what drives you away from a class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

I was wracking my brain, trying to think of a class I dislike. I couldn't do it. Then again, if I dislike a feature of a class, I change it.

I did come up with something though: Prestige Classes. I don't like multi-classing, so I dislike the concept of classes that require it. Even back in 3.0, I would develop a full 20 level chat for a prestige class instead of using them as written.


Fighter Too much work to make this class interesting.

Rogue Too much work to make this class effective.

Paladin To Code is terrible and leaves zero wiggle room. I ever mess up, boom, everything sucks.

Alchemist The Base class. It just has too many class features that don't really mesh together all that well. Feels like a class built more around the archetypes than the base class.

Witch Just not a fan of the spell list. And the hex selection isn't that great. There are some overly clear bests and worsts on a still relatively short list.

Gunslinger/Swashbuckler/Cavalier AKA "Do you like Guns, The Duelist Prestige Class, or mounted combat? No? Well, too bad! That's all they do!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
w01fe01 wrote:
just wondering what makes you look at a class and go "eww"

Forum posts.

Game play no see "eww". Maybe GMs skilled enough any class be fun. Or cause never play high level adventure.

Seen Synthesist and Juju Oracle too strong in game play. But not see "eww" in game play.

Grand Lodge

Cerberus Seven wrote:
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.

Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.


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?

Don't forget the Slam you can get from the Evangelist capstone now. You even get a free limb for its use.


Arachnofiend wrote:
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?

Don't forget the Slam you can get from the Evangelist capstone now. You even get a free limb for its use.

lulz I completely forgot about that -.-


What makes me look at a class and go "eww"? It depends.

Overall, I dislike prepared casters. I prefer spontaneous.

Not a fan of Dex builds for melee, and ranged isn't my preferred way. I prefer Strength-based melee.

I don't have Bards, but have no desire to play one. Love having one in the party, though.

Clerics have the prepared casting thing going against them, and all they get is Channel Energy. A few of the domain powers aren't bad.

I like the idea behind the rogue, but it just isn't the style I like to go with. Also don't like that everything it can do is given to other classes. Also, really hate how most people play this class.

I love everything about the druid, except for the prepared casting. It is also the only alignment restriction that I actually really like.

No fan of the monk. The idea behind it isn't bad, but I don't like the execution. Also has an alignment restriction that makes sense to me.

Only thing I really hate about the paladin is the other players. Honestly believe the alignment restriction should be any Good. Other than that, good class.

Only thing I don't like about the Barbarian is their alignment restriction. The rage mechanic can easily be described as the character going into a trance (kinda like with Rand al'Thor in Wheel of Time). And the rage could also be thought of as similar to Goku going Super Saiyajin (hope people don't kill me for that reference).

Sorcerer>Wizard. Really love the bloodlines, and they are spontaneous. I do like the idea behind the spellbook, and wish the divine casters had something similar. But again, don't like prepared casting.

I really, really, really hate the 2+Int mod skill points for so many classes. It works for the Int-based casters. The others, not so much.

Oh, and just everything about the Magus. Especially all the scimitar-wielding dervish dancer Dex-based shocking graspers.

I do like animal companions, and the idea of the Hunter class from the ACG really intrigues me. I hope it got better compared to the playtest versions. Their animal focus was rather terrible (IMO).

Edit: Not a fan of the oracle curse. Like the class otherwise.


Are people disliking the Magus?

Then again, I play mine int focused with decent strength(17+1level) and a longsword. Grab Extra Arcana pool as much as possible and just let the good times roll.

Dex-dervish magi make me throw-up a little in my mouth.

EDIT: Frostbite is the superior spell IMO


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Are people disliking the Magus?

Then again, I play mine int focused with decent strength(17+1level) and a longsword. Grab Extra Arcana pool as much as possible and just let the good times roll.

Dex-dervish magi make me throw-up a little in my mouth.

