Broken Unchained Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.

Ah, so you advocate banning the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, and summoner, for starters? I could go with that.

P.S. 30 years' gaming experience is fairly common among posters here, so citing it doesn't put you ahead at all. Hell, DrDeth has more like 40 years', IIRC, and I still disagree with him more than I agree.

Sap Master is munchkin, although +caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB. And are banned from the games I GM, and the games my friends GM.

You are taking what I said out of context. I didn't mention my gaming experience to suggest I was superior, it was to frame the fact that I have lived through and experienced the ups and downs of 3 decades of playing RPGs.

We played D&D 1e and 2e in harmony, but 3-3.5e inspired min/maxing and theory crafting (that got way out of hand) with one purpose to break the game. And newer players don't see the pitfalls as much as people who have experienced it before.

And this history is still relevant today, as it has informed many of Paizo's design choices: hard-to-class-dip, gradual diminishing of prestige classes, aversion to the School of Ivory Tower Game Design etc.

I Think the internet with forums like this is more to blame for the optimisation trend than the new systems but that is of cause a dual(or more than dual) effect.

And the story about how good 1e and 2e was. I was there they were good at the time to Day none of them would have a chance and that is not because of min/maxing.

I have heard a few of the older gamers say optimization was still around in 1st edition, so its not a new things. Some have listed ways to do so in those games.

Maybe you mean the idea of "how to do so better" is due to the internet since people can share ideas more easily now.


Trap Option:

The deadly sneak feat and the other one that give you penalties to attack so you can reroll 1 and 2's on sneak attacks are trap options. They actually lower your DPR.

Maybe some freelancer made those, and editing did not run the numbers, but they are still trap options.


Yes that is what i mean. Back in the days we also made guys with regeneration and str 19-23 at level 1 or spellcasters that would hit level 20 when the thief hit 7,in ADnD. Or in GURPS characters larger then the galaxy. and i am sure we could have improved them with the internet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
There are no Timmy cards in Pathfinder, sure the Crossbow archetype is not as powerful as other archetypes or classes for that matter. But it doesn't make it a 'trap' that promotes system mastery.
That's exactly what it is, though. Being a Crossbowman makes you worse in every respect than a vanilla fighter with some ranged feats and a composite longbow -- very intentionally so, to "teach you a lesson" that crossbows aren't supposed to be as good as bows. The Slinger has a similar purpose (the developers have come straight out and compared using a sling to throwing water balloons).

I am not sure that the designer(s) who wrote the Crossbowman archetype intended for it to be a trap. They might very well have thought that using readied actions with a crossbow made sense because they don't get benefit out of full attacking unless they get free action reloads (difficult with a heavy crossbow, say). They might have decided that boosting their damage while using readied actions would produce a unique thematic archetype that does something different.

In other words, what you see as ivory tower design might just be incompetence at designing balanced options. Never attribute to malice etc...


Cap. Darling wrote:
Yes that is what i mean. Back in the days we also made guys with regeneration and str 19-23 at level 1 or spellcasters that would hit level 20 when the thief hit 7,in ADnD. Or in GURPS characters larger then the galaxy. and i am sure we could have improved them with the internet.

If someone plays the game long enough and they want to optimize they will figure out how to do so anyway. Making it happen faster is not really an issue. What is an issue is wanting to optimize* when it does not fit that group or taking things too far for that group.

*In this sense of the word I mean make a really powerful character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Everybody get the torches and pitchforks!

It's high time we take Morzadian-stein out!

>>marches<<


wraithstrike wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Yes that is what i mean. Back in the days we also made guys with regeneration and str 19-23 at level 1 or spellcasters that would hit level 20 when the thief hit 7,in ADnD. Or in GURPS characters larger then the galaxy. and i am sure we could have improved them with the internet.

If someone plays the game long enough and they want to optimize they will figure out how to do so anyway. Making it happen faster is not really an issue. What is an issue is wanting to optimize* when it does not fit that group or taking things too far for that group.

*In this sense of the word I mean make a really powerful character.

My point was just that the munchkin options also was there in the older versions but they became a question about having internet more than system mastery or what ever you call wish to call it. And therefore you dont only have the good ideas you and your friends have spottet but you get them all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
+caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB.

The CRB remains one of the most unbalanced RPG books ever published: casters >> everyone else at everything except direct-damage potential.

And Paizo has taken Ivory Tower design to a whole new level, with an abundance of blatant Timmy cards like the Crossbowman fighter acrhetype ("give up class features so that you can be a totally inferior archer!")

