Your favorite thing that people hate


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pan wrote:
Haunts. Its like combining traps and puzzles which are two things that make most gamers cry.

As someone currently playing a channel-focused cleric, I love haunts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
except Rogue and Fighter, those are bad

Fight me, mate. In all seriousness though, my first character ever was a rogue, and I will defend them until the day I get bored of doing that. They may not be the best at anything all of the time, but with the right (and more importantly, cooperative) team helping you to generally be in a good field position, you can be insanely effective.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Core monks. Well, with archetypes of course. A nice sohei is a fantastic melee character.

I always questioned the need for the unchained monk to 'fix' monks when there were soheis that could take the pummeling style feats, as well as brawlers.

The general niche these three share just seemed too saturated for me to appreciate unchained monks. It just didn't necessarily feel differentiated enough

Particularly when the 'fix' was mostly incompatible with the countless archetypes already designed to 'fix' monks. I always appreciated the archetype system as a way to adjust a class in various different ways after release. I saw little need for a complete rewrite like that.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Battletoad wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
except Rogue and Fighter, those are bad
Fight me, mate. In all seriousness though, my first character ever was a rogue, and I will defend them until the day I get bored of doing that. They may not be the best at anything all of the time, but with the right (and more importantly, cooperative) team helping you to generally be in a good field position, you can be insanely effective.

My first Pathfinder character was also a Rogue, and did brilliantly. In fact, I've played more Rogues than any other character Class in Pathfinder (that's two of them, since I usually GM, but still).

But the pre-Unchained Rogue remains a really bad Class. Yes, my first character did very well, but that was due to a combination of the character being way more optimized than anyone else's aside from Class, a rules misunderstanding, and exceedingly good rolled stats. Any successes a Rogue has are a result of succeeding in spite of the Class, not because of it. A Slayer or Investigator would almost universally do everything they do and do it better.

Unchained Rogues are quite a bit better, especially with certain Archetypes, though they still suffer some serious issues (mostly bad Saves, plus mobility issues even compared to other martials).


The power of 9th lv. casters. Some believe them to be over powered, and they may very well be, but for me, I love tearing reality asunder then jamming the leftover pieces back as I see fit.

This next one is focused on the gaming group I tend to play with (since they're friends). Role playing. Where I love getting into character, finding out secrets in the world and interacting with various npcs, a good chunk of my group are more there for combat. Which isn't wrong, and is understandable, but I do feel like I'm hogging time and spotlight, boring them even, when I have my character actually talking with various npcs.

Oh! I also enjoy having my characters speak during battle. They may not hate speaking though, I guess. Maybe just forget that it's ok to do.

Liberty's Edge

I also like the rogue class. My first PC was a rogue.

I like the alignment system. Characters are probably not aware of alignments, just as we do not describe ourselves by alignment. But it is a convenient way to think of how a PC is likely to act. But I don't want to use the AD&D system, where each alignment had its own secret language.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

More races, more classes, more archetypes, give me more! I love having options, and the bane of my existence is hearing the words "Core only". Vomit inducing, that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Role over Rule


7 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
More races, more classes, more archetypes, give me more! I love having options, and the bane of my existence is hearing the words "Core only". Vomit inducing, that.

Core Only= campaign I won't apply for


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:

I run into this a lot, not just here but also in my Pathfinder group. What are some of your favorite things in Pathfinder that most other people seem to not like (class, race, mechanic, rule, etc.)?

For me, it's the Kineticist. Obviously not everyone hates the Kineticist, but I do see a lot of moaning and groaning from people here and one or two in my group about the class being underwhelming, too complicated, or any other number of things.

Copied from another thread:

I wrote:

When people refer to observational or factual statements about a game as 'hate'.

For example:

P1: Bards can do more with skills than rogues.
P2: WHY DO YOU HATE ROGUES!

P1: Druids can summon more creatures than even a master summoner.
P2: WHY DO YOU HATE DRUIDS!

P1: The De Rham cohomology for this manifold is 0.
P2: WHY DO YOU HATE THAT MANIFOLD!

I don't think I've ever actually seen a forumite expressing 'hate' for the rogue, but there are a whole heck of a lot of threads entitled "Why do people hate rogues?" It's really annoying because there is no observation that anyone can possibly make that won't be interpreted by the forum as 'hate'. If you observe that X is more powerful than Y, then someone on the forum will start a whiny thread about how much you must hate X for being overpowered...
...and someone else will start a thread whining about how much you hate Y for being underpowered. If you think it's raining outside, then obviously you are a complainer who hates non-raining days. Or maybe you are a complainer who hates rain. But it's definitely hate, because everything someone else says must be interpreted as hate.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Psionics. And/or 3rd-party material in general.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Bagpipes.

