what drives you away from a class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 238 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

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

i have this happen with a few honestly.

Ranger-i hate that i HAVE to get boon companion if i want his animal to match a druids, and i really really hate favored enemy/terrain. its too hit or miss for me. you could theoretically go a entire characters lifespan without every getting advantage of either. I know people suggest "talk to your DM" but then it feels too gamey for me. Whats funny is in old dnd (pre pathfinder) i really liked rangers.

Magus-i dont dislike it as much as a ranger, and theoretically i should enjoy the class, a real mesh of martial and magic, arcane magic to boot! But i dont, something about the gish, something about the namby pamby dexterity based with INT focused martial/caster i dont like. Conversely Blood Rager in the ACG is right on the money for me, thats what i want from a martial/caster combination.

Paladin-same as most people, stuck with lawful good, i dont play lawful good. only good i play is chaotic. Ive tried to play lawful good characters, i hate it...and makes me hate my character.

Cleric-nothing expressly against them, i just find them boring, oracles are much more interesting to me

Rogue-id rather play a ninja...

Ninja-i played a ninja, perhaps i have a really bad mind for the 3/4 bab stealth/sneak attack playstyle, but i found it incredibly underwhelming even with invisibility

wizard-i tend to favor martials (i get more satisfaction for some reason) so thats one strike. second i just like the gish on sorcerers way more!

cavalier-i hate mounts...a lot. maybe a archetype..but then i just feel like a fighter with a different name.

gunslinger-dont hate, just dont want to ever play, i like my fantasy without guns.

looking back that is a larger list then i had anticipated! lets make it even longer, what classes do i really enjoy?

Monk-i love the little dude. ive spent more time theorizing, building, rebuilding different monks then anything,each one unique and tried something different. the class may be weak but there is a lot of unique builds to them i enjoy.

Barbarian-Conan, Kull, diablo games...ive always loved barbarians

alchemist-a few interesting builds, i like the gish to them, and oddly like the bomb/potion focus. id probably play this before a bard for support. yet oddly its one of the few classes i havent tried to play yet!

edit: how about some ACG comments?

[u]hate[/u]

Swashbuckler-same reason i dont like magus honestly, namby pamby

slayer-same reason i dont like rangers/rogues

skald-isnt there a bard archetype for this? with probalby more flexibility?

[u]like[/u]

bloodrager-this might become my next favorite class as it finally hits my sweet spot for martial/caster mashed together.

warpriest-more interesting then the cleric, less limiting then the paladin/inquisitor...might become my defactor divine warrior choice.

and the one class that i really want to just LOVE but it falls painfully short for me?

BRAWLER-it is literally what i want to do with gestalt (combine monk+fighter) but...wasting design space focusing on combat maneuvers (ugh cmon, put a archetype in for that dont muddle a class's base mechanics with it) and a incredibly limited and unimpressive class mechanic. i hate both of those features of the class so much id be tempted to play it and act like they are not there.

Liberty's Edge

I'm not really fond of casters, so that kind of rules out wizards, clerics and such. I do like half-casters, though, since they hit a good balance between martials (my preferred classes) and casters. I'm really excited about brawlers. It's about time we got a GOOD unarmed class!

Also, bards. I never liked bards. I don't know why, I just don't.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You complain about the weak ranger animal companion then dismiss the cavaliers awesome animal companion? You also left off the samurai.

I don't like the bard. It just seems random and a weak theme. I would rather play a support cleric,oracle, or a arcane focused rogue or ninja.


Personally, I find the basic Martials dull...

Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, rogues, slayers... ect..

I prefer casters... when your turn is "I Full attack" I get very bored very fast....


Things that turn me off a class:

1. Alignment restrictions: I don't mind the cleric's restriction, and restrictions like "any non-lawful" aren't onerous even if I think they're idiotic, but I generally avoid anything tighter than that. Too many DMs have very specific and peculiar ideas about this stuff, particularly when it comes to the meaning of Law and/or Good.

2. Jack-of-All-Trades: I like the idea of well-rounded characters moderately talented in many areas, but in practice it just doesn't play as cool as I imagine it, especially when it comes to combat. So I generally avoid MAD classes, partial casters, and those with medium BAB.

3. Too Simple: I'll play simple martial-types at low-low levels, but I lean toward casters for level 5+ games.


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.