Paizo does not conform to the School of Ivory Tower Design.

1. All their rules from their hardcovers are online and free. They are not asking their customers to buy new books for super-powered options.

2. Paizo intentionally tries to not publish anything more powerful than what exists in older books. Pathfinder Unchained is proof of that, somewhat detrimental to fans of the Monk class.

There are no Timmy cards in Pathfinder, sure the Crossbow archetype is not as powerful as other archetypes or classes for that matter. But it doesn't make it a 'trap' that promotes system mastery.

Heh, I read the last few sentences about the crossbow archetype and my slushy came out my nose. I think there may be a definite perception gap between us if you consider the crossbow fighter and the druid to function on the same landscape. :)


Cap. Darling wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Yes that is what i mean. Back in the days we also made guys with regeneration and str 19-23 at level 1 or spellcasters that would hit level 20 when the thief hit 7,in ADnD. Or in GURPS characters larger then the galaxy. and i am sure we could have improved them with the internet.

If someone plays the game long enough and they want to optimize they will figure out how to do so anyway. Making it happen faster is not really an issue. What is an issue is wanting to optimize* when it does not fit that group or taking things too far for that group.

*In this sense of the word I mean make a really powerful character.

My point was just that the munchkin options also was there in the older versions but they became a question about having internet more than system mastery or what ever you call wish to call it. And therefore you dont only have the good ideas you and your friends have spottet but you get them all.

I understand what you mean now. It was just that your use of the word "trend" was something I did not agree with.


wraithstrike wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Yes that is what i mean. Back in the days we also made guys with regeneration and str 19-23 at level 1 or spellcasters that would hit level 20 when the thief hit 7,in ADnD. Or in GURPS characters larger then the galaxy. and i am sure we could have improved them with the internet.

If someone plays the game long enough and they want to optimize they will figure out how to do so anyway. Making it happen faster is not really an issue. What is an issue is wanting to optimize* when it does not fit that group or taking things too far for that group.

*In this sense of the word I mean make a really powerful character.

My point was just that the munchkin options also was there in the older versions but they became a question about having internet more than system mastery or what ever you call wish to call it. And therefore you dont only have the good ideas you and your friends have spottet but you get them all.
I understand what you mean now. It was just that your use of the word "trend" was something I did not agree with.

I used trend because we all do it in similar ways now.

I know we dont but more similar at least.


To the OP, yes, I agree the new rogue is overpowered, along with 80% of the non-core options.


Are any of the core options overpowered?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wizard, druid, and cleric all suck compared to the unchained rogue, unchained monk, and every fighter archetype. Core Only For Balance!


LoneKnave wrote:
Are any of the core options overpowered?

I can show you a level 20 Wild Child Brawler who makes a single attack/round for ~4,000 damage, a Lore Warden Fighter who can grapple and pin anything in the Bestiary with a corporeal form, or an Arcane Bloodrager who can survive taking over 1,000 points of weapon damage. A lot of things are overpowered if you set your mind to it. Not sure which of these you count as "Core," but when any game lives this long there's always exploits for the quick reader.


Thanks guys, but I'm asking Majuba.

Also, Core means the Core rulebook.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Wizard, druid, and cleric all suck compared to the unchained rogue, unchained monk, and every fighter archetype. Core Only For Balance!

You're kidding, I assume?

Just checking.


Morzadian wrote:


Paizo does not conform to the School of Ivory Tower Design.

1. All their rules from their hardcovers are online and free. They are not asking their customers to buy new books for super-powered options.

2. Paizo intentionally tries to not publish anything more powerful than what exists in older books. Pathfinder Unchained is proof of that, somewhat detrimental to fans of the Monk class.

That isn't what ivory tower game design is btw


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Wizard, druid, and cleric all suck compared to the unchained rogue, unchained monk, and every fighter archetype. Core Only For Balance!

You're kidding, I assume?

Just checking.

Gloriously sardonic and facetious sarcasm.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Skill unlocks are... I'm very close to call them not worth considering.
Eh. As written they probably aren't worth a Feat until 15th level or so, but several are quite nice if you get 'em for free, which Rogues do.
Which ones? I don't even pay attention to anything over 10. if you're a non caster at those levels there's no point.

The Zen Archer Monk in my WOTR group begs to disagree. He easily out damages my Paladin when she's not smiting and smiting only keeps her competitive. He pretty much blows away the Inquisitor as well.