Oh, in the game?

Uhhh...

Add me to the Kineticist dogpile, and also?

Robots with lasers existing in the same world as Lovecraftian horrors AND Tolkien-derived dragons. And hitting them with a sword is equally valid in all cases.


I hate hate threads.


Anguish wrote:
Psionics. And/or 3rd-party material in general.

Psionics has a 2nd edition reputation. I mean, you have a 70% chance of casting Disintegrate at 1st level (the other 30% meant it hit you).

Now, 3.54 and PF versions are not overpowered, but the rep remains.
I can see third party though, not all is balanced.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I hate hate threads.

But how many of the so-called "hate threads" actually have people saying they hate things? As opposed to people yelling "why do you hate X!" at people who never purported to hate X.

This thread is the latter, as the OP never actually purported to hate anything, they just accused other people of "hating" things.

Or it was, up until the point where you expressed "hate" for something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No one has the passion for Tiddlywinks that I have.

It's almost like we're not even playing the same game.


137ben wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I hate hate threads.

But how many of the so-called "hate threads" actually have people saying they hate things? As opposed to people yelling "why do you hate X!" at people who never purported to hate X.

This thread is the latter, as the OP never actually purported to hate anything, they just accused other people of "hating" things.

Or it was, up until the point where you expressed "hate" for something.

Stop making sense!:)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
I can see third party though, not all is balanced.

In a nutshell: so what?

While some of it is bad enough to be beyond salvage, even unbalanced material very, very often has a lot going for it in terms of inspiration and fundamentals. Seems to me that there's the idea that DMs are frequently willing to spend a dozen hours a day for months on end building intricate worlds (which their players likely don't care about any more than they would a pre-built setting). At the same time I'm to understand DMs can't be bothered to read a proposed class before it hits the table so they can adjust things as reasonable.

I love new material, even if it's only usable as an idea.


I love fighters, monks, and kineticists; I love optimizing defense over offense; Oh, and the vigilante. especially the vigilante.


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

I love my Medium.

I don't just stick to one legend to channel either, though I haven't found guardian to be all that useful, as he's an elf so there's no point in lugging all that heavy armor around.


OK, in the actual spirit of the thread, I love fighters.


Not thats its particularly disliked, but I love languages and giving my characters as many as is realistically possible.

I mention it because its by no means necessary when you can just use magic instead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

Not thats its particularly disliked, but I love languages and giving my characters as many as is realistically possible.

I mention it because its by no means necessary when you can just use magic instead.

Lol I love playing a linguist too, I don't care if it's unrealistic. I want EVERY language ever!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
137ben wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I hate hate threads.

But how many of the so-called "hate threads" actually have people saying they hate things? As opposed to people yelling "why do you hate X!" at people who never purported to hate X.

This thread is the latter, as the OP never actually purported to hate anything, they just accused other people of "hating" things.

Or it was, up until the point where you expressed "hate" for something.

Stop making sense!:)

Making sense is too MMO.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, I just remembered one:
I enjoyed every session of 4e that I played. Not as much as 3.5, hence why I am now playing 3.5 and not 4e, but I do like it and would play it again if that were my only option.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:

Not thats its particularly disliked, but I love languages and giving my characters as many as is realistically possible.

I mention it because its by no means necessary when you can just use magic instead.

To be fair there's an advantage over using tongues, get the party in on the language deal and you can plan on the fly while keeping a notable amount of your enemies out of the loop!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
SorrySleeping wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:

Paladins. There's so much hate on the boards but they're seriously so good. I really don't understand the hate.

Also I agree with Badbird too, multiclassing is fun. I put a 1-level martial dip on almost all my 6/9 casters (BADWRONGFUN!)

Gajolob Gorum Tell me more of these powerful Table-magics? Are they something a Half-Orc Paladin could aspire to?

The hate for Paladins isn't for any mechanics reasons. They're a solid class, most people aren't gonna dispute that. The hate for paladins exists because alot of people act like complete c-cks when playing them.

It doesn't help when you have dick GMs either. Someone posted here that they had a GM that said flanking was outside the Paladin's code of conduct.

I had a GM that said I couldn't use lay on hands on a female because that would violate the code as well, since paladins are suppose to be chaste.

WOW, that is awful. Where did he think your character was putting his hands? Lol. Besides, I've never seen a paladin code in PF that mandated chastity.