EDIT: Frostbite is the superior spell IMO

One of the most common complaints I see brought up with the magus is that Dervish Dancing Shocking Grasp magi are so ubiquitous.


Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Are people disliking the Magus?

Then again, I play mine int focused with decent strength(17+1level) and a longsword. Grab Extra Arcana pool as much as possible and just let the good times roll.

Dex-dervish magi make me throw-up a little in my mouth.

EDIT: Frostbite is the superior spell IMO

My favorite magus was a Magus that rana round in heavy armor, was a hextracrafter, and used a Flail because the flavor of the Heavy armored with a cursing flail is awesome xD...


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:

Are people disliking the Magus?

Then again, I play mine int focused with decent strength(17+1level) and a longsword. Grab Extra Arcana pool as much as possible and just let the good times roll.

Dex-dervish magi make me throw-up a little in my mouth.

EDIT: Frostbite is the superior spell IMO

One of the most common complaints I see brought up with the magus is that Dervish Dancing Shocking Grasp magi are so ubiquitous.

Well that is just because it just kinda happens... the class and its mechanics just kind of lend itself to dex builds due to the light armor in the beginning of the game (where most people usually play). Heck, even people who don't know much about optimizing are known for doing Dervish Dance thinking they found some cool combo...


Honestly the only way they can really change much with the magus to no go Dervish Dance is to create an Archetype that gets heavy armor sooner and can use spellstrike with a Two-Handed Weapon (if it could stack with Hexcrafter it would be awesome!!! Hex dropping SCYTHE!!!)


If a class has no interesting mechanics beyond what a commoner has, I'll generally avoid it. Commoners with higher numbers don't interest me.


K177Y C47 wrote:
Well that is just because it just kinda happens... the class and its mechanics just kind of lend itself to dex builds due to the light armor in the beginning of the game (where most people usually play). Heck, even people who don't know much about optimizing are known for doing Dervish Dance thinking they found some cool combo...

I just pretend to be a wizard until level 7. I start with 17 int who is going to know better?

Until about level 7, I'm a wizard with persistant mage armor and the best touch damage cantrip in the universe. (Also pretend that I am a wizard who accidentally saved all the 3rd level spells without using them)

Actually if I have Sheild up in a chain shirt, my AC is pretty solid until like level 7 anyways.


137ben wrote:
If a class has no interesting mechanics beyond what a commoner has, I'll generally avoid it. Commoners with higher numbers don't interest me.

Well technically a Wizard without spells is effectively a very smart commoner...


Marroar Gellantara wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Well that is just because it just kinda happens... the class and its mechanics just kind of lend itself to dex builds due to the light armor in the beginning of the game (where most people usually play). Heck, even people who don't know much about optimizing are known for doing Dervish Dance thinking they found some cool combo...

I just pretend to be a wizard until level 7. I start with 17 int who is going to know better?

Until about level 7, I'm a wizard with persistant mage armor and the best touch damage cantrip in the universe. (Also pretend that I am a wizard who accidentally saved all the 3rd level spells without using them)

Actually if I have Sheild up in a chain shirt, my AC is pretty solid until like level 7 anyways.

yean but htat kinda defeats the whole reason people play the Magus and not the EK doesn't it? You know... to play the Gish guy from level 1 (ish)


K177Y C47 wrote:
Well that is just because it just kinda happens... the class and its mechanics just kind of lend itself to dex builds due to the light armor in the beginning of the game (where most people usually play). Heck, even people who don't know much about optimizing are known for doing Dervish Dance thinking they found some cool combo...

I think the main reason for DD builds being so common is because Magi are pretty much forced in dueling, and DD is basically the only way to make dueling an effective combat style in PF.

Then agian, Str-based Magi are still very effective and have some solid advantages over their DD siblings...


Lemmy wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Well that is just because it just kinda happens... the class and its mechanics just kind of lend itself to dex builds due to the light armor in the beginning of the game (where most people usually play). Heck, even people who don't know much about optimizing are known for doing Dervish Dance thinking they found some cool combo...

