil eye/misfortune to lower their save, then think up a fun whammy and lay it down.


blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
How the heck is alchemist overpowered.... heck, if anything Alchemists and Inquisitors are seen as shining examples of jus the right level of balance...
Too many times where a GM let the party alchemist nova against a dragon in an enclosed space instead of playing the dragon as something other than a mindless ooze with a breath weapon.

Well actually....

to be fair, the Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist who invests in Str and INA (Claws/bite), and power attack is a rather mean monstronsity...

Ok so I am going to charge... then pounce... then Claw+Claw+Bite+Rake+ (if both claws hit) Rend+Grab.... sounds about right?

The Exchange

Ed Reppert wrote:
On the subject of drill sergeants, read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Pay particular attention to the character of Fleet Sergeant Zim.

As a long-standing Heinlein fan, I almost feel dirty saying this, but John Scalzi outdid Sgt. Zim with the drill sergeant in Old Man's War - which was itself an homage to Troopers. In fact, I'll call it an improvement. Troopers took time off to preach; War is all about the story. That drill's dialogue... well, monologue really... must have been a hoot to write. Drills are so easy to parody.

Sergeant: Trooper, in all my years training useless new meat like you, you are the first person not to immediately supply me with an excellent reason to hate your guts in a very real and personal way. I find this deeply unnerving, so I'm making you squad leader. That way you'll be responsible for the rest and almost immediately screw up something that I can hate you for.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the worst thing I've ever heard one human being say to another was a particularly vociferous rant where a drill sergeant told one of my squad members that his mother must have discarded the baby and brought home the steaming pile of afterbirth. We made the mistake of laughing; things went poorly from there.


When a class does have the ability to successfully survive on their own in a world. Be it by complete inability to talk to strangers or inability to survive in the wild.


What drives me away from a class:

Alchemist: Bad experiences.

Cleric: Prepared spellcasting and the fact that there seldom is a deity that happens to match the character concept that matches the alignment I want to play.

Monk: Far too MAD for my tastes and restricted to alignments that don't match my preferred playstyle (I tend towards chaotic characters).

Ninja: Unless the game is actually in an "Eastern fantasy" setting (e.g. Jade Regent), I'd rather play a rogue, mechanically imbalanced or not. I'd be okay with playing a ninja refluffed as a rogue, but I'm writing "rogue" on the character sheet and calling the ki pool something like a trick pool.

Oracle: Oracle curses. While I like the idea of having a divine-caster version of sorcerers, I would rather have the option of not taking an oracle curse, forgoing the benefits as well as the drawback.

Paladin: I'll play one for something like Wrath of the Righteous that practically begs you to play one, but I'm not interested in having to deal with the goblin baby problem and having to guess which answer, if any, will have the GM not make me fall.

Samurai: See Ninja.

Wizard: Prepared spellcaster with the added tedium of spellbook maintenance, and the feeling that by playing one I'm somehow obligated to bend reality to my whim even when I have no desire to do so.


K177Y C47 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
How the heck is alchemist overpowered.... heck, if anything Alchemists and Inquisitors are seen as shining examples of jus the right level of balance...
Too many times where a GM let the party alchemist nova against a dragon in an enclosed space instead of playing the dragon as something other than a mindless ooze with a breath weapon.

Well actually....

to be fair, the Beastmorph Vivisectionist Alchemist who invests in Str and INA (Claws/bite), and power attack is a rather mean monstronsity...

Ok so I am going to charge... then pounce... then Claw+Claw+Bite+Rake+ (if both claws hit) Rend+Grab.... sounds about right?

True, but short answer: Dragons don't melee unless they know they're going to die anyway.

Against less intelligent & mobile prey, a vivisectionist is pretty sick. The drawback is . . . I'd have to play a vivisectionist. I just don't have any interest in that.


Ed Reppert wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Ed Reppert wrote:
On the subject of drill sergeants, read Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Pay particular attention to the character of Fleet Sergeant Zim.
When someone uses the name Zim with space travel, all I can think is "GIR."
Read the book. Seriously. :-)

The problem with Heinlein's stories is that, brilliant for their time though they may be, he always come across as a crotchety old man lecturing young'ins by at least half-way through. It's thoroughly aggravating when the narrator or a new character suddenly takes center stage and makes the reader live out a part that is half after school special / half one of these. If I wanted to be lectured in all the ways I was doing things wrong in my life, I'd still be going to church, thank you very much Rob.


Since I don't think anyone's said it so far: EntrerisShadow, sneak attacks works on constructs now. And plants. And undead. Also, Shadow Strike works on both melee and ranged attacks. That does mean the Snipers Eye talent is kind of pointless in comparison, but then that's a pretty standard evaluation of a lot of rogue talents.


EntrerisShadow wrote:

While it's true that the Ninja isn't necessarily better than other classes, I'm talking about when we compare apples to apples. The Ninja isn't going to outpace a wizard, but it is strictly better than its western counterpart. Just like wakizashis and katanas are flat-out superior to short swords and long-swords, respectively.

Maybe I'll take another look at the Samurai vs Cavalier, but that was just my experience. Resolve is technically more self-centered than Tactician, but again, it's just too much work to bother giving your teammates that boost. He trades out Cavaliers Charge for Weapon Expertise and then gets Mounted Archery to replace Expert Trainer at 4th level, which again are just flat out better. Tactician doesn't really catch up to Resolve until 9th Level when it becomes a swift action, but even then it still lags. Honorable Stand replaces Mighty Charge, which trades out situational Improved Crit/Keen for a bunch of immunities. It still gets Banner, which is the primary way that the Cavalier supports allies, and it can take any order - like Order of the Lion - that offers further party buffs.

Really, the only area in which the Cavalier is a better "team player" than a samurai is with bonus teamwork feats through Tactician, and most of the core teamwork feats suck. You'll take Outflank and Paired Opportunist and then the rest are just too situational to matter. They require a lot of coordination and effort for very little payoff, which is why, again, I hate Teamwork Feats as class features.

I understand that you can just rename whatever you want, much like you can play anything and make it a 'rogue', and that's usually what I do. (Ki pool becomes luck, etc.) but I still roll my eyes every time some new Asian-themed anything comes out because I know it's going to be presented as superior, and given superior mechanics, despite that being utterly asinine and often historically inaccurate.

Of course, some of my bias does come from high school. Running with a more geeky crowd than most there was never a shortage of otakus who couldn't shut up about the superiority of katanas and kung fu to anything that could even be tangentially related.

Ssalarn said most of what I was going to say here so I won't reiterate what he said.

Your point on katanas and wakizashis, however, is a point I want to address. You claim that katanas and wakizashis are flat-out superior to longswords and short swords, but this is not necessarily the case. They are not flat-out better. Sure, they have better stats, but it comes at the cost of requiring a feat in order to use them. And a feat would be better off being used on something else. The only exception to this is if you are playing a class that is specifically proficient in them.

Now, if you say that they are an unnecessary addition to the game, I'd likely agree. The slot for sword weapons is already filled with enough blades that they probably didn't need more. Frankly, this was likely the only combination of stats you could do to fit the katana in an otherwise filled weapon spot.

101 to 150 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.