What Classes Do You Think Are Fine The Way They Are?

[Dragon78]

So what classes do you think are perfectly fine the way they are?

Barbarian and Ranger comes to mind.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Dragon78 wrote:

So what classes do you think are perfectly fine the way they are?

All of them

[DeathlessOne]

Most of the 3/4 BAB, 6th level spell casting class tend to be fairly well put together, in my opinion.

[VoodistMonk]

Most, if not all, hybrid and UnChained classes can be left as-is. Things like the Bloodrager, Brawler, Investigator, Slayer, and Warpriest are pretty great at what they do. Hunters, Shamans, and Skalds, too.

Bard, Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard are all fine.

Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Magus, Oracle, and Witch are all fine.

Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, and Spiritualist are all fine... as far as I know... my experience is quite limited with Occult classes.

[Sysryke]

I'm not the best number cruncher, and certainly not a game designer, but I would tend to agree that most classes are fine, even the hotly contested Rogue, Cleric, and the like.

From my own experiences and what I've seen on these threads, the "problem" with many of the contentious classes, is that the system has been around for a long time. With all of the splat and growth, many classes have suffered either from power creep, or loosing/sharing bits and pieces of their conceptual identity.

From my viewpoint, I also think that several classes were archetypes long before the game concept of archetype was introduced. If you step back and look at some classes in that light, then you come to realize that, while most classes are fine, some are more niche than others. They're meant for specific builds, play styles, or storylines.

From a balance perspective I get where this can be frustrating, but there are just going to be certain games where a rogue, inquisitor, cavalier, or what have you just don't fit as well.

So, as with almost any question on these boards, what's "fine" or not will vary from table to table.

[Coidzor]

Aside from individual variance of opinion, there's also the issue of defining what "fine" is even attempting to mean.

Most if not all classes could use some tweaks of varying complexity and scope at least somewhere, simply because there are a lot of moving parts between vanilla class features, archetypes, integral feats, and spell lists (and even the spells themselves).

On the other hand, there isn't a class that is nearly as jank as the Truenamer or that is as borked to the same extent as the Soulborn or Samurai.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

Paladin

[Mightypion]

Define "fine".

One can make an argument for Barbarian being not fine, on account of Bloodrager primalist archetype being strictly better at doing most types of Barbarian stuff then a Barb is.

But thats imho the fault of Primalist being busted.

[Derklord]

"perfectly fine the way they are"? Almost none, because even the classes that aren't badly designed usually have at least minor issues. Based on the opposite-side-thread, classes where no changes immediately spring to mind:

Arcanist
Alchemist
Inquisitor
Magus
Investigator
Occultist

Sysryke wrote:

From my own experiences and what I've seen on these threads, the "problem" with many of the contentious classes, is that the system has been around for a long time. With all of the splat and growth, many classes have suffered either from power creep, or loosing/sharing bits and pieces of their conceptual identity.

This is actually backwards. The reason for the power creep, and the class bloat, is that many of the CRB classes were utterly terribly made. Rogue was severely outclassed at virtually everything the second the CRB hit the stands (and the last remeaining niche was removed with the APG). The Monk abilities are incompatible with each other, leaving the class a dysfunctional mess; it also lacks out-of-combat stuff. Fighter was only useful for archery until AWT arrived, and especially lacked out-of-combat stuff. Ranger and Paladin depend way too much on enemy selection.

Paizo made martials pathetic crap to begin with, and wasn't willing and able to buff the classes, producing a lot of replacement options instead.

[Chell Raighn]

In all honesty… the only classes that I personally believe don’t have any major issues that should be fixed are Arcanist, Bard, and Fighter… and that’s just speaking of their base unarchetyped classes… when it comes to archetypes for them on the other hand… there are a lot of problems… such as nearly every archetype for Arcanist being a straight downgrade…

[Mark Hoover 330]

Mightypion wrote:

Define "fine".

An excellent point. In my own games I define it as being able to contribute meaningfully in combat based on the benchmarks set by the Monster Creation rules. A "standard" party IMO is 4 PCs and I compare the APL of the PCs to the CR of a monster in an "average" fight relative to that APL; for an APL of 5 I compare them to a CR 5 monster.

So, "fine" in my games is being able to hit the avg AC of the monster with greater than 50% accuracy and using a full attack round to deal at least 1/4 the monster's avg HP, forcing the victim to make a save they have less than a 50% chance of succeeding against, or otherwise delivering a significant buff or debuff that helps end the combat.

Out of combat, my expectation is that PCs have something they can do. This does not need to be a Class Ability. Out of combat actions are methods of non-violently dealing with threats, resolving non-creature threats such as mindless hazards, infiltration, healing, being able to perform a "day job" during Downtime, etc.

Any class that can administer a potion can do SOME kind of out-of-combat healing in an emergency. Thanks to Traits, any class can have at least one Class Skill that benefits them and their party out of combat. Since I use the Downtime rules, every PC has the potential to earn a living and generate useful Capital. Whether or not PCs spend their skill ranks the way I want is up to them, but every single one has the POTENTIAL, so the classes themselves aren't inherently "not fine" in non-combat scenarios.

Are some classes skill starved? Certainly. A vanilla fighter with a 15 point buy might have 2 skill ranks/level. However, spending those on, say, Profession: Soldier and Survival means that from level 1 on you can earn a daily wage during Downtime, help the party avoid some hazards in the wilderness, and even use your Profession in place of Diplomacy (in my games anyway) in social situations with folks related to professional soldiering.

The CAPABILITY exists for a vanilla fighter to have something to do outside of combat, whether the player builds for it or not. There is no inherent restriction against this class that says they cannot take non-combat actions. Its just harder for them than other classes.

My benchmarks for "fine" are likely not the same as everyone's and equally as likely will be refuted by some is too low-bar, not attainable in levels 15 - 20, and so on. That's fine; that's everyone else's opinion.

I use stuff basically RAW right out of the Paizo source books. If the PCs begin with a 15 point buy and I keep them at WBL, any class should have the inherent capability to contribute meaningfully at every level in both combat and non-combat encounters.

The one thing I'd like to point out though is that, following my benchmarks, there are many classes that would be WORSE than other classes at achieving the same contributions, be they in or out of combat. Also not every class will have the same LEVEL of utility in every combat or non-combat encounter.

Take the Investigator for example. Without an archetype, they obviously deal a modest amount of damage against creatures affected by Precision damage, one foe at a time, but just as obviously have TONS of utility out of combat through skill use, Inspiration and alchemy. There are feats they can take to improve that damage, but they'll never be as powerful in combat as, say, a blaster wizard build, especially against multiple opponents at once. However, the wizard, though they have a decent amount of skills, will never have as many chances for success outside of combat as the Investigator due to their focus away from utility spells and feats.

Rogues have inconsistent damage