I think the main reason for DD builds being so common is because Magi are pretty much forced in dueling, and DD is basically the only way to make dueling an effective combat style in PF.

Then agian, Str-based Magi are still very effective and have some solid advantages over their DD siblings...

That is true. Str-magi actually end up winning out in the end, but they take more forethought and playing intelligently than the newer player may be used to and a bit less obvious in power than the DD magus (like compensating for lower AC by using yoru first round's Spell COmbat to drop the shield spell).

EDIT: Personally I love Str-Magi. My two favorite builds are a heavy armored Hexcrafter and a Kensai that Str Builds and uses a Keen Katana and abuses (G) Bladed Dash to go all Kenshin on people's abdominals xD


K177Y C47 wrote:
Honestly the only way they can really change much with the magus to no go Dervish Dance is to create an Archetype that gets heavy armor sooner and can use spellstrike with a Two-Handed Weapon (if it could stack with Hexcrafter it would be awesome!!! Hex dropping SCYTHE!!!)

You can already spellstrike with a two handed weapon.

Free action hand off
*cast spell*
Free action hand back on sword
*hit dude*


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Cerberus Seven wrote:


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.

<shrug> To each his own.


Zhayne wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:

Min-maxers with a terminal case of stophavingfunguys.

Especially when magic is involved.

Cool story bro.

TrueStory.jpg

Grand Lodge

EntrerisShadow wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
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.
Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

Missed this before, but . . .

I just realized that Shadow Strike is a combat feat that requires a BAB of +1 and doesn't apply to Total Concealment. Also it's not part of the core rules so no luck if you're playing PFS, or if your GM just says "Core Only". Having taken a closer look, I think that reiterates my point.

The devs are saying to be effective at what should be your schtick as a rogue you have to be 3rd level, with a feat, AND you still can't use it if the target has total concealment.

Sneak Attack is really NOT that powerful of a mechanic, fellas. It really doesn't need to be nerfed into the ground like that.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

EntrerisShadow wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
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.
Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

Missed this before, but . . .

I just realized that Shadow Strike is a combat feat that requires a BAB of +1 and doesn't apply to Total Concealment. Also it's not part of the core rules so no luck if you're playing PFS, or if your GM just says "Core Only". Having taken a closer look, I think that reiterates my point.

The devs are saying to be effective at what should be your schtick as a rogue you have to be 3rd level, with a feat, AND you still can't use it if the target has total concealment.

Sneak Attack is really NOT that powerful of a mechanic, fellas. It really doesn't need to be nerfed into the ground like that.

Shadow Strike is from the Advanced Player's Guide and is perfectly legal for PFS. Paizo considers anything in their PRD (basically any non-Inner Sea hardcover) to be part of their core product line.


Ssalarn wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
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.
Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

Missed this before, but . . .

I just realized that Shadow Strike is a combat feat that requires a BAB of +1 and doesn't apply to Total Concealment. Also it's not part of the core rules so no luck if you're playing PFS, or if your GM just says "Core Only". Having taken a closer look, I think that reiterates my point.

The devs are saying to be effective at what should be your schtick as a rogue you have to be 3rd level, with a feat, AND you still can't use it if the target has total concealment.

Sneak Attack is really NOT that powerful of a mechanic, fellas. It really doesn't need to be nerfed into the ground like that.

Shadow Strike is from the Advanced Player's Guide and is perfectly legal for PFS. Paizo considers anything in their PRD (basically any non-Inner Sea hardcover) to be part of their core product line.

...So does that mean I don't have to drag in my copy of the APG (and furthermore, cash in for UC/UM) to use its contents in my first Society game this Saturday. Because if so that changes everything for my Inquisitor


Arachnofiend wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:
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.
Well that is a step in the right direction, but still.

Missed this before, but . . .

I just realized that Shadow Strike is a combat feat that requires a BAB of +1 and doesn't apply to Total Concealment. Also it's not part of the core rules so no luck if you're playing PFS, or if your GM just says "Core Only". Having taken a closer look, I think that reiterates my point.