I Dislike rangers and will probably just ban them and recommend that my PCs play slayers when the APC is published.

Paladins are a fun class but they need the right combination of player, party, and world type to work. As a GM it is useful to have a PC paladin to help keep the party on track so that we can advance the story.

Monks just don't work mechanically and I have not found a way to make them work.

I dislike druids and summoners only because they have a lot of planning required and I have had PCs play them poorly and show down gemeplay a lot.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you don't like all of those classes, you might want to look at a classless system like Savage Worlds.


Let's see ...

Prep-casting. Too annoying, too powerful, too much paperwork, doesn't fit my idea of how magic works.

Alignment restrictions. Just ... no.

Power-loss mechanics. LAME.

Summons, mounts, familiars, animal companions. I don't want to juggle that many sheets when I'm a player. Fortunately, these are all removable nowadays.

I try to avoid classes where people perceive only one personality/schtick for them. Hippie druids/rangers, flamboyant musician bards, backstabbing (the party) rogues, dumb-as-a-bowl-of-mice barbarians ... the list goes on.

Yes, this does leave me with about half a dozen classes I actually like, though there are others I will play if I feel I have to for a concept.


Well of the core classes since 3.0, my by far least played class is Monk. I don't really hate it or anything, it's just ... too niche. A bunch of odd little defensive abilities and restrictions and special cases - it's like the whole class is a corner case. No generalism and poor focus, IMO.

Rogue comes in second. I mostly don't like how their core combat schtick can be easily and completely negated. Pathfinder did improve things for the rogue substantially, but it's still rather limited in tactics. Out of combat they're nice, but I prefer bards there. Actually, I just prefer bards in general.

Non-core, Alchemists top my list of not-liked. I don't like the bombs. I don't like the Jekyll and Hyde style mutagens. I don't like that "alchemical" is another type of bonus. I don't like anything about the theme of the class specifics. Make a wizard with Brew Potion, or a witch with the cauldron hex - those are the more iconic alchemists to my mind.


GeneticDrift wrote:

You complain about the weak ranger animal companion then dismiss the cavaliers awesome animal companion? You also left off the samurai.

I don't like the bard. It just seems random and a weak theme. I would rather play a support cleric,oracle, or a arcane focused rogue or ninja.

because i dont like mounts (cavelier)

i left off a few classes, its because i dont feel strongly in one direction or the other


K177Y C47 wrote:

Personally, I find the basic Martials dull...

Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, rogues, slayers... ect..

I prefer casters... when your turn is "I Full attack" I get very bored very fast....

i understand a lot of people possess this mentality and in fact i understand it, yet strangely im more attracted to martials, i get more satisfaction from rolling the dice on a weapon strike then that fireball (weird i know, must be because of the image in my mind, i get no satisfaction out of not using my imaginary muscles to slap someone around apparently)


the David wrote:
If you don't like all of those classes, you might want to look at a classless system like Savage Worlds.

i dont have an issue with myself disliking classes, there are enough classes and archetypes and differenet builds that im not going to run out of interests anytime soon!

my RL friends play pathfinder, i like pathfinder, and my town has a weekly PFS.

id try savage worlds but there is simply no community for it in my area.


Fighters: Played fighters before - DnD just seems to want them to be super boring no matter what edition (2nd, 3.75, 4th) They can never do anything besides hit stuff really hard. Nothing makes a Fighter stand out from say, the Warrior NPC class.

Druids: Like a lamer version of the Cleric and the Summoner mixed together, with super petty restrictions like "no metal armor" and stuff. Meh.

Gunslinger: They looked cool to me for awhile, but I think they're just too cheesy OP getting Dex mod to their damage AND hitting touch AC at range.

Bard: Neither a spell caster or a martial, somewhere inbetween and I don't like it. Not like the Magus btw which is clearly a martial with combat casting abilities. This class just seems a little too "passive" for me.

Monk: Super MAD class, but I might try to give it a shot if my DM lets me play a Kasatha (which were basically made to play Monks and give it a power boost) I think the worst part about the monk is NO armor, which is rather lame.

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

Ranger: Nothing appeals to me, and getting a more limited version of an animal companion sucks.

