Depends. First party only, I vastly prefer 3/4 BAB 6/9 casting classes. I like martials in theory, but the execution tends to be rather meh,and while I don't mind full casters, I like being able to just bash things in the face from time to time. Also, I enjoy not breaking game balance over my knee.
Bring in third party stuff, and I can generally find a fun class anywhere on the spectrum. Although I still prefer gishing.
Favorite classes, Magus, Bard, Investigator, Warpriest, Unchained Summoner, Hunter.
|
sry I am confused is your favorite class bard, witch or paladin cause I have seen you say those in different threads.I think the main thing that did it for me in regards to casters is that I can play a 6th level caster and still be a fully functional "martial" character. Wanna be a frontliner? Why go fighter when you can go Magus? Why would I NOT want bardic buffs/spell selection? Why go ranger when I can get WAY better spellcasting and a better pet through hunter, without the metal restrictions of druid?
The short answer is, because you don't wanna play those classes. And that's totally fine, but given the chance, I'm not going to turn down access to spellcasting AND being a great weapon-based combatant.
It depends on what mood I'm in. :P
Most recently, it has been Bard. Witch is definitely my favorite full-caster though, and paladin my favorite martial class. Complete favorite is Bard, though :P.
Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
Not really sure. I have always liked the class, I think that people are just starting to realize how cool a bard can be.
Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
Paizo came in and turned the class into something badass.
Paizo came in and turned the class into something badass.Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
True true.
True true.Paizo came in and turned the class into something badass.Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
I've never been a fan. Can you clarify what the change is that makes it badass now?
I've never been a fan. Can you clarify what the change is that makes it badass now?True true.Paizo came in and turned the class into something badass.Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
didn't play much 3.5 so not to sure, but they did get better survivabity and also their spells changed and their bardic music ability changed.
Edit: may I ask why you do not like bards?
I've never been a fan. Can you clarify what the change is that makes it badass now?True true.Paizo came in and turned the class into something badass.Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
The spell list is better and there are tons of great archetypes for what you want to do from being a better rogue to being a front line combatant. Or even a ranged nuker with Thundercaller.
Versatile Performance makes it so your perform ranks arent just dead ranks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I voted casters, but this is in no small part due to the 3.X/PF conflation of the words "martial" and "mundane". I hate the very concept of "mundane" past a certain point, particularly regarding my fantasy heroes.
For me, my preference for "casters" is really a preference for options and capability. I don't necessarily prefer killing my enemies with fireballs over swords, but I do prefer playing a character who has the tools to negotiate a given situation, or set of situations, in more than one way. I also like characters who are great team players, and bring beneficial resources to the group.
My favorite Paizo class is definitely one of the 2/3 casters, though exactly which one varies depending on my mood and recent games. The Hunter, Bard, Inquisitor, Occultist, Mesmerist, and Spiritualist have all been my favorite Paizo class at some point within the last 12 months.
I'm also a really big fan of 3pp classes that fall within the "martial" umbrella, but avoid being mundane.
|
|
Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
Bards were actually pretty good by the later half of 3.5's stretch, with all the options that were out there. They've gotten even better under Paizo's watch, with archetypes that allow them to fill pretty much any role in the group, Versatile Performance and a deep spell list making them arguably the best skill-monkey class in the game (though Investigator actually provides some real competition in that niche, and Unchained Rogue no longer lags as far behind as the core Rogue does), and a surge of other team-oriented classes that really work well in concert with the Bard's buffing abilities.
Bards can excel as tanks, damage-dealers, skill-monkeys, or they can play their more traditional "best fifth player" role and serve as a locus that elevates the rest of the team and stretches their resources.
|
Depends on what you mean.
I hate playing full casters. I like skill points and being effective at skills, especially social skills, and I like my character doing things other than casting spells during combat. I like them to wield a weapon and engage in battle physically, just visually and in terms of thematics. That combination of wants leaves out almost all full casters pretty thoroughly (Oracle's something on an exception).
But I also tend not to be super enthused about most fully martial characters. The lack of options is often painful (Slayer is something of an exception, just like Oracle is for full casters). I basically like 4 or 6 level casters. They do stuff physically in their own right, most have good to excellent skills, and they have some options and tricks up their sleeves. Investigator, Bard, and Inquisitoir are all particular favorites.
