Someone poke Mark and point him to this thread just so he can bask in the Kineticist love.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe if they get enough love and errata will fix their math.
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:
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.
You presume to know more about me than you actually do. I have in fact run in to people on more occasions than not when the subject arises, who actually hate (or very much dislike) the kineticist class because it doesn't do X as well as Y class. The comments were not mere statements of fact. They were assertions (often baseless) directly accompanied by opinions and feelings towards the class. Just because the above has been your experience, does not mean that's the case for everyone else.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think voicing disappointment with the execution of a concept that they would actually like to play qualifies as "hate". Especially if the people in question took part in the playtest and were ignored regarding obvious problems with the class.
I hate Kineticist!
There, now someone's said it.
I like them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get the hate for Leadership. Did those who dislike it never play 2E D&D. Where Fighters at 9th level not only could attract soldiers. As well as a elite guard. Fully equipped with weapons and armor. Paladins at 9th level received a castle and could purchase men at arms like a Fighter if they had gold. Rangers at 10th level could attract 2D6 Followers. A mix of human and animal followers. All RAW. So either they disallowed players to get the above in 2E or simply don't understand that Leadership while powerful is not that broken imo.
I find Bard to be better than Rogues. Unless it's a specific build which allows a Rogue to benefit both from mobility and defense. Most vanilla Rogues at least at the tables I played at and do. Tend to live short lives. Most Dms simply don't allow intelligent npcs and creatures to sit still and ignore the Rogue sneak attacking them over and over. After the first sneak attack and due to low AC and hps thend to gets quickly injured and or knocked out.
I tend to like the Fighter Archtypes more than the core Fighter class. I find the core Fighter bland and uninspired. Nothing really unique in terms of class abilites. If given the choice I rather play the Samurai Sword Saint Archtype instead of a Fighter.
Maybe if they get enough love and errata will fix their math.
What's wrong with the math now? Every game I've seen it's worked out great.
I don't get the hate for Leadership.
It's only hated because it's a feat. It should have been a feat chain, or an archetype, or something else that takes a little more investment. As a feat though, it's simply the most powerful feat in the game, by far; and that doesn't sit well with a lot of people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like it because of the entourage.
|
|
I disagree about it needing to be a feat tax. We already have too many of them. We really don't need another Imo. We had a form of it for certain classes in 2E D&D. No one at least to my knowledge disliked it in that edition. Why suddenly in third edition. The only difference in third edition and later is that everyone could acquire followers not only certain classes. Your follower ia two levels lower than the pc. Magic in the game is strong Leadership I concede is good feat. 9ne of the best I don't think so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best I don't think so.
Name one that can compete.
I disagree about it needing to be a feat tax. We already have too many of them. We really don't need another Imo. We had a form of it for certain classes in 2E D&D. No one at least to my knowledge disliked it in that edition. Why suddenly in third edition. The only difference in third edition and later is that everyone could acquire followers not only certain classes. Your follower ia two levels lower than the pc. Magic in the game is strong Leadership I concede is good feat. 9ne of the best I don't think so.
Can't it get you a character with an entirely different build and class?
So doesn't that mean that one feat gives a fighter, for instance, the access to wizard spells at his level-2? Sure, it is through another character that also needs to be geared... but still, wizards man.
This is a bit of an extreme example, but the problem is there. If you wanted something more balanced, then that squire feat from Knights of the Inner Sea seems far more balanced. It requires the squire to take martial classes only (not saying martials are bad- just that getting at least a 6 level caster seems VERY attractive for your second character slot, to get a character devoted to purely buffing you), no followers, and it has a lower level cap for the cohort unless you go through quite a few hoops.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Psionics. And/or 3rd-party material in general.
This. As a bibliophile, not many can keep up with my library of extras. Most GMs hate being hit with things that they haven't planned for.
My most recent example is straight from core -- native outsiders being immune to things that effect "persons".
I don't get the hate for Leadership. Did those who dislike it never play 2E D&D. Where Fighters at 9th level not only could attract soldiers. As well as a elite guard. Fully equipped with weapons and armor. Paladins at 9th level received a castle and could purchase men at arms like a Fighter if they had gold. Rangers at 10th level could attract 2D6 Followers. A mix of human and animal followers. All RAW. So either they disallowed players to get the above in 2E or simply don't understand that Leadership while powerful is not that broken imo.
I think people who make arguments from having played 2E D&D or AD&D or OD&D tend to not observe how the rules have changed. The reason it was okay for older editions of D&D to have tons of characters for each player is that characters and combat was much much simpler back then. Pathfinder characters are significantly more complex than those in pre 3E editions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And of course, you are both fine with GMing a campaign with "everything Paizo"?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
I don't see why not, all the most broken stuff in the game is right there in the core book: Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids. If anything, Paizo's later releases brought down the power level from there.