A word on the Cleric - 4e gave me a bad taste of it since my friend played a Cleric. Initially my impression of Cleric was "Healbot" with an even more serious case of MAD than the Monk, but after my successful Dwarven Battle Cleric build I realized the Cleric can be pulled off - it just needs a LOT of very fine work done to do it. I hear about how people say Cleric was better in 3.5 than the Fighter at fighting and that changed in Pathfinder, my experience is they are still better.


CommandoDude wrote:

Fighters: Played fighters before - DnD just seems to want them to be super boring no matter what edition (2nd, 3.75, 4th) They can never do anything besides hit stuff really hard. Nothing makes a Fighter stand out from say, the Warrior NPC class.

Druids: Like a lamer version of the Cleric and the Summoner mixed together, with super petty restrictions like "no metal armor" and stuff. Meh.

Gunslinger: They looked cool to me for awhile, but I think they're just too cheesy OP getting Dex mod to their damage AND hitting touch AC at range.

Bard: Neither a spell caster or a martial, somewhere inbetween and I don't like it. Not like the Magus btw which is clearly a martial with combat casting abilities. This class just seems a little too "passive" for me.

Monk: Super MAD class, but I might try to give it a shot if my DM lets me play a Kasatha (which were basically made to play Monks and give it a power boost) I think the worst part about the monk is NO armor, which is rather lame.

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

A word on the Cleric - 4e gave me a bad taste of it since my friend played a Cleric. Initially my impression of Cleric was "Healbot" with an even more serious case of MAD than the Monk, but after my successful Dwarven Battle Cleric build I realized the Cleric can be pulled off - it just needs a LOT of very fine work done to do it.

whats funny is that the no armor part and can fight unarmed is a big attraction to me liking the monk, i so want to be competitive with a unarmed no armor class...nothing manlier then a open chest fisticuffing the dragon with a 30 foot jump right in the face! (ok ya..sorry, i love monks rather irrationally i know)


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

anything where i have to probably check back on the rules of something, i don't like. So this is generally casters and weird abilities with a ton of specific rules, like the eidolon and such.

The Exchange

I've never been a bard fan. They've just never inspired me to a character concept at all really.

Mechanics wise there's no class I think ism worse than the other. I've played many of them, and find it's not the class that gives me the enjoyment but how the character develops in the game and their personality that gives me the enjoyment.

I have to say though, high level casters are hard work to run, and that does take some enjoyment from the game.

The other point I would like to make, while I don't mind Paladins at all, my group are more the mercenary type than heroic type. As such, a paladin in the group stifles their preferred play style quite a bit. It leads to many situations where either the paladin is at risk of breaking code, or the other players make decisions to keep the paladins code in tact, but it's not what they would have done if he wasn't there. As such, we don't play paladins unless the AP makes sense for it to happen.

Cheers


w01fe01 wrote:
whats funny is that the no armor part and can fight unarmed is a big attraction to me liking the monk, i so want to be competitive with a unarmed no armor class...nothing manlier then a open chest fisticuffing the dragon with a 30 foot jump right in the face! (ok ya..sorry, i love monks rather irrationally i know)

Hey, you're not alone on that one. Though I'd drop the "manly" portion personally. Boxing ladies though... mmmmm...

Oh, uh, right. I'm not a fan of 9th level casters, way too much book keeping and I've never really liked the flavor. I don't want to be Gandalf, I want to be Ayla.


Wrath wrote:
It leads to many situations where either the paladin is at risk of breaking code, or the other players make decisions to keep the paladins code in tact, but it's not what they would have done if he wasn't there.

This is, essentially, the biggest problem with the paladin.


Zhayne wrote:
Summons, mounts, familiars, animal companions. I don't want to juggle that many sheets when I'm a player. Fortunately, these are all removable nowadays.

Oooh, good one! One character sheet is enough for me, thanks.


Just a foreward, the whole separation of Arcane and Divine magic in PF turns me off from the get go. In fact, a lot of the black and white themes in PF gross me out; Good and Evil, Law and Chaos (Which seems like a really esoteric philosophical concept to me. I feel like all practicioners of organized religion qualify as Lawful, but that's a different discussion), Arcane and Divine, and i guess that's it, basically.

Druids: I truly want to enjoy playing this class, as I like the idea of a shape-shifting magician with a link to the natural world, but it just seems too forced and hokey for me. Like, why can't I wear metal armor? It's still made of matter...from the earth, I don't see why it's any more processed than woven cloth or tanned leather, which required the death of an animal...