The devs are saying to be effective at what should be your schtick as a rogue you have to be 3rd level, with a feat, AND you still can't use it if the target has total concealment.

Sneak Attack is really NOT that powerful of a mechanic, fellas. It really doesn't need to be nerfed into the ground like that.

Shadow Strike is from the Advanced Player's Guide and is perfectly legal for PFS. Paizo considers anything in their PRD (basically any non-Inner Sea hardcover) to be part of their core product line.
...So does that mean I don't have to drag in my copy of the APG (and furthermore, cash in for UC/UM) to use its contents in my first Society game this Saturday. Because if so that changes everything for my Inquisitor

Yes, or watermarked printouts of the relevant sections of the PDFs.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed some derailing posts and personal attacks. Leave previous drama out of this thread and be civil to each other please.


Arachnofiend wrote:
...So does that mean I don't have to drag in my copy of the APG (and furthermore, cash in for UC/UM) to use its contents in my first Society game this Saturday. Because if so that changes everything for my Inquisitor

You must own the source and be able to provide a legal copy to the GM on request. That means either:

1. Bringing the actual physical book
2. Showing the GM a watermarked PDF
3. Printing out the relevant sections from the watermarked pdf

Note that a photocopy of pages from the physical book is no good as that does not establish ownership. Also if printing from your PDF make sure the printing doesn't actually blank your email address watermark.

Family members can share the use of books if they wish.


Ah, okay, that's what I thought the rule was before. Never mind then.

Scarab Sages

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

Let's see here:

Category 1: Do not want.
Druid: Has a pet. Do not want.
Summoner: Has a pet. Do not want.
Cavalier: Has a pet. Do not want. The rest of the class is great, though. Hoping ACG has petless Cav...
Gunslinger: Too much Homebrewing required to erase crit failures, touch-slingers, quick-draw weapon cord shenanigans, and billion dollar weaponry. Do not want.
Ninja: Invisible all the time and a needless re-branding of the rogue to appeal to a certain demographic. Do not want.
Samurai: See the second half of ninja. Do not want.

Category 2: If only...
Ranger: MADDEST of the MAD classes (Pal's too, but they're funner). CLR is bad with 3 MAD's, but ranger needs 4 if he's gonna be ranged! Luckily they get a meh class feature to replace the "Do not want." pet. If only...
Monk: Don't care for the Eastern Mysticism thematics. Brass Knucks got errata'd away from useful. If only...
Rogue: Stealth rules *sigh*. Dim light preventing stabbity death *facepalm sigh*. If only...
Witch: Mandates familiar, though familiars are easily enough ignored to move from "Do not want." to If only...

Category 3: Meh.
Barbarian: 10' speed and OMG RAGE POWERS don't win it over fighter for me. Meh.
Oracle: Don't like the curse mechanic. Meh.
Cleric: So fun, but MAD frustrations. Meh.
Magus: I can no has arrows? Okay :( Meh.

The other classes I either like playing, don't play enough to have an opinion, or just forgot them.


1. Companions and Summons Additional bookkeeping, complicates combat. Druids, choose Domain. Rangers, go Freebooter or Guide. I'd make an exception with Summoners because Eidolons are their schtick, but I'd discourage the class. I don't mind mounts since they move with the player, but...

2. Mounted Combat It's just a mess in this game.

3. Generalist/Prepared Casters Too strong. I prefer specialist/spontaneous casters a whole lot more - it just seems more balanced to me.

4. ALIGNMENT RESTRICTION Biggest turn-off there is. All deities want their champion, why are there just LG paladins?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:


4. ALIGNMENT RESTRICTION Biggest turn-off there is. All deities want their champion, why are there just LG paladins?

There' are plenty of them: Inquisitors can be any alignment. Some Cavaliers. Some Rangers. Warrior-priests. Some clerics. Some oracles. The Anti-paladin.