Mandated chastity? Tell that to the paladins of Arshea and Lymnieris. Especially if they took celestial obedience.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Quadratic Wizards. Totally love the way one game provides such disparate levels of power with a smooth progression. Its the way warriors don't keep up that bugs me.

Liberty's Edge

Vrog Skyreaver wrote:
I love fighters, monks, and kineticists; I love optimizing defense over offense; Oh, and the vigilante. especially the vigilante.

Wait, people don't like Vigilante? Why not? Throw me on the 'liking that one' bandwagon on that one as well.

Ditto the 'I enjoy actually roleplaying my character' bandwagon (though I'm sorta shocked people play this game without liking that), and the 'robots + dinosaurs + Cthulhu' bandwagon. Golarion's breadth of setting is super neat.


I like the vigilante except the brute i hate the brute i have yet to see someone say they liked the brute. (i like the idea of the brute not the implementation)

Liberty's Edge

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I like the vigilante except the brute i hate the brute i have yet to see someone say they liked the brute. (i like the idea of the brute not the implementation)

Well, sure...but there's at least one actively bad Archetype for every Class. That's no reason not to like the Class as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Been away for a couple of days, let's see how this thread is progressing...

SorrySleeping wrote:
It doesn't help when you have dick GMs either. Someone posted here that they had a GM that said flanking was outside the Paladin's code of conduct.

That's the worst thing I've ever heard ...

SorrySleeping wrote:
I had a GM that said I couldn't use lay on hands on a female because that would violate the code as well, since paladins are suppose to be chaste.

OK now THAT'S the worst thing I've ever heard.

HeHateMe wrote:
WOW, that is awful. Where did he think your character was putting his hands? Lol. Besides, I've never seen a paladin code in PF that mandated chastity.

Actually the weirdest thing about this one is that there IS a paladin code that mandates chastity: OATHBOUND PALADIN - OATH OF CHASTITY.

Outhbound Paladin wrote:

...an oathbound paladin devotes herself to a singular cause, which grants her additional powers but also gives further edicts she must follow ....

... If a paladin violates the code of her oath, she loses the class abilities associated with that oath until she atones. If she violates her paladin’s code, she loses her oath abilities as well as her other paladin abilities...

So this shows that an Oathbound Paladin has more restrictions than a normal Paladin, and that if (s)he breaks those restrictions (s)he doesn't lose all paladin abilities, only those associated with the oath.

Let's see what those further restrictions for an "Oath of Chastity"...

Oath of Chastity wrote:

Code of Conduct

Never engage in a romantic relationship or a sexual act.

Believe it or not, that literally says "Normal paladins can have sex".

And in the spirit of this thread ... I love being right! (Other people hate it when I'm right).

Edit: I should have added this to the whole Paladins-Can-Sex thing:

Paladin wrote:

Code of Conduct

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Imperfect but totally fine link

The only thing there that MIGHT refference using Lay on hands on a woman is the "help those in need" text, which implies you SHOULD be doing it.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, I also like having a dump stat. It lets your character be better at the thing they're good at (if you're using a point-buy system) which is nice, but it can also give you more role-playing hooks. That mean it helps you whether you're a power-gamer OR a hardcore Role-Player.


WabbitHuntr wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
More races, more classes, more archetypes, give me more! I love having options, and the bane of my existence is hearing the words "Core only". Vomit inducing, that.
Core Only= campaign I won't apply for

And of course, you are both fine with GMing a campaign with "everything Paizo"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrCharisma wrote:
Oh, I also like having a dump stat. It lets your character be better at the thing they're good at (if you're using a point-buy system) which is nice, but it can also give you more role-playing hooks. That mean it helps you whether you're a power-gamer OR a hardcore Role-Player.

Amen.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
WabbitHuntr wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
More races, more classes, more archetypes, give me more! I love having options, and the bane of my existence is hearing the words "Core only". Vomit inducing, that.
Core Only= campaign I won't apply for
And of course, you are both fine with GMing a campaign with "everything Paizo"?

I don't know about them but, assuming that "everything Paizo" permits a small banned list...no, I wouldn't.

My campaign wouldn't feel complete without psionics and weeabo fightan magic too. I prefer my level 3 "fighters" to be able to teleport 30ft and stab someone while giving the rest of the party +2 to attack and damage.