I just...I don't want to have to be a super-vegan-flower-child to draw my magic from the natural world.

Paladins: I prefer playing NG characters, because again, I feel like the Law-Chaos spectrum is weird.

Gunslingers: I do enjoy guns in my fantasy, I just don't like the complexity of the class. Having to track paper catridges and black powder and all of these crazy wild wacky things is just..icky.

Inquisitors: It's not that I don't like this class, I just still don't get it. What's the shtick? Is it basically an alternate, questionably better ranger with 3/4 BAB? Because the ranger class's mechanics already fit the Inquisitor fluff pretty well. I haven't studied the class extensively, but I expected more of a...anti-caster, feel. I guess I'll just have to play one.

Cavaliers: Every time I try and build one the whole concept just turns into a Barbarian...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Min-maxers with a terminal case of stophavingfunguys.

Especially when magic is involved.


GypsyMischief wrote:
I feel like the Law-Chaos spectrum is weird.

The solution is to read lots of Warhammer 40k.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAntiElite wrote:

Min-maxers with a terminal case of stophavingfunguys.

Especially when magic is involved.

Cool story bro.


@CommandoDude

You can't make me, many have tried.


Oracle: I just don't grok how Oracle doesn't actively suck.

Oh sure, some of the abilities you can get are cool or interesting, but I will like [u]maybe[/u] 3 out of any one mystery (and I can only pick one), and I get to actually know a tiny, TINY handful of spells. I can cast Cure light wounds OR bless, I can cure disease OR curses, but at any level I'm throwing interesting or useful spells out because I don't have enough on my available list and you get 1 more per day. One spell per day of a spell I may not even NEED that entire week.

I mean, I am sure I'm just doing it wrong somehow, but any build I come up with *sucks* compared to a bog-standard cleric with her domains.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
boring7 wrote:

Oracle: I just don't grok how Oracle doesn't actively suck.

Oh sure, some of the abilities you can get are cool or interesting, but I will like [u]maybe[/u] 3 out of any one mystery (and I can only pick one), and I get to actually know a tiny, TINY handful of spells. I can cast Cure light wounds OR bless, I can cure disease OR curses, but at any level I'm throwing interesting or useful spells out because I don't have enough on my available list and you get 1 more per day. One spell per day of a spell I may not even NEED that entire week.

I mean, I am sure I'm just doing it wrong somehow, but any build I come up with *sucks* compared to a bog-standard cleric with her domains.

Much like Sorcerers, Oracles don't have the liberty to take "I might need it sometime this week" spells. They take the essentials, and they can do them a lot every day.

Also, favored class bonus for spells known is pretty amazing. Half-elf, Half-orc or Human only, but it's really, really good.


boring7 wrote:

Oracle: I just don't grok how Oracle doesn't actively suck.

Oh sure, some of the abilities you can get are cool or interesting, but I will like [u]maybe[/u] 3 out of any one mystery (and I can only pick one), and I get to actually know a tiny, TINY handful of spells. I can cast Cure light wounds OR bless, I can cure disease OR curses, but at any level I'm throwing interesting or useful spells out because I don't have enough on my available list and you get 1 more per day. One spell per day of a spell I may not even NEED that entire week.

I mean, I am sure I'm just doing it wrong somehow, but any build I come up with *sucks* compared to a bog-standard cleric with her domains.

Honestly, the problem sounds like you aren't picking very good spells. Lunar Oracle can be insanely CHA-sad, getting CHA to just about everything and letting you dump DEX like there's no tomorrow. Stop picking cure spells... buy a wand or CLW. Seriously, in combat healing is virtually always going to be your worst option. (Heal is an exception.)


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

Without listing every class, I'll try to answer your question.

1) Lying outside the power curve, either high or low.
To me, the important type of game balance is that all of the party members are balanced with one another. It's fine with me if the party is more or less powerful than expected for their level, as that's easy for a GM to compensate for.
Example: Monk, they just can't keep up unless I grant the player some special items or house rules to compensate.

2) Not functioning at some levels.
Pathfinder went a long way toward fixing this, but it still applies. Some classes don't work at low levels, and others have trouble at high levels.
Example: Druid, who should have some degree of wildshape from level 1 and/or summon spells that last "until the end of the fight" instead of rounds per level, which is useless at 1st level.