Agreed. I've really enjoyed the Inquisitor, Bard, and Bloodrager. I'd love to try a Paladin in the right campaign and I like the look of the Investigator and the Occultist.
I think it's a weak preference, though, because I also love Monks and Druids, am enthused about Slayers, and could see myself playing almost any class.
|
Would you guys recommend playing a bard or a oracle then for my up coming campaign? They both seem interesting with great rp potential.
P.s. I like being effective also
Edit: witch seems really cool too
Well, what role do you wish to assume in the party? What kind of play style do you enjoy? What's everyone else playing?
The answers to these questions are what really determine which of these you should play.
Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
As others have noted, mostly Paizo happened and made themgood mechanically.
I've never been a fan. Can you clarify what the change is that makes it badass now?
They're good at both Knowledges and social skills. Like, legitimately better than almost anyone else kinda good.
Their Performances take one action at the beginning of combat, are one of the best group-wide buffs available, stack with other biff spells, and can be flavored almost any way you like.
They have a diverse and effective spell selection, and the chassis to do well in melee or ranged combat.
As others have mentioned, their Archetypes are really pretty solid.
So...yeah. In 3.5, they couldn't cast while Performing without a Feat, got nothing out of having Perform other than their Class abilities, didn't get 1st level spells until 2nd level, didn't get bonuses to Knowledge checks (instead having the ill-explained Bardic Knowledge), often couldn't do anything but Perform when using Performances, and had to be singing for some of those Performances.
So, they were a lot mechanically weaker back then, and had significantly more of a specific flavor built in. Now, with the right Prestige Classes, Feats, and so on, I understand they got quite powerful towards the end of 3.5, but I don't think they ever shook off the rep of not being good they got from the core rulebook.
Pathfinder Bards are a whole different animal.
I didn't choose Pathfinder as my go-to system because I thought it was balanced: I play Pathfinder because it's popular. (Well, so is 5e but Pathfinder has more player options and more content in general, and is OGL)
I acknowledge the disparity, and prefer casters.
True true. I've never been a fan. Can you clarify what the change is that makes it badass now?
didn't play much 3.5 so not to sure, but they did get better survivabity and also their spells changed and their bardic music ability changed.
Edit: may I ask why you do not like bards?
The following is an editorial covering my opinions of the class as a whole crossing multiple editions and in no way reflects any players of said class:
Basically I think theyre stupid as a whole. I dislike bardic music. A jolly sea shanty in combat to give mechanics bonuses? Mechanically it's lovey, but the imagery is super lame.
Artsy Fartsy masterpieces to change the nature of reality and make deities weep? /eyeroll
Rogue BAB without rogue skills or sneak attack progression.
In 3.5 I'd just play a rogue. Now I'd just play a ranger.
IMO there are just better ways to go about getting the things in the class that I actually like.
Then again I'm more of a caster than a martial so that may have something to do with my opinions. Essentially the bard class just isn't fun for me. If someone else likes it more power to them. I however can't see mysef enjoying playing one.
|
|
The following is an editorial covering my opinions of the class as a whole crossing multiple editions and in no way reflects any players of said class:
Basically I think theyre stupid as a whole. I dislike bardic music. A jolly sea shanty in combat to give mechanics bonuses? Mechanically it's lovey, but the imagery is super lame.
How about a rousing speech, the deep boom of war drums, or quipping at enemies like Spider Man does to throw them off? Because all those are valid Bardic Performances.
Artsy Fartsy masterpieces to change the nature of reality and make deities weep? /eyeroll
Well, they're magic. So that helps.
Rogue BAB without rogue skills or sneak attack progression.
They actually have better skills and, on average do better damage than Bards. Versatile Performance and Bardic Knowledge are very good, and Bardic Performance + Buff Spells make for a better offense per the math.
In 3.5 I'd just play a rogue. Now I'd just play a ranger.
If you want, but both do very different things than Bard does. Bard's much better at social and knowledge stuff and is a solid caster and super awesome at party buffing, while Ranger does better at the purely physical side of skills and a bit better direct personal combat.
IMO there are just better ways to go about getting the things in the class that I actually like.