Why does a holy warrior have to be NAMED Paladin? Paladin is the name for the LG Holy Warrior.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


4. ALIGNMENT RESTRICTION Biggest turn-off there is. All deities want their champion, why are there just LG paladins?

There' are plenty of them: Inquisitors can be any alignment. Some Cavaliers. Some Rangers. Warrior-priests. Some clerics. Some oracles. The Anti-paladin.

Why does a holy warrior have to be NAMED Paladin? Paladin is the name for the LG Holy Warrior.

And the mechanics and spell list are all tailored to support a Lawful Good character as well. The name Paladin pretty much carries all the connotations of goodliness, righteousness, etc. You'd pretty much have to tear the entire class apart from the ground up to create a new chassis to accomodate any alignment, and they already did that when they made the Warpriest. Fast buffing divine caster with bonus feats and the ability to use his character level as his BAB/Fighter level to qualify for combat feats? Seems to fit the bill.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


4. ALIGNMENT RESTRICTION Biggest turn-off there is. All deities want their champion, why are there just LG paladins?

There' are plenty of them: Inquisitors can be any alignment. Some Cavaliers. Some Rangers. Warrior-priests. Some clerics. Some oracles. The Anti-paladin.

Why does a holy warrior have to be NAMED Paladin? Paladin is the name for the LG Holy Warrior.

1. Paladin is the name of 16th century Carolingian imperial soldiers tasked with killing Saracens for superficially religious, but intrinsically political, motives. Pardon me if I think that is not necessary Lawful or Good.

2. Now, the actual fantasy trope that the PF-Paladin wants to evoke is the (Divine) Champion - a martially-trained devotee of a deity/ideal, whose fighting prowess has been enhanced by their deity to allow them to smite the enemies of their adoration. The concept itself mandates neither lawfulness nor good.

It's not the same as a Cleric, which is tasked with the study and adoration of a divinity, and their powers come from being able to materialize aspects of their deity. Note that the Cleric calls for these powers while the Champion is imbued with them.
It's not the same as the Inquisitor, either, as their role is a more underhanded one and, rather than being imbued with divine powers, still have to call for them.

The Rangers and the Oracles are a whole thing altogether. Rangers are mundane fighters with a small understanding of the powers of some divinities. Oracles study mysteries.

Antipaladins ARE Champions. But they are just Paladins of another alignment.

3. If you have such a comprehensive list of classes that are similar to Paladins, why do you even need Paladins? I know why I need them - because they evoke a specific trope - and I know why I need them to be of any alignment - because the trope does not mandate LG.

4. Why do LG Holy Warriors (as you call them, but that term has other connotations than Champion, so I don't use it) have to be called Paladins, as you say? Because someone in the 1980's said so? It's a name, it doesn't serve game balance or anything.

5. Granted, spells and Lay on Hands would need alignment specific-retailoring. But that's easy to do, just like the Antipaladin has done.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
**But that's easy to do, just like the Antipaladin has done.

The Antipaladin had to be redone as a complete alternate class with a unique spell list, almost completely rewritten class features, etc. They'd have to do that for every single alignment, which is actually far from easy. It's also expensive, and not really serving to fill any niche that isn't already very well covered.

It'd basically be a fairly significant expenditure of time, resources, and funds, for the sole purpose of pleasing people who want to write "Paladin 2, LE" on their character sheet.

Paladin has carried connotations of extreme virtue and nobility since the rise of the Arthurian saga; it's not just something that got slapped together back in 1e and stuck around since.


Ssalarn wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
**But that's easy to do, just like the Antipaladin has done.

The Antipaladin had to be redone as a complete alternate class with a unique spell list, almost completely rewritten class features, etc. They'd have to do that for every single alignment, which is actually far from easy. It's also expensive, and not really serving to fill any niche that isn't already very well covered.

It'd basically be a fairly significant expenditure of time, resources, and funds, for the sole purpose of pleasing people who want to write "Paladin 2, LE" on their character sheet.