It's all good though, the Paladin has kept her role meaningful by being a pretty decent summoner at times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spike does whatever the format needs doing. Saying "X is a spike card but actually sucks in Y format" misses the point entirely. If it sucks in Y format, in that format it's, by definition, not a spike card. A card can please multiple audiences, evidenced by the times where the timmy cards become spike card as well. A card having to be either/or is a false dichotomy.

Applying this to D&D, a class can be simple and powerful, complicated and powerful, or flavorful and powerful. Saying that bringing characters to the same power levels somehow excludes these options, is again, false dichotomy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Wizard, druid, and cleric all suck compared to the unchained rogue, unchained monk, and every fighter archetype. Core Only For Balance!

You're kidding, I assume?

Just checking.
Gloriously sardonic and facetious sarcasm.

Ah, a fellow after my own heart. If I had one, that is.


wraithstrike wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
I have played roleplaying games for 30 years and I have seen what munchkin character choices does to the industry as a whole. It turns people off quickly.

Ah, so you advocate banning the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, and summoner, for starters? I could go with that.

P.S. 30 years' gaming experience is fairly common among posters here, so citing it doesn't put you ahead at all. Hell, DrDeth has more like 40 years', IIRC, and I still disagree with him more than I agree.

Sap Master is munchkin, although +caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB. And are banned from the games I GM, and the games my friends GM.

You are taking what I said out of context. I didn't mention my gaming experience to suggest I was superior, it was to frame the fact that I have lived through and experienced the ups and downs of 3 decades of playing RPGs.

We played D&D 1e and 2e in harmony, but 3-3.5e inspired min/maxing and theory crafting (that got way out of hand) with one purpose to break the game. And newer players don't see the pitfalls as much as people who have experienced it before.

And this history is still relevant today, as it has informed many of Paizo's design choices: hard-to-class-dip, gradual diminishing of prestige classes, aversion to the School of Ivory Tower Game Design etc.

I Think the internet with forums like this is more to blame for the optimisation trend than the new systems but that is of cause a dual(or more than dual) effect.

And the story about how good 1e and 2e was. I was there they were good at the time to Day none of them would have a chance and that is not because of min/maxing.

I have heard a few of the older gamers say optimization was still around in 1st edition, so its not a new things. Some have listed ways to do so in those games.

Maybe you mean the idea of...

Not true.

For example in AD&D 1e you didn't have the level of customisation that you do now.

There was no builds as there was no feats and multi-classing was rarely worth it.

And you rolled your ability scores so there wasn't even such a thing as a dump stat.

Having powerful magical items and a high level character was the closest thing to what we view as optimisation now. More of a status thing, because it took a long time to gain levels and character death was very common.

Many high level characters had low Constitution, because back then to be raised from the dead lowered your Constitution score permanently.

Oh the kids today they don't know easy they have got it, with their happy-go-lucky Adventure Paths that have kind ELs and CRs and treasure falling out of the sky giving everyone the same WBL.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Oh the kids today they don't know easy they have got it, with their happy-go-lucky Adventure Paths that have kind ELs and CRs and treasure falling out of the sky giving everyone the same WBL.

And the dungeon floor was uphill both ways? ;)

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And covered in flesh eating snow.


Morzadian wrote:

Not true.

For example in AD&D 1e you didn't have the level of customisation that you do now.

There was no builds as there was no feats and multi-classing was rarely worth it.

And you rolled your ability scores so there wasn't even such a thing as a dump stat.

Having powerful magical items and a high level character was the closest thing to what we view as optimisation now. More of a status thing, because it took a long time to gain levels and character death was very common.

Many high level characters had low Constitution, because back then to be raised from the dead lowered your Constitution score permanently.

Oh the kids today they don't know easy they have got it, with their happy-go-lucky Adventure Paths that have kind ELs and CRs and treasure falling out of the sky giving everyone the same WBL.

No, levels aren't that hard because treasure = XP in 1st.

Monty Haul was derided because it meant extra XP as well as stuff.

And it was partly nonsensical magic items had a value, but somehow you couldn't sell it even though most people had a use for it. The economy of 3rd makes more sense.

Also because of how dangerous (% chance of losing Con) making magic items means +1 swords should be rare while +X should be common.


Morzadian wrote:
Inception-Levels of Quotes

There were options, though - plenty of them - and you could still "optimize"

Optimization happens in every game.

As long as you have 2 options or more, you will always have "optimal" builds.

The major difference is that, back in 1st Ed and for half of 2nd Ed's days, you didn't have The Internet.