Also, I hate restricting people, I don't like when it's done to me so I refuse to do it to someone else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And of course, you are both fine with GMing a campaign with "everything Paizo"?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
I open the flood gates in my games with "Play any race and class you want from paizo or 3PP. if you want something that even that massive list doesn't have, we'll work on it together and make it happen."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about restricting someone by letting them have whatever they want and then not tailoring the world to them? Like if they want to build some kind of "orc slayer" and you, the GM, have a world that has no orcs?
These kind of "I don't restrict anything" statements confuse me because I wonder why you can't just advertise ahead of time what you don't want to include and thus put the burden on the player to decide if they want to be restricted or they could instead play in a different group?
There's nothing wrong with that. All I said was I don't like restrictions placed on me so I won't do it to someone else. As long as the GM is open and honest about it, it's up to the player to decide if they like the restrictions or not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where's the rule that says you need to equip your followers/cohort?
Leadership gives you NPCs, and NPCs generally have gear.
What about restricting someone by letting them have whatever they want and then not tailoring the world to them? Like if they want to build some kind of "orc slayer" and you, the GM, have a world that has no orcs?
These kind of "I don't restrict anything" statements confuse me because I wonder why you can't just advertise ahead of time what you don't want to include and thus put the burden on the player to decide if they want to be restricted or they could instead play in a different group?
It's really not that hard. Just be clear as to what kind of game you plan to run. It's easier to say what you're looking for, then to cite an exhaustive list of things you don't want. The former intrigues players, the latter drives them away.
GM: Hey guys! I'm thinking of running Skull and Shackles, a game where you all get to play ruthless pirates on the high seas.
PCs: Heck yeah! That sounds like fun!
Barry: Dibs on the martial tank!
Harley: I guess I'll be the crazy fun-loving bard backup.
Clark: Paladin! I do love paladins!
Slade: I'm going to play an intimidation focused debuff unchained rogue, or perhaps a slayer.
GM: Sounds great guys, though a Paladin likely won't be a good fit for this game, Clark. Perhaps a ranger instead?
...and so on.
After the general stuff is agreed upon, the players can work on their specific builds, then present those to the GM for final review/fine tuning (which would involve making suggestions, not altering the character then handing it back).
It's really not that hard. This can be done in person, via text, or whatever. All you need is to communicate. If you can't do that, I'm not sure how you're roleplaying in the first place.
What about restricting someone by letting them have whatever they want and then not tailoring the world to them? Like if they want to build some kind of "orc slayer" and you, the GM, have a world that has no orcs?
If I know a player is making an orc slayer, I am including orcs. there isn't a whole lot of extra work on my part.
These kind of "I don't restrict anything" statements confuse me because I wonder why you can't just advertise ahead of time what you don't want to include and thus put the burden on the player to decide if they want to be restricted or they could instead play in a different group?
I am unsure what you mean; if I mean "make anything" I mean it. there is no confusion to be had, nor any extra burden on my side. generally the people doing the 'no restrictions' games are adaptable enough to go with the flow of whatever the players can pull.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like Gunslingers.
]Wait, people don't like Vigilante? Why not? Throw me on the 'liking that one' bandwagon on that one as well.
I've seen more than a few people get hung up on dual identity and complain about the vigilante being a 'dumb' or 'gimmicky' class that 'only works in one specific kind of campaign' without ever seeming to notice that the avenger vigilante is a full bab martial with good will, 6 skill points, pounce and a bunch of other goodies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Ooh, that's something I like that everyone else hates - I like the mythic rule system and enjoyed Wrath of the Righteous.
|
I like the Big Six. A lot.
I like that it funnels your gold into specific purchases. I like how it turns your income into another means of the GM directly adjusting your party's power. It's kind of a second EXP track without baving to calculate the minutia of each creature in encounter. You could plan the majority of purchases in ascending order of price, spread out by wealth-by-level, not unlike your class' list of features.
Some people say it's boring, but I find it to be the most effective method to make your character better at what they already do. Stat belts/headbands make your class features more accurate, harder to resist, and last longer. They give you more damage. Cloaks make you more likely to resist effects that deny you the ability to do the thing you do. AC items make you harder to kill.
Edit: I also like the fact that the Cleric is a deceptively feature-rich class thanks to the 9th level casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After mythic rules have allowed me to stay competitive with the Kitsune Sorcerer in the DC and versatility department so you can bet I like them! They're a good way to make martials actually worth a damn too!
Edit: I also like the fact that the Cleric is a deceptively feature-rich class thanks to the 9th level casting.