What would those be?
Then again I'm more of a caster than a martial so that may have something to do with my opinions. Essentially the bard class just isn't fun for me. If someone else likes it more power to them. I however can't see mysef enjoying playing one.
Well, you can do a caster Bard pretty effectively, and much better than a caster Ranger. :)
The following is an editorial covering my opinions of the class as a whole crossing multiple editions and in no way reflects any players of said class:
Basically I think theyre stupid as a whole. I dislike bardic music. A jolly sea shanty in combat to give mechanics bonuses? Mechanically it's lovey, but the imagery is super lame.
How about a rousing speech, the deep boom of war drums, or quipping at enemies like Spider Man does to throw them off? Because all those are valid Bardic Performances.
Artsy Fartsy masterpieces to change the nature of reality and make deities weep? /eyerollWell, they're magic. So that helps.
Rogue BAB without rogue skills or sneak attack progression.They actually have better skills and, on average do better damage than Bards. Versatile Performance and Bardic Knowledge are very good, and Bardic Performance + Buff Spells make for a better offense per the math.
In 3.5 I'd just play a rogue. Now I'd just play a ranger.If you want, but both do very different things than Bard does. Bard's much better at social and knowledge stuff and is a solid caster and super awesome at party buffing, while Ranger does better at the purely physical side of skills and a bit better direct personal combat.
IMO there are just better ways to go about getting the things in the class that I actually like.What would those be?
Then again I'm more of a caster than a martial so that may have something to do with my opinions. Essentially the bard class just isn't fun for me. If someone else likes it more power to them. I however can't see mysef enjoying playing one.Well, you can do a caster Bard pretty effectively, and much better than a caster Ranger. :)
i get that you like the bard class but that does not mean he has to like it also. It is not for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He asked why someone would play it. Deadmanwalking answered.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i get that you like the bard class but that does not mean he has to like it also. It is not for everyone.
Sure. But several of the reasons he gave were reasons to dislike stereotypical Bards, not all members of the Class. And the comparison with Rogues was technically correct, but implied they did less damage or were worse in combat which is factually wrong.
'I hate doing buffing' is a good reason to not play a Bard. 'I only play full casters no matter what' is a good reason to not play a Bard, 'I don't care about social stuff or knowledges' is a good reason to not play a Bard.
'They're not good in combat' or 'They sing, that's just silly' are not good reasons to not play a Bard since they aren't actually universally true at all.
|
|
I'm gonna jump on the 6-level caster bandwagon here. They're the best. Options when you need them, but sword-to-the-face technique is always there for you as well. Oracles, clerics, and druids are good for the same reason. But they get 9-level casting! Brilliant!
Side note, bard and oracle are my favorite classes.
Every time I play a 1st party full martial character I leave disappointed. I'm currently playing an unchained monk that's pretty fun.. but would be so much more fun if they could do more than punch it in the face (for offense, that is). Horrifically expensive and late-to-the-game ki powers notwithstanding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always had more fun playing martials. I also think martials have serious problems in this game.
I tend to play summoning casters now which is like playing a team of martials.
Martials for me, if I had to choose. Thankfully, I don't.
Something to keep in mind when reviewing the votes: there are 12 martial classes to 21 caster classes (plus Kineticist and Medium who are extremely hard to classify as one or the other). So 2:1 Casters would be the expected result of "favorite class" at least.
On Bards and how they've improved over time:
Bards seems to be the most loved class.
I know it used to have a bad rep.
Anyone know what happened?
The real problem (formerly) to Bards' reputations were that 3.0 Bards were extremely limited. 3.5 Bards were *much* better.
3.0 limitations (not in 3.5):
- 3 total class features: Bardic Music, Bardic Knowledge (potentially more powerful), and Spells
- Bardic Music had fewer performances, and even Inspire Courage never improved, only +1/+1 attack and damage (and +2 fear/charm).
- Could not cast spells and perform at the same time.
3.5 (also in 3.0):
- Bardic Music still once per day per level (so at first level, once you started singing, you didn't stop until you couldn't go on).
- Got *0* 1st-level spells, at *2nd* level (i.e. Charisma bonus spells only). Essentially at least one fewer spell per spell level at every level.