3) Requiring a change to the game world to function.
I want each class to work in the setting, both mechanically and thematically.
Example: Gunslinger, the only reason to add firearms to a Pathfinder game. Also, because it's the only class that expends gold to use its basic abilities, it throws off the party economy.


GypsyMischief wrote:
Just a foreward, the whole separation of Arcane and Divine magic in PF turns me off from the get go. In fact, a lot of the black and white themes in PF gross me out; Good and Evil, Law and Chaos (Which seems like a really esoteric philosophical concept to me. I feel like all practicioners of organized religion qualify as Lawful, but that's a different discussion), Arcane and Divine, and i guess that's it, basically.

It is a separate discussion because not much of this turns me completely off to a class -- aside from overly restrictive alignment requirements -- but yeah, I agree with much of what you say. I think the Good vs. Evil theme can be fun, but I find the law vs. chaos thing to be confused and uninspiring, and the divine vs. arcane thing to be utterly gamey.

(A wizard or sorcerer casting inflict wounds is totally legit, but the same character casting cure wounds requires a bunch of system mastery to achieve a result that could have been achieved by simply adding cure wounds to arcane spell lists? Really?)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually I will partially rescend my last statement. There are 2 martial classes and 3 "Martial" classes I do like...

1) The investigator. Yes, it is a skill monkey, but they way they fight is fairly interesting, they have cool abilities, and they are intelligent. This class is fun (especially wiht the changes they have announced in the spoiler)

2) The brawler. Odd yes? But the ability to change things up on the fly I feel adds a certain amount of dynamicy to the brawler that other martials just don't have. Brawlers are one of the only martials that truly have options.

3) Melee druid build. Yes I know it is technically a "caster" but it's round in combat is still usually spent full attacking. But the ability to still have options and spell casting is awesome. Additionally, the flavor of the class is awesome.

4) The Magus. Or more specifically, the Kensai and the Hexcrafter. Both of those classes just FEEL awesome. The kensai is just legit when you combine it with (Greater) Bladed Dash and haste and such (just feels like a Kenshin type character of badassery... i.e. what the martial SHOULD be able to do). The Hexcrafter I love putting in Heavy armor (late game) and using his hexes to lay waste while crushing people with my Katana (i just prefer teh flavor anf imagery of it more than anything).

5) The Summoner. I know people liek to scream broken-ness about it but I love the flavor the Eidolon allows me to implement. I creating the guy who is weak, but has a monster of his own imagination tearing things to shreds (it just feels awesome :))


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.


The only thing that makes me avoid a class completely is a completely different class ability at every level or every other level. PF is very good about not having this, but over the years (starting in 3E) I've seen a handful of classes (mostly prestige classes in 3E) that got an entirely new class feature at most levels. Barbarian is a great example of what I like to see, some options at frequent levels and increasing DR at regular intervals. If a class gets a new SLA at every level and an aura that gives a different kind of bonus at each level that's too much to keep track of.

I second not liking ranges of levels where a class is less than effective. A lot of classes start off a little slow (paladin is tough at first level without divine grace, archaeologist bard doesn't get the full range of trap-related abilities at first so it's tough if that's the party's trapfinding character). But fighter is relatively weak at higher levels, magus takes a lot of work to not be a one-trick pony at high levels, monk takes a fair amount of system mastery at most or all levels to play effectively in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
boring7 wrote:

Oracle: I just don't grok how Oracle doesn't actively suck.

Oh sure, some of the abilities you can get are cool or interesting, but I will like [u]maybe[/u] 3 out of any one mystery (and I can only pick one), and I get to actually know a tiny, TINY handful of spells. I can cast Cure light wounds OR bless, I can cure disease OR curses, but at any level I'm throwing interesting or useful spells out because I don't have enough on my available list and you get 1 more per day. One spell per day of a spell I may not even NEED that entire week.

I mean, I am sure I'm just doing it wrong somehow, but any build I come up with *sucks* compared to a bog-standard cleric with her domains.

Honestly, the problem sounds like you aren't picking very good spells. Lunar Oracle can be insanely CHA-sad, getting CHA to just about everything and letting you dump DEX like there's no tomorrow. Stop picking cure spells... buy a wand or CLW. Seriously, in combat healing is virtually always going to be your worst option. (Heal is an exception.)

Also don't oracles get clw/ilw automatically anyway?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any ability with a duration of "until the end of combat"


FanaticRat wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
boring7 wrote:

Oracle: I just don't grok how Oracle doesn't actively suck.