Basically the same was true for MTG or other games - you had magazines like Dungeon, Dragon, Gatherer, etc., that all had little in-magazine forums/articles detailing how players could better-optimize their strategies, but Teh Intarwebz really through a monkey-wrench into gaming more than anything.

Now, you can go and Netdeck to your heart's content on any number of websites - original designs people put up on things like TappedOut, or Top-8 Tourney decks on things like ChannelFireball, StarCity Games, MTG Top 8, etc.

The same is true for D&D and Pathfinder - the internet has let people look at, analyze, and discuss any and all options a million times over before the second batch of book shipments has even gone through.

People will analyze and optimize any game, even free ones.

Hell, check out Kingdom of Loathing's optimization guides, for chrissake - that game's FREE and there's STILL no end of analyses on the options in that game.

Game Systems don't create optimization - people do, and the internet enables it in ways that make everyone's head spin.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And covered in flesh eating snow.

Technically tapestries, but only if you were stupid enough to try and pull them down or were holding onto them when the room bucked.

This was assuming, of course, that you DIDN'T take the "obvious" secret tunnel hidden in the Devil's Mouth.

Liberty's Edge

Cap. Darling wrote:
I dont Think it looks that good. Better than the old rogue yes but that is sort of the point. The actual builds are both multiclass guys at there sweet spot. And they are not impressive unless they get a special setup.

By special setup you mean flanking? Not to hard to accomplish lol

I changed a couple things and leveled up the Rogue/Monk build to 11 and posted the full build and statblock on another forum. Think it came out pretty good. You can check it out and comment on that thread below

PFS Unchained Monk/Rogue Build


Cap. Darling wrote:
Yes that is what i mean. Back in the days we also made guys with regeneration and str 19-23 at level 1 or spellcasters that would hit level 20 when the thief hit 7,in ADnD. Or in GURPS characters larger then the galaxy. and i am sure we could have improved them with the internet.

This is misleading,

The differences between older iterations and the D&D 3.0-3.5 era is player empowerment, and an open door policy for customisation. Customisation that brought about a focus on freedom in character generation, optimisation, min/maxing, munchkin, dump scores, storm wind fallacy, pun-pun, and many other new things that did not exist in AD&D (1e).

To get regeneration you had to have a Ring of Regeneration (40,000 gp) and to get 21 Strength you needed a Girdle of Frost Giant Strength (2,500 gp). There weren't any magical shops to buy magical items, so the DM decided if you had it or not (or if it was in a published adventure).

Wizards could craft magical items from 7th level onwards, but had to pay full price for the item.

DMs had all the power and ruled with an iron fist. This is not a good thing, but this is how it was back then. Optimisation is good and bad, the 3.0-3.5 era saw a burst of creativity players making their favourite anime characters, marvel superhero characters, fantasy fiction characters, anything they could dream up.

But it also saw the dark side of optimisation where people created characters that broke the game. It played its part in the edition wars, many people fled the 3.5 system to go to other systems. Online forums become toxic.

And then came along Paizo who saved the D&D 3.5 system from certain demise. Through their diligence they built a strong community, policed out the toxicity, while protecting the creative outlet this system can bring.

The toxicity is at a minority, and hopefully it will stay that way.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
Inception-Levels of Quotes

There were options, though - plenty of them - and you could still "optimize"

Optimization happens in every game.

As long as you have 2 options or more, you will always have "optimal" builds.

The major difference is that, back in 1st Ed and for half of 2nd Ed's days, you didn't have The Internet.

Basically the same was true for MTG or other games - you had magazines like Dungeon, Dragon, Gatherer, etc., that all had little in-magazine forums/articles detailing how players could better-optimize their strategies, but Teh Intarwebz really through a monkey-wrench into gaming more than anything.

Now, you can go and Netdeck to your heart's content on any number of websites - original designs people put up on things like TappedOut, or Top-8 Tourney decks on things like ChannelFireball, StarCity Games, MTG Top 8, etc.

The same is true for D&D and Pathfinder - the internet has let people look at, analyze, and discuss any and all options a million times over before the second batch of book shipments has even gone through.

People will analyze and optimize any game, even free ones.

Hell, check out Kingdom of Loathing's optimization guides, for chrissake - that game's FREE and there's STILL no end of analyses on the options in that game.

Game Systems don't create optimization - people do, and the internet enables it in ways that make everyone's head spin.