- Some additional performances (e.g. Inspire Heroics), and Inspire Courage/Competence scaled decently, but not as fast as Pathfinder.
- All Performances were "Music" and thus auditory, no visual ones.
I pretty much only play fighters (and occasionally thieves of the conman variety). The PF magic system is too complicated for my tastes.
Overall, whatever the edition (1e, 2e, 3x, PF, or 5e), my favorite class is Bard.
I can do a bit of everything.
My second favorite class is Fighter.
They fit virtually every race & setting. And I'll never run out of ideas (or minis) for the next one.
As for the belief that fighters are too limited? Well, they're only as ineffectual as the player controlling them....
I've played slightly more fighters than bards - probably because of how you achieved bard status in 1e. Not many of our games lasted long enough for me to reach the point where I could MC into bard. :(
I like other casters/martials as well, those are just my 2 all time favorites.
Looking at the big picture, I guess I like martials more. It is not so much split along "Magic/Non-magic" lines, though. I simply hate playing support. I like to be on the offensive, and there are far fewer support based Martial options.
And I guess I always have a soft spot for the fighter.
I voted caster, but I find playing full casters to be almost no fun at all. I absolutely love the versatility that most 6th level casters offer. Alchemist is at the top of the list for classes that do literally everything, but I like investigators as well and they fill a similar role.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Casters are too much bookkeeping and effort.
Martials can't do anything.
They both suck.
+1 for caster, my favorite classes are almost entirely 6-level casters since they offer versatility most martials can't match.
i get that you like the bard class but that does not mean he has to like it also. It is not for everyone.Sure. But several of the reasons he gave were reasons to dislike stereotypical Bards, not all members of the Class. And the comparison with Rogues was technically correct, but implied they did less damage or were worse in combat which is factually wrong.
'I hate doing buffing' is a good reason to not play a Bard. 'I only play full casters no matter what' is a good reason to not play a Bard, 'I don't care about social stuff or knowledges' is a good reason to not play a Bard.
'They're not good in combat' or 'They sing, that's just silly' are not good reasons to not play a Bard since they aren't actually universally true at all.
Counterpoint: "I don't enjoy them" is my core reason.
Edit: also, you don't get to decide for someone else what constitutes a good reason for them to dislike a class.
Counterpoint: "I don't enjoy them" is my core reason.He covered that.
I think I misread some of that. I'm kind of exhausted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i get that you like the bard class but that does not mean he has to like it also. It is not for everyone.Sure. But several of the reasons he gave were reasons to dislike stereotypical Bards, not all members of the Class. And the comparison with Rogues was technically correct, but implied they did less damage or were worse in combat which is factually wrong.
'I hate doing buffing' is a good reason to not play a Bard. 'I only play full casters no matter what' is a good reason to not play a Bard, 'I don't care about social stuff or knowledges' is a good reason to not play a Bard.
'They're not good in combat' or 'They sing, that's just silly' are not good reasons to not play a Bard since they aren't actually universally true at all.
Counterpoint: "I don't enjoy them" is my core reason.
Edit: also, you don't get to decide for someone else what constitutes a good reason for them to dislike a class.
The point of dispute wasn't that your reasons weren't good reasons. It's that your reasons are factually incorrect. "I don't enjoy bards" is personal feelings, and you are entitled to those. "I don't enjoy bards because they have to sing" is blatant misinformation, and you aren't entitled to spread misinformation around unquestioned.
|
|
Counterpoint: "I don't enjoy them" is my core reason.
See, I consider that a fine reason in and of itself...but it does provoke a 'Why?' at least from me.
And your answers to that 'Why?' really didn't have much to do with the actual Class. Which makes me wonder if you don't dislike what Bards are, just what you've always thought them to be.
Now, it's totally possible that you legitimately dislike a number of things that are indeed inherent in the Bard chassis...but you didn't mention any that fit that description in your last post.
Edit: also, you don't get to decide for someone else what constitutes a good reason for them to dislike a class.