Paladin has carried connotations of extreme virtue and nobility since the rise of the Arthurian saga; it's not just something that got slapped together back in 1e and stuck around since.

Jettisoning from this conversation because it's thread derailment. Nevertheless, I still consider that the Antipaladin functions perfectly for all 3 evil alignments, and the Paladin for all the 3 good alignments. There should just be a Neutral one and we're golden.


DrDeth wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


4. ALIGNMENT RESTRICTION Biggest turn-off there is. All deities want their champion, why are there just LG paladins?

There' are plenty of them: Inquisitors can be any alignment. Some Cavaliers. Some Rangers. Warrior-priests. Some clerics. Some oracles. The Anti-paladin.

Why does a holy warrior have to be NAMED Paladin? Paladin is the name for the LG Holy Warrior.

By that logic, why do we need a paladin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To get back to topic, here are my class specific concerns:

- Alchemist: Love flavor. Hate features being all over the place - would like them to be more specialized, like spell-casting (through potions) rogues.

- Barbarian: Love flavor. Hate rage-rounds tracking, alignment restriction.

- Bard: Love versatility. Hate no baseline arcane spellcasting failure reduction.

- Cavalier: Love sharing teamwork feats, mundane martial buffer flavor. Hate obligatory mounts, boring Orders, MADness.

- Cleric: Love customization. Hate prepared casters.

- Druid: Love spell-list, wildshape bonus. Hate prepared casters, summons, actually changing shape when wildshaping, alignment restriction.

- Inquisitor: Love flavor. Hate detect lies at will, feature clutter.

- Fighter: Love customization and versatility. Hate little leeway in terms of optimization, magical-item dependency.

- Gunslinger: Love lack of MADness. Hate flavor.

- Magus: Love playstyle. Hate builds, flavor.

- Monk: Love abilities. Hate feat-starvation, MADness, alignment restriction.

- Oracle: Love Mysteries. Hate unbalanced Favored Class Bonus between races.

- Paladin/Antipaladin (same class, really): Love flavor. Hate alignment restriction.

- Ranger: Love flavor. Hate favored enemy/terrain, wand dependency (for Instant Enemy), MADness. (The Guide archetype is one of my favorite things out there.)

- Rogue: Love flavor. Hate lack of daily powers to brute-force strategic disadvantage (i.e. flanking, sneak immunity).

- Sorcerer: Love spontaneous casting, bloodline powers. Hate nothing, really.

- Summoner: Love Evolutions. Hate summons. (Love the Synthesist, my pet peeve with it is that the Eidolon takes over your physical attributes for some reason.)

- Witch: Love flavor. Hate playstyle. (Repetitive, Scarred tricks seem like powergaming to me. I love the idea of Cackle, just not the execution.)

- Wizard: Love uh, nothing. Hate prepared caster, familiar.


Sorcerers turns me off... they could be a great class but as a full caster having the delayed spell progression is a no no in my book and a near instant disqualifier....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:

- Alchemist: Love flavor. Hate features being all over the place - would like them to be more specialized, like spell-casting (through potions) rogues.

- Druid: Love spell-list, wildshape bonus. Hate prepared casters, summons, actually changing shape when wildshaping, alignment restriction.

- Inquisitor: Love flavor. Hate detect lies at will, feature clutter.

Alchemist: I think Alchemists, more than any other class, were designed to take an archetype. They become much more focused. Grenadier for bombs. Don't like poison? Trapbreaker. Vivisectionist for that potion-rouge feel you wanted. I think you should try it just one more time, Alchs are fun as hell.

Druid: ...How would you suggest wildshape work if not changing shape? I am honestly baffled by this one.

Inquisitor: How does a divine caster trained to hunt down heretics having lie detection turn you off if you love the flavor? That ability to root out the unfaithful is the flavor.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

- Alchemist: Love flavor. Hate features being all over the place - would like them to be more specialized, like spell-casting (through potions) rogues.