I agree, the internet did play an important role in the birth of optimisation during the D&D 3.0-3.5e era. IMO the School of Ivory Tower Design played just as an important role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can I suggest people go read this article before posting further about the Timmy/Johnny/Spike faux-psychological profiles.

There are a lot of misconceptions about what the MTG R&D team means by those terms. That article explains it fairly well.


LoneKnave wrote:
Are any of the core options overpowered?

No, not really. Not inherently. Abusable? Always. Inherently ridiculous? No.


Majuba wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Are any of the core options overpowered?
No, not really. Not inherently. Abusable? Always. Inherently ridiculous? No.

High level magic (and even not so high magic) both RAW and RAI is inherently ridiculous. Even using Simulacrum in the fairest, most intended way by making "just" a half level copy of yourself is ridiculous. Summon Monster starting around Summon Monster III is "just" an insanely diverse toolkit. Animate Dead is "just" a free minion. Create Pit is "just" a reliable Save or Die. The issue that the good spells require nebulous loopholes or abuse of intent to be powerful. It's that they don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Morzadian wrote:
+caster level and feats that ignore meta-magic limitations are just as bad, unbalancing the balance established in the CRB.

The CRB remains one of the most unbalanced RPG books ever published: casters >> everyone else at everything except direct-damage potential.

And Paizo has taken Ivory Tower design to a whole new level, with an abundance of blatant Timmy cards like the Crossbowman fighter acrhetype ("give up class features so that you can be a totally inferior archer!")

Paizo does not conform to the School of Ivory Tower Design.

1. All their rules from their hardcovers are online and free. They are not asking their customers to buy new books for super-powered options.

2. Paizo intentionally tries to not publish anything more powerful than what exists in older books. Pathfinder Unchained is proof of that, somewhat detrimental to fans of the Monk class.

There are no Timmy cards in Pathfinder, sure the Crossbow archetype is not as powerful as other archetypes or classes for that matter. But it doesn't make it a 'trap' that promotes system mastery.

cynical rant incoming:

Spoiler:
italicized mine: you're right, they're asking their customers to buy new books to patch holes in their existing subpar/trap options.

myself and a few others were literally only considering the purchase of unchained at all because they advertised that it could address some of the 'concerns' (see: hundreds of threads and tens of thousands of posts backed with mathematical evidence dozens of times over) over the monk and rogue classes.

for the most part i consider that they succeeded with the rogue (ESPECIALLY if using the action economy rework) and failed with the monk--in the sense of addressing it's meta issues like WBL and MAD, and even gave it NEW shortcomings to deal with (how thoughtful!).

i'll hastily add the note to the monk's 'fail' status that it's only a failure right now, since they've laid the groundwork to make it much more flexible to receive support in future books (which i'll have to pay for--noticing a trend yet?) in the form of new unchained-compatible archetypes, feats, and ki powers, but only if they intend to add more support to unchained content. if this book goes the way of wordcasting, this potential will go up in smoke like so many other things.

.

also, YES i know that vanilla rogue and monk can work with proper teamwork, planning , and optimizing, but requiring a core class (let alone TWO) to require a PHD in system mastery to get them to function is not good.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thunderbeard wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Are any of the core options overpowered?
I can show you a level 20 Wild Child Brawler who makes a single attack/round for ~4,000 damage, a Lore Warden Fighter who can grapple and pin anything in the Bestiary with a corporeal form, or an Arcane Bloodrager who can survive taking over 1,000 points of weapon damage. A lot of things are overpowered if you set your mind to it. Not sure which of these you count as "Core," but when any game lives this long there's always exploits for the quick reader.

Nobody cares about 20th level. The game is over at that point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Morzadian wrote:


But it also saw the dark side of optimisation where people created characters that broke the game. It played its part in the edition wars, many people fled the 3.5 system to go to other systems. Online forums become toxic.

Wow, this sure is blaming the players when it is the developer's responsibility for balance!

I think it is pretty unfortunate that many people still think this way. It would be better for the community as a whole to hold the developers of their games responsible for the balance in these games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because developers are infallible, a perfect system is possible, and it is only their laziness that leads to player conflict or problems in the game.

In case you ask, again, sarcasm. I find it sad that I need to point that out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Skill unlocks are awesome if you synergize! My 5th-level rogue picked "Craft: Alchemy" for his and, with Master Alchemist, can craft 24 doses of oil of taggit in per day!