I allow everything although I had a ultimate psionic character almost make me rethink that. telepath that took the thrall master (something like that the one with all the minions.) I didn't have a huge problem except his turns lasted to long (making other player impatient) he was however smart enough to leave his 300+ low level minions at home i told him i would use dragons plural

so i suppose that and leadership I only allow when there is not many players if there is a lot of players i don't allow them to keep turns going faster. oh and that not even everything paizo thats paizo+ however i do like to look over and reserve the right to ban third party content at any time.


The problem is still that if you go core only and expand depending on the judgement you make of a desired rules element, you are good for allowing things, while including everything and then banning makes you evil for removing.


Yeah thats why i discuss it with my group and we agree on changes like we all agreed on the leadership and 1000 minions ban because it made it less fun for everyone even the telepath cause of how much effort he had to go through and you know felt bad for his fellow players


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, the problem there is Leadership, and anything which gives something "akin to leadership".


I can be ok if your have a really spare group like 2-3 players and need to fill in some spots or the players want to take leadership to represent a garrison but doesn't want them following him around all the time. or maybe your doing a war campaign could be ok there


To return to the thread theme, leadership. If the GM puts in the possible cohorts, doesn't give out bodyguards, crafter wizards, healbots and barbarians, it is usually fine. Two levels difference is fine and significant. The followers are too weak to do much other than give some support outside combat.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wait, people don't like Vigilante? Why not? Throw me on the 'liking that one' bandwagon on that one as well.

Ya, I get a lot of vitriol in regards to dual identity. It's kinda sad really. Not as much as fighters and monks, but those have been around longer...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the real trick with leadership is making sure that the cohort is a person, not a character sheet.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
MrCharisma wrote:
Oh, I also like having a dump stat. It lets your character be better at the thing they're good at (if you're using a point-buy system) which is nice, but it can also give you more role-playing hooks. That mean it helps you whether you're a power-gamer OR a hardcore Role-Player.
Amen.

Hallelujah.

Dumping stats is loads of fun.

Sissyl wrote:
To return to the thread theme, leadership. If the GM puts in the possible cohorts, doesn't give out bodyguards, crafter wizards, healbots and barbarians, it is usually fine. Two levels difference is fine and significant. The followers are too weak to do much other than give some support outside combat.

Yeah. The only problem I've ever seen with Leadership is in large parties, where it has the same problem with summoning and pets where it slows the game way down. Other than that, it's great.

Of course, some of that's the honor system, where the people I play with aren't dicks and don't actively try to abuse it, but still.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Rollplaying. Honestly, nowadays pretty much nobody plays Pathfinder like in the good old days, by locking everyone with all their sheets, dices and miniatures inside a barrel and setting it rolling down a slope. Personally, I think that any GM that can't tell a coherent story while being spun upside-down at 80 RPM isn't worth their salt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In no certain order:

1.Psionics.

2.The critical hit card deck. I don't use it anymore because I realized it was not fair to players, but I still liked it.


The core problem with leadership is the same as the core problem with say big prophecies dealing with one specific player. It monopolizes spot-like time to one person if only a single person has leadership and drags out playtime if multiple players have leadership. This also of course applies to thrallherd, master summoner, sacred geometry, and ultimately things like the white wolf games' nemesis drawback.

There are of course ways to mitigate this: making sure the players plan out all of their minions actions in advance, having the minions take over the roles of various things that would typically be NPCs such as town healers and item shop owners so as to minimize cutting into the GMs time, and limiting the minions to fairly simple classes. Also anyone who chimes in with "well the GM should be controlling the minions not the players" is still missing the problem of them. Having a feat that just says "GM here is more work you have to do" is bad design and still removes spot-light time from other players.

It isn't impossible to do leadership well but it takes a very careful touch and needs a sign telling inexperienced GMs. or GMs whose players have bad time management, to not include it in their games.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Sissyl wrote:
WabbitHuntr wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
More races, more classes, more archetypes, give me more! I love having options, and the bane of my existence is hearing the words "Core only". Vomit inducing, that.
Core Only= campaign I won't apply for
And of course, you are both fine with GMing a campaign with "everything Paizo"?

Absolutely. I allow everything upfront (excepting third-party content). However, the players still have to pitch their character ideas/builds to me, and I can still turn them down for a variety of reasons (such as it being inappropriate for the setting, for example).


I love using mythic rules for monsters. It tends to lead to most interesting boss fights even if I tend to ban the players from using mythic powers.

Otherwise I generally really like everything by Dreamscarred Pres (barring Riven Hourglass *shakes fist at sky*) because it's just straight better than core Pathfinder in terms of design and capturing a high adventure feel.

51 to 100 of 721 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Your favorite thing that people hate All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.