Oh sure, some of the abilities you can get are cool or interesting, but I will like [u]maybe[/u] 3 out of any one mystery (and I can only pick one), and I get to actually know a tiny, TINY handful of spells. I can cast Cure light wounds OR bless, I can cure disease OR curses, but at any level I'm throwing interesting or useful spells out because I don't have enough on my available list and you get 1 more per day. One spell per day of a spell I may not even NEED that entire week.

I mean, I am sure I'm just doing it wrong somehow, but any build I come up with *sucks* compared to a bog-standard cleric with her domains.

Honestly, the problem sounds like you aren't picking very good spells. Lunar Oracle can be insanely CHA-sad, getting CHA to just about everything and letting you dump DEX like there's no tomorrow. Stop picking cure spells... buy a wand or CLW. Seriously, in combat healing is virtually always going to be your worst option. (Heal is an exception.)
Also don't oracles get clw/ilw automatically anyway?

Yes. They get all Cure X Wounds/Inflict X Wounds for free by default.


I hate reliance on the short adventuring day. I generally avoid full casters but after a few levels they can last all day but the Paladin has too many abilities that happen only a few times a day. I don't care WHAT smite evil does but if it's the Paladin's signiture ability I want to hand out smites like Watchtowers.

I hate mandatory pets. Summoner is tolerable because, what else are you going to do when you're a summoner, but I think Cavalier and Witch have room for something that is not a pet.

I don't like third party material that gives controversial feats as class features. Leadership is probably the first feat banned in any given game but some third party classes get Leadership somehow in their class features. Saw one a long time ago that had pseudo Blood Money as a class feature.

I don't like hardwired class features like Deeds and Judgments. If those were modular like Talents or Arcana, it would open design space to add more in future material instead of having to take archetypes that specifically replace them with specific new ones. Its just dead end design, I just feel stuck.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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


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

Don't they all end up there?

Heck even fighters and rogues have optimization threads.


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

Don't they all end up there?

Heck even fighters and rogues have optimization threads.

So.. he doesn't play pathfinder xD


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Any ability with a duration of "until the end of combat"

I love these! Isn't there a general rule somewhere that equates "until the end of the encounter" to a define timeframe, like 5 minutes?


Generally I dislike the classics.

Rogues feel like dead weight.

Fighters are either very vulnerable or much weaker than their other martial kin.

Wizards are just annoying. Too many years of a friend trying to push on me the beauty of the WIZARD. (honestly makes me want to cut myself thinking of the word said in his voice)

Clerics are boring. They're the class in the game with the most dead levels nowadays, where there are relatively few choices to make as a class for them.

Edit: Oh, and my car. I forget my books sometimes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pets. I don't care if I could have a tiger better than a fighter. I don't want to muck about with the handle animal rules or worry about where my mount can go or whether I'm wasting my familiar. If I wanted to manage pets I'd play Pokémon.

Maybe a gnome cavalier if I'm assured that the GM thinks riding dogs can climb stairs.


I tend to avoid rogues and blasting casters because I don't get the same excitement most people do from rolling a mountain of d6s.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Instead of doing a flat "I this class because" and "I love this class because", I'll mix it up with a Love/Hate for each:

Alchemist
Love: Love the mutagen feature. Throw anything, brew potion early makes a potent but not overpowered class.
Hate: Most extracts are pointless, odd that it has a low Will save?

Barbarian
Love: Cool rage powers allow almost any style - mounted, ranged, barehanded. Non-spellcasting class that gets a decent will save. Decent amount of skill points.
Hate: Hmm... hard to say. I really love Bar-bars.

Bard
Love: Ye gads, where to start? This is my favorite class - can do anything, be anything, and feels like the only class built with a party style of play in mind. Great spell lists with Bard-only spells that are thematically sounds. CHA synergizes well with spells and most class abilities.
Hate: Gets whip proficiency but is too feat starved to do anything cool with it.

Cavalier
Love: Gets mount at first level, Order edicts are what Paladin's code should have been,
Hate: Most order abilities are pretty 'meh'. Weak will save. Tactician is a terrible feature that is functionally useless until 17th level.

Cleric
Love: Great spell list, again flexible thanks to the sheer number of domains available. Will save that synergizes well with primary casting stat.
Hate: Channel Energy is a waste of print. Warpriest's "Fervor" is such a better mechanic it should replace it entirely.