I also have a 15th-level sorcerer who chose Perception (via the skill unlock feat) and can now do all of the following on a roll of a 1:


  • Hear a bow sting being drawn on the other side of a 1-foot thick stone wall, while he is sleeping and being distracted by nightmares, from 320 feet away.
  • Hear the details of a whispered conversation from 1,320 feet away.
  • Notice an unmoving invisible creature or object within 320 feet.

How crazy is that? Legolas who?


AndIMustMask wrote:
Stuff

Asking but not DEMANDING.

There's an enormous difference.

WOTC DEMANDED. Paizo doesn't.

The SRD of 3.5 is all of 7 books (the PHB, DMG, MM, EPH, ELH, DD, and UA). Basically no-one wants the ELH and DD, barely anyone wants the EPH (although it being there DOES allow Dreamscarred's materials to exist, so it's okay), and UA is a toss-up.

Everything else that players basically "need" - the Complete Series, the Races Series, etc. - was "buy or get out".

The PRD, on the other hand, is 19 books (CRB, APG, UC, UM, ARG, ACG, UE, Ult Camp, GMG, PFU, Bestiaries 1-4, NPCC, MC, MA, TG, OA), which gives access to every base class, feat, piece of equipment, etc.

For free.

Sure, they WANT you to buy the book, and most of us do.

But that's still WAY more than WOTC, or, really, most game companies, ever did.

AndIMustAsk wrote:
also, YES i know that vanilla rogue and monk can work with proper teamwork, planning , and optimizing, but requiring a core class (let alone TWO) to require a PHD in system mastery to get them to function is not good.

Well, then, by that regard the Wizard is ALSO "not good" because it's very easy to make an underpowered Wizards. Wizards are very squishy, it's very easy to look at options like Web and think "that's not very good" while looking at options like Lightning Bolt and think "AW, YEAH, THAT'S AWESOME!", especially if you're a newer or intermediate player, or even if you just like being a blaster-caster.

Cleric can be quite underwhelming as well, if you choose pure fluff over power, especially in your choice of Domains, and Sorcs are notorious for having awesome bloodlines that are more fluff than function (with a number of notable exceptions)

Bards are a bit more solid since they're much less "option"-centric, and only 6 levels of spells means there are rooms for a lot more skills than Sorcs, Wizards, and Clerics.

Barbarians are very good at killing things, but new players may soon discover just how dangerous not keeping track of your HP can be (especially when Temp HP like that comes AFTER normal HP, not before).

Fighters are surprisingly solid for newbie players because they're bulky and are meant for killing stuff, which they're great at.

The Paladin and Ranger are probably the most "newbie friendly" classes in the entire CRB, if only because they're very solid and vaguely "idiot-proof". The Druid is potentially also there, because even if your spells are poor, you still have both an Animal Companion and Wild Shape to make you solid.

I'm not saying the Rogue DIDN'T need an upgrade - it did, and I'm glad it got it - but the Rogue is hardly the only class that requires serious system mastery to become fantastic; most of the classes require plenty of mastery, and ironically the two MOST powerful classes - the Cleric and Wizard - realistically do require the most to make them stupidly OP... well, either mastery or just copy-pasting Cookie-Cutter McWizard-Pants no.91728650.


CWheezy wrote:
Morzadian wrote:


But it also saw the dark side of optimisation where people created characters that broke the game. It played its part in the edition wars, many people fled the 3.5 system to go to other systems. Online forums become toxic.

Wow, this sure is blaming the players when it is the developer's responsibility for balance!

I think it is pretty unfortunate that many people still think this way. It would be better for the community as a whole to hold the developers of their games responsible for the balance in these games.

Too many people blame the Paizo developers, for all sorts of things.

I have my own criticisms, nevertheless they are doing a fantastic job.

The Pathfinder game is malleable, if you don't like something change it. Home-brew has a long history associated with role-playing games. I know its a different situation with PFS, but thats organised play on a massive scale.

Plenty of love went into the Unchained classes and I'm certainly not going to nitpick these classes to death and find some loophole I can exploit or an error that I will hold them accountable for.

Happy gaming


I have GM'd for several new players. They tend to do okay with most classes. The core rogue and monk are the two I always hope they don't choose.


Majuba wrote:
To the OP, yes, I agree the new rogue is overpowered, along with 80% of the non-core options.

Nothing in the game is broken.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Majuba wrote:
To the OP, yes, I agree the new rogue is overpowered, along with 80% of the non-core options.
Nothing in the game is broken.

In grand forum tradition, I refer you to Monkey Lunge. :P

51 to 100 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Broken Unchained Classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.