- Druid: Love spell-list, wildshape bonus. Hate prepared casters, summons, actually changing shape when wildshaping, alignment restriction.

- Inquisitor: Love flavor. Hate detect lies at will, feature clutter.

Alchemist: I think Alchemists, more than any other class, were designed to take an archetype. They become much more focused. Grenadier for bombs. Don't like poison? Trapbreaker. Vivisectionist for that potion-rouge feel you wanted. I think you should try it just one more time, Alchs are fun as hell.

Druid: ...How would you suggest wildshape work if not changing shape? I am honestly baffled by this one.

Inquisitor: How does a divine caster trained to hunt down heretics having lie detection turn you off if you love the flavor? That ability to root out the unfaithful is the flavor.

Honestly the thing I personally dislike about Inquisitor's at-will discern lie is how useless it is to a normal build. Discern lie allows a Will save, and since it's a SLA, we're looking at DC14+Cha mod, which generally won't be stellar. And if the target makes the save they know you tried something. Bleh.

Back to OT, I'm not a fan of barbarians. Too much flirting with instant death. I got enough of 0 hp=dead during my BECMI/1e days.

I'm currently trying a witch but I'm not sure the flavor sits well with me.

I have trouble playing paladins - I don't have any problems with the class per se, just that I don't care for lawful good very much.

I haven't really liked rangers since they changed from Tolkeinesque uber-warriors in 1e to 2e park rangers. Again there's nothing "wrong" with PF rangers, I just miss my full plate wearing, giant one-shotting, double hp at first level, wizard and druid spell casting beast from 1e.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:

- Alchemist: Love flavor. Hate features being all over the place - would like them to be more specialized, like spell-casting (through potions) rogues.

- Druid: Love spell-list, wildshape bonus. Hate prepared casters, summons, actually changing shape when wildshaping, alignment restriction.

- Inquisitor: Love flavor. Hate detect lies at will, feature clutter.

Alchemist: I think Alchemists, more than any other class, were designed to take an archetype. They become much more focused. Grenadier for bombs. Don't like poison? Trapbreaker. Vivisectionist for that potion-rouge feel you wanted. I think you should try it just one more time, Alchs are fun as hell.

Druid: ...How would you suggest wildshape work if not changing shape? I am honestly baffled by this one.

Inquisitor: How does a divine caster trained to hunt down heretics having lie detection turn you off if you love the flavor? That ability to root out the unfaithful is the flavor.

1. I absolutely love Archetyped Alchemists. As you can see, some of my complaints about some classes are about their base version. For example, I think the Scarred Witch Doctor Archetype makes the Witch really fun for me. The Guide Archetype eliminates most of the things I don't like from Rangers. I wish there were some Alchemist Archetype that did away with Mutagens, I'd like to play a rogue-like Alchemist without being Mr Hyde or the Hulk.

2. Perhaps similarly to how the Ranger Beastshaper works -- you get abilities from that creature without TURNING into that creature. Perhaps my Druid could get some of the bonuses of turning into a Cat without actually turning into a Cat -- for example, grow claws, nimbler legs, etc. I wish there were an Archetype that let me do this.

3. I love that! But I don't like the nuke option for intrigue-based campaigns. I'd rather have the Inquisitor be able to detect whether someone has broken commandment of their religion, but in a very vague way.


Secret Wizard wrote:
1. I absolutely love Archetyped Alchemists. As you can see, some of my complaints about some classes are about their base version. For example, I think the Scarred Witch Doctor Archetype makes the Witch really fun for me. The Guide Archetype eliminates most of the things I don't like from Rangers. I wish there were some Alchemist Archetype that did away with Mutagens, I'd like to play a rogue-like Alchemist without being Mr Hyde or the Hulk.

The Crypt Breaker's Draught replaces Mutagen and provides special sense abilities (darkvision/scent) instead of the ability modifiers. The archetype is otherwise really bad for anything that isn't swarming with undead, though.


How can flavor be a dealbreaker when you can flavor the class however you want?