Too bad they're boring as hell to build and level without a dip. You only get to choose a small amount of feats and your domains, and aside from level 8 (and very rarely level 6/10) you get no new options on even levels. Combined with my preference for spontaneous casting and I'll just stick with the oracle class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the Big Six. A lot.
I like that it funnels your gold into specific purchases. I like how it turns your income into another means of the GM directly adjusting your party's power. It's kind of a second EXP track without baving to calculate the minutia of each creature in encounter. You could plan the majority of purchases in ascending order of price, spread out by wealth-by-level, not unlike your class' list of featurEs.
Amusingly, we totally agree on the basic facts- but you see it as a feature where I see it as a bug. Different strokes. I suspect there's a lot of that in this thread...
Up next on the "why don't people like it as much as I do" train:
Human-only campaigns.
Enforcing regional language primacy (no, these Garundi/Mwangi/Tians don't speak "common.")
Encounters the party isn't supposed to win.
Encounters the party isn't supposed to win.
You gotta be careful with those, but I do love them when they're done right.
Up next on the "why don't people like it as much as I do" train:
Human-only campaigns.
Enforcing regional language primacy (no, these Garundi/Mwangi/Tians don't speak "common.")
Encounters the party isn't supposed to win.
Why do you like Human-Only campaigns?
I don't really like playing anything that strays too far from Humans, and I get a bit flabbergasted when people want to play Gargoyles and Minotaurs, but I don't see why you'd want only Humans.
Why do you like Human-Only campaigns?
I don't really like playing anything that strays too far from Humans, and I get a bit flabbergasted when people want to play Gargoyles and Minotaurs, but I don't see why you'd want only Humans.
Because it eliminates a lot of lazy shorthand on the character concept level, because it better avoids obnoxious monoculture tropes (even an awesome fun-loving dancing fool dwarf mostly stands out because he/she is not "acting like a dwarf"), because it skirts worn-out interspecies fantasy antagonisms, it makes it so that everybody has to remember their light sources/workarounds... Lots of reasons.
Bear in mind, I've also played piles of goblins, lizardfolk, and the odd ogre, and had piles of fun doing so, but the kneejerk response to all-human campaigns strikes me as short-sighted in the extreme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters. Blasters. Rogues. Take your pick.
|
|
Edit: I also like the fact that the Cleric is a deceptively feature-rich class thanks to the 9th level casting.Too bad they're boring as hell to build and level without a dip. You only get to choose a small amount of feats and your domains, and aside from level 8 (and very rarely level 6/10) you get no new options on even levels. Combined with my preference for spontaneous casting and I'll just stick with the oracle class.
Yeah, Oracles have a lot of built in flavor. And their "bloodline" mechanic helps to keep things interesting. Still, just adding an extra casting per day of your highest level is often enough to get excited about. Think of it as a powerful and variable 1/day ability.
Featwise, it isn't too bad as long as you limit yourself to a simpler style and let buff spells do the heavy lifting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Multiclassing
Prestige classes.
Spellcasters running out of spells and having to do other things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not convinced that Leadership is broken. Nor unbalanced. As I said their were version of it in previous edition of D&D. So I'm assuming either those who find it unbalanced. Either never played 2E. Or simply forgot that it existed. Or need to control everything and anything at their table completely. I like Third party products. I find them ore interesting and informative. With more viable options than the standard PF products.
I like non-standard fantasy backgrounds in rpgs. If it's one thing I'm sick of in too many fantasy rpgs it's humanity as the dominant race because "reason". Sometimes the reason don't make any sense either. I actually prefer the divine magic from 2E as well as the speciality kits fpr priests. I just feel like they make Clerics more interesting. At first I disliked now like how in 2E D&D dump stats actually had real penalties. Want to dump that con score. Good luck coming back from the dead. Low Cha well you better have a lot of gold as your hired npcs are not going to be loyal.
Where's the rule that says you need to equip your followers/cohort?
Leadership gives you NPCs, and NPCs generally have gear.
GM: Hey guys! I'm thinking of running Skull and Shackles, a game where you all get to play ruthless pirates on the high seas.PCs: Heck yeah! That sounds like fun!
Barry: Dibs on the martial tank!
Harley: I guess I'll be the crazy fun-loving bard backup.
Clark: Paladin! I do love paladins!
Slade: I'm going to play an intimidation focused debuff unchained rogue, or perhaps a slayer.
GM: Sounds great guys, though a Paladin likely won't be a good fit for this game, Clark. Perhaps a ranger instead?
thats how i do it to also Clark? always wants to play paladins AHA! Its Clark Kent is superman!
Edit: I also like the fact that the Cleric is a deceptively feature-rich class thanks to the 9th level casting.Too bad they're boring as hell to build and level without a dip. You only get to choose a small amount of feats and your domains, and aside from level 8 (and very rarely level 6/10) you get no new options on even levels. Combined with my preference for spontaneous casting and I'll just stick with the oracle class.