Druid
Love: Wildshape is powerful without being too powerful (now). Great will save that synergizes with primary casting stat. Animal companion/domain are great trade-off. Spontaneous SNA is great.
Hate: The single most pointless alignment restriction in the game. I understand the Neutral is a holdover from D&D, and they've relaxed from the olden days, but seriously? STUPID.

Fighter
Love: Ease of play, flexibility. Armor training is one of the best combat features for a martial class.
Hate: Weak will save (again). 2+ skill points makes no friggin' sense whatsoever. Weapon Training is incredibly weak (I house rule it to apply to all weapons) which is pathetic considering the fighter's schtick.

Gunslinger
Love: Grit mechanic. I wish more classes had options that rewarded players for attempting to do cool things - which 'Hero Points' kind of do, but I love the class-specific flavor that grit provides.
Hate: Firearm rules are wonky and I HATE guns in high fantasy.

Inquisitor:
Love: Flavor - feels very Van Helsing. Bane is an example of how to make a 3/4 BAB class combat viable without stepping on traditional martials' toes.
Hate: I hate any class ability that makes you take Teamwork feats, although at least the Inquisitor doesn't make you jump through hoops to make your party gain the benefits. Just make them bonus feats.

Magus:
Love: 3/4 BAB with spellcasting abilities makes Gish viable.
Hate: Encourages 15 minute workday even more than traditional wizard, also one build is so optimized it discourages variation.

Monk
Love: Scaling unarmed damage. Bar-none, has some of the BEST archetypes in the game.(Zen Archer rules your face) All good saves!
Hate: Opposite of the Druid: Nothing synergizes well. Also, some abilities feel like they were plucked out of thin-air. Tongue of the Sun and Moon? Dubya tee eff is that? Also has the SECOND most pointless alignment restriction in the game.

Oracle
Love: Perhaps more than any other class, the flavor of this appeals to me more than any mechanical benefits. A reluctant scion thrust into fates beyond his ken due to higher powers is rich soil to mine for role-playing.
Hate: Not all curses are created equal - some are so painfully hindering as to be a joke, and some are so ridiculously banal you may as well not be cursed in the first place.

Paladin
Love: Alignment restriction. Yeah, I know, I'm in the minority, but I think - thematically speaking - it works very well for the Paladin. Divine Grace. (I can't stand weak saves - especially Will) Divine Bond, especially with the alternate mount or weapon option. Immunity to mind-affecting magic.
Hate: This is kind of Love/Hate, but as much as I enjoy Smite Evil, it's just so OP. Especially once you can give it to your party. Gee, I just gave everybody the ability to overcome the Balor's DR AT LEVEL 10.

Ranger
Love: Combat style is how fighter's bonus feats SHOULD work. Fsvored Enemy is great situational bonus for games that are heavy on a certain type of creature. Hunter's bond with an AC makes you damn powerful, even without "Boon Companion" and with BC you're a force to be reckoned with.
Hate: 'Hunter's Bond' alternative option is perhaps the worst trade off I could imagine. Most other classes you give alternatives - this is barely a step up from just nixing the animal companion altogether. Favored Enemy spell makes a good class feature extra cheesy.

Rogue
Love: Havin' a whole mess of skill points. I like skills, I like being good at skills.
Hate: Crappy saves, crappy BAB, pointlessly gimped in its major class feature, outclassed by LITERALLY EVERY OTHER CLASS at doing what it's supposed to do best. Makes a decent dip if you're playing a skill starved class otherwise, but other than that, there's very little I can say for it.

Sorcer
Love: Bloodline powers are sweet. Good will save progression - which I always want - and CHA based, which is another thing I enjoy. Less paperwork makes for a great intermediate class when you're ready to try out a caster but not quite ready for a Wizard.
Hate: 2+skill points works for Wizards because they're INT based casters. Sorcerers are pained by it. Also the diminished spellcasting is unnecessary and unfair.