Zhayne wrote:
How can flavor be a dealbreaker when you can flavor the class however you want?

Gunslinger has guns. Magus doesn't seem organic to me.


I hate gunslinger because they are almost all built the same exact way. There is little variety in them.

I hate the magus because they are also similar, not as much as the gunslinger but still has little variety.

Paladin I hate because few people play a paladin with any code. I see them kill and break laws as much as a barbarian.

I hate the rogue because they are outclassed in almost every way. They are most poorly made class and paizo should be ashamed of they turned out.

SUmmoner I hate because they take forever on their turns and go very slow.

I hate witch because the sleep hex is uber power and they do not have a matchign skill causiong almost everyone to take the sleep hex.

I hate the wizard because they need a touch more to compare to a sorcerer.

Sovereign Court

Zhayne wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


4. ALIGNMENT RESTRICTION Biggest turn-off there is. All deities want their champion, why are there just LG paladins?

There' are plenty of them: Inquisitors can be any alignment. Some Cavaliers. Some Rangers. Warrior-priests. Some clerics. Some oracles. The Anti-paladin.

Why does a holy warrior have to be NAMED Paladin? Paladin is the name for the LG Holy Warrior.

By that logic, why do we need a paladin?

We dont time to demote to prestige class.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Secret Wizard wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
How can flavor be a dealbreaker when you can flavor the class however you want?
Gunslinger has guns. Magus doesn't seem organic to me.

Change "Gunslinger" to "Boltslinger", give him crossbows and exchange a few of his Deeds so they don't deal with the misfire mechanics, and you've actually got a really cool class with no real issues.

I'm surprised Magus doesn't feel "organic" to you; it's probably one of the best blendings of martial and arcane I've seen. About the only piece that feels tacked on and unnecessary is their 10th level Fighter Training. It just feels like they had a hole to fill and took the easy way out.


Gonna sound like a munchkin here, but whatever...

The only classes I dislike are Fighter, Rogue, (vanilla) Monk and Cavalier.

Why? Because they are way too ineffective and their options are too limited. Fighters are even worse because the player can basically be replaced by a recorder playing "I full attack" over and over.

Rogues can be fun out of combat, but their awful defenses means they won't be fun for long, and their awful offense means they ain't fun in combat.

I like unarmed combat, but vanilla Monk takes too much effort and too many resources to work.

Cavalier/Samurai are rather dull, IMO. I don't like having to depend on a mount and teamwork feats are mostly bad. Additionally, their seem be about as as ineffective as Fighters.


Lemmy wrote:

Goona sound like a munchkin here, but whatever...

The only classes I dislike are Fighter, Rogue, (vanilla) Monk and Cavalier.

Why? Because they are way too ineffective and their options are too limited. Fighters are even worse because the player can basically be replaced by a recorder playing "I full attack" over and over.

Rogues can be fun out of combat, but their awful defenses means they won't be fun for long, and their awful offense means they ain't fun in combat.

I like unarmed combat, but vanilla Monk takes too much effort and too many resources to work.

Cavalier/Samurai are rather dull, IMO. I don't like having to depend on a mount and teamwork feats are mostly bad. Additionally, their seem be about as as ineffective as Fighters.

Considering how I refuse to play those classes now that would make me a munchkin too :P

I put monks above the other two, mainly because of archetypes and that I can make core monk work with a couple house rules that make sense to me (no -2 penalty on flurry, Monk armor bonus as just monk bonus applying to to-hit, damage, and CMB in addition to the original bonuses).

Fighters I place above rogues because the "AM SMASH" play style can be cathartic. The almost dying every fight keeps the game interesting until you actually die at higher levels and re-roll something that actually scales well.

Rogues. Oh god rogues. I really want to love having tons of skills and the unique combat mechanic of jumping through an endless series of hoops to do almost passable combat contributions, I really do. But getting the party killed because I couldn't pull my weight in a fight kills any fun I could have from the class.

151 to 200 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.