Really? I see this sentiment quite a bit, and I don't really get it. They've got diverse archetypes that do everything from customizing Domains to using Bardic Performance, Domains/Subdomains/Inquisitions that provide novel and powerful abilities and/or spells, assorted possible tricks with Channel Energy like Variant Channel and Channel Smite, and a patron deity that grants further customization options like unique spell rules, feats, traits and a bonus weapon proficiency. There are an awful lot of things to play with in there.
Really? I see this sentiment quite a bit, and I don't really get it. They've got diverse archetypes that do everything from customizing Domains to using Bardic Performance, Domains/Subdomains/Inquisitions that provide novel and powerful abilities and/or spells, assorted possible tricks with Channel Energy like Variant Channel and Channel Smite, and a patron deity that grants further customization options like unique spell rules, feats, traits and a bonus weapon proficiency. There are an awful lot of things to play with in there.Edit: I also like the fact that the Cleric is a deceptively feature-rich class thanks to the 9th level casting.Too bad they're boring as hell to build and level without a dip. You only get to choose a small amount of feats and your domains, and aside from level 8 (and very rarely level 6/10) you get no new options on even levels. Combined with my preference for spontaneous casting and I'll just stick with the oracle class.
Yeah, you want to know when you choose those options? Level 1.
Building my character as they level is a notable part of the game for me, and I'm gonna be honest, if the cleric got spells like a wizard I would have more fun with them if only so I could have something to choose at even levels and more to choose at odd levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Freakshow parties.
The party in my current game includesban abberant suit of leather armor, an insectoid mind mage, a dragon and a dhampir.
I love these as well, in fact, I would love to play in an entirely non-Core party: no core classes, no core races. I think that would be alot of fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still not convinced that Leadership is broken. Nor unbalanced. As I said their were version of it in previous edition of D&D. So I'm assuming either those who find it unbalanced. Either never played 2E. Or simply forgot that it existed. Or need to control everything and anything at their table completely. I like Third party products. I find them ore interesting and informative. With more viable options than the standard PF products.
I like non-standard fantasy backgrounds in rpgs. If it's one thing I'm sick of in too many fantasy rpgs it's humanity as the dominant race because "reason". Sometimes the reason don't make any sense either. I actually prefer the divine magic from 2E as well as the speciality kits fpr priests. I just feel like they make Clerics more interesting. At first I disliked now like how in 2E D&D dump stats actually had real penalties. Want to dump that con score. Good luck coming back from the dead. Low Cha well you better have a lot of gold as your hired npcs are not going to be loyal.
I LOVE Leadership, for one simple reason: in every party I've seen, someone always gets pressured to "take one for the team" and play a healer or skill monkey, or whatever role happens to be unpopular with that particular group. Well f@#k that, just take the Leadership feat and have the healbot/trapmonkey follow the party around doing the boring stupid sh*t nobody wants to do. Leadership is an amazing thing, as long as the party has someone with a decent Charisma.
Really? I see this sentiment quite a bit, and I don't really get it. They've got diverse archetypes that do everything from customizing Domains to using Bardic Performance, Domains/Subdomains/Inquisitions that provide novel and powerful abilities and/or spells, assorted possible tricks with Channel Energy like Variant Channel and Channel Smite, and a patron deity that grants further customization options like unique spell rules, feats, traits and a bonus weapon proficiency. There are an awful lot of things to play with in there.Edit: I also like the fact that the Cleric is a deceptively feature-rich class thanks to the 9th level casting.Too bad they're boring as hell to build and level without a dip. You only get to choose a small amount of feats and your domains, and aside from level 8 (and very rarely level 6/10) you get no new options on even levels. Combined with my preference for spontaneous casting and I'll just stick with the oracle class.Yeah, you want to know when you choose those options? Level 1.
Building my character as they level is a notable part of the game for me, and I'm gonna be honest, if the cleric got spells like a wizard I would have more fun with them if only so I could have something to choose at even levels and more to choose at odd levels.
I'm not sure I follow. Anytime you plan a build in advance, you choose up to everything before even level 1 anyhow. If you don't plan in advance then everything is a choice, including which spells a Cleric chooses to prepare every day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have an actual example of someone saying they hate the kineticist?
You presume to know more about me than you actually do.
I said I hate the Kineticist at the top of this page... (5th post from the top)
The thread is titled "Your thing that people "... but the subtext is "something you that other people ".
If you've seen someone complaining about it on the forums (or in real life) it's fair game. You're also not limited to only choosing 1 thing to post on this thread just because the word "favourite" is used in the title.
This is a positive thread, let's keep it positive.