Well, if I say 'I dislike the Bard because they're bad at social skills.' I'm factually wrong. Which is sorta where I was going with that, only regarding the incorrect claims you made. Which were less severely so, but still factually incorrect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer playing martials, I just hate the knowing that the group is overall weaker for my pick. The GM has to throw less epic encounters at us. I eat more resources than anyone else. I require a constant stream of buffs, gear, and healing to even function. ANY caster I bring is better for the party and helps the game run more smoothly. So even if running a martial is more fun for me, running a caster is more fun for everyone else.
|
|
I prefer playing martials, I just hate the knowing that the group is overall weaker for my pick. The GM has to throw less epic encounters at us. I eat more resources than anyone else. I require a constant stream of buffs, gear, and healing to even function. ANY caster I bring is better for the party and helps the game run more smoothly. So even if running a martial is more fun for me, running a caster is more fun for everyone else.
Slayer isn't bad at all. Nor is Barbarian.
You don't need external buffs to function, Slayer provides most of the skills the party needs (well, aside from Knowledges), Barbarian some other utility in spell Sunder and other effects, and neither costs any more in gear and healing than, say, a Magus.
You're not technically quite on par with a caster, but you are close enough to not bring the party down. And there's a trick or three to make them better, if you like (I have a wonderful Oracle 1/Barbarian X build that I think is awesome, for example).
I highly recommend doing one of those.
|
My favorite class doesn't exist in Pathfinder, but a damn close second is the APG Summoner. It has some casting, meaning that I get to be a Problem Solver in dynamic situations. The buff spells are great so I can always be an asset. And the Eidolon? Goodness I love those things. Limited only by the imagination, you could fufill just about any idea you had kicking around. I know I had fun with it. unchained is perfectly fine, even if the subtype list can chaff something fierce.
I love pet classes but the Animal Companion mechanics sorta bugged me. Limited intelligence meant it was an NPC bruiser with no skills. And again, I like being a problem solver. I love flashy classes that look awesome and heroic. I want to feel less Conan and more RWBY out of my fighting-persons and sometimes that's a tough itch to scratch.
Unsurprisingly, I'm voting caster, specifically casters that can do the martial's job. That 3/4 caster hype is real like Kraft Mayo, son.
I prefer playing martials, I just hate the knowing that the group is overall weaker for my pick. The GM has to throw less epic encounters at us. I eat more resources than anyone else. I require a constant stream of buffs, gear, and healing to even function. ANY caster I bring is better for the party and helps the game run more smoothly. So even if running a martial is more fun for me, running a caster is more fun for everyone else.Slayer isn't bad at all. Nor is Barbarian.
You don't need external buffs to function, Slayer provides most of the skills the party needs (well, aside from Knowledges), Barbarian some other utility in spell Sunder and other effects, and neither costs any more in gear and healing than, say, a Magus.
You're not technically quite on par with a caster, but you are close enough to not bring the party down. And there's a trick or three to make them better, if you like (I have a wonderful Oracle 1/Barbarian X build that I think is awesome, for example).
I highly recommend doing one of those.
Or I just summon a few monsters that don't need gear or healing or anything. Or I play a druid with a pocket fighter and summon more support.
I can "function" with a fighter. I could moderately self sustain with a paladin. That is still a weaker choice than a fullcaster from levels 1-20.
To be fair, a barbarian can literally sunder every creature you just summoned in a single blow and then rage cycle to do it again... though animal companions are harder to argue against because they are crazy broken. The point is there are a few classes so good at combat that in combat casters are not supreme against them. Optimized barbarians definitely being one of them.
ask anzyr if you can see his character arkalion. Any barbarian no matter how optimized will lose. Arkalion is. 20th level wizard by the way.
I prefer hybrids, to be honest. I like characters that can mix it up in melee, but also use magic. Favorite MMO class of all time is the SK from EQ2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like martial classes, not a fan of casting classes. In MMORPGs my favorite kind of class is a hybrid melee class that has a life steal mechanic like Shadowknight or Reavers from Daoc.
6th level spell casters are the sweet spot to me.
Personally, I'd be in favor of getting rid of every class that had either no or 9th level progression spell casting. 4th level and 6th level progression casters can stick around.
My opinion is based on balance reasons. 4th/6th level casting classes are among the best balanced in the game.
9th level spell casting classes break the game too easily. Full BAB martials output too much damage (often, but not always) but have little narrative power.
4th/6th level casters are the sweet spot.