Summoner
Hate: My one and only flat-out 'hate'. Take the busted 3.5 Druid and magnify every problem by, then add an overly complicated Eidolon (Side note: How is that pronounced? AYE-duh-LAHN or AYE-DOE-LUN? I've heard both.) that I guarantee you will be built improperly. Its spell list is more powerful than either the Druid or Cleric, 3/4 BAB classes that get 9th level spell-casting. Flavor doesn't fit anything else printed. Just screw this class. Even the good Will save puts me off as it once again got the best possible option among those available when it REALLY didn't need it. The only scenario I could imagine wanting to play a Summoner is as a thought experiment to see how utterly I could wreck a campaign.

Witch
Love: Hexes are, for the most part, great. Love that it's an Arcane class with healing capabilities - kind of a 'white mage' for Pathfinder. Say it with me - great will save!
Hate: Some of the things that spell list is missing feels wrong - like not having 'Invisibility' for instance. Whole "Patron" thing feels like it was copied and pasted from the Sorcerer section. Fluff REALLY makes it sound like it should be a CHA based caster.

Wizard
Love: Iconic. Again, Will save makes me happy. 'Familiar' is one of the coolest class features, surpassing even the Druid's animal companion in its sheer usefulness without being stupidly OP (Did I mention I hate Summoners?)
Hate: Dull in the low levels. Specialist school abilities feel like a little too much icing on the cake, especially when it already gets too many goodies over the poor sorcerer.

Can't speak on the ACG since I've not really played any of them yet.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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?

Grand Lodge

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

What drives me away from a class? I wish I could say it was a Bugatti Veyron.


I'm going to set a double standard here....
I hate Casters, but on the other hand, I am playing a Magus for the Rune Lords AP. I won't play a full caster of any kind simply because I don't like dealing with spells. The only reason I decided to try the Magus was a few years ago we were playing 3.5 and I saw the Duskblade. I thought a Gish would be a neat thing to try.

So for the next couple of years (we just started this AP) I get to play a 'Gish'.

I'd rather play a fighter, because of all the feats.
I like rogues because of the Talents and the light fighter type.
I like most of the other largely melee classes.

But the guys that stick in back as support or fire off lightning bolts just isn't my idea of fun.

And yet here I am playing a Magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ngc7293 wrote:

I'm going to set a double standard here....

I hate Casters, but on the other hand, I am playing a Magus for the Rune Lords AP. I won't play a full caster of any kind simply because I don't like dealing with spells. The only reason I decided to try the Magus was a few years ago we were playing 3.5 and I saw the Duskblade. I thought a Gish would be a neat thing to try.

So for the next couple of years (we just started this AP) I get to play a 'Gish'.

I'd rather play a fighter, because of all the feats.
I like rogues because of the Talents and the light fighter type.
I like most of the other largely melee classes.

But the guys that stick in back as support or fire off lightning bolts just isn't my idea of fun.

And yet here I am playing a Magus.

Try early entry Eldritch Knight, with the Dimensional Dervish line. I'm a fan of Trapper Freebooter Ranger 1/Scryer Wizard 1/Eldritch Knight 10/Hellknight Signifier 8. Be the frontliner/trapfinder/problem solver.

If you are worried about lack of spell access (since the PRCs don't give you any spells) you can always do a Paladin/Sorcerer base, or Sohei/Empyreal Sorcerer base.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:


Try early entry Eldritch Knight, with the Dimensional Dervish line. I'm a fan of Trapper Freebooter Ranger 1/Scryer Wizard 1/Eldritch Knight 10/Hellknight Signifier 8. Be the frontliner/trapfinder/problem solver.

If you are worried about lack of spell access (since the PRCs don't give you any spells) you can always do a Paladin/Sorcerer base, or Sohei/Empyreal Sorcerer base.

People are really good at reading the wrong things into what seems ONLY my posts.... ;)

You did read that I don't like spell casters and that I am locked into the Magus for my current game right?


ngc7293 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


Try early entry Eldritch Knight, with the Dimensional Dervish line. I'm a fan of Trapper Freebooter Ranger 1/Scryer Wizard 1/Eldritch Knight 10/Hellknight Signifier 8. Be the frontliner/trapfinder/problem solver.

If you are worried about lack of spell access (since the PRCs don't give you any spells) you can always do a Paladin/Sorcerer base, or Sohei/Empyreal Sorcerer base.

People are really good at reading the wrong things into what seems ONLY my posts.... ;)

You did read that I don't like spell casters and that I am locked into the Magus for my current game right?

You said you liked gishes and didn't like being support or shooting nukes. Maybe you don't know what it is you want?

1 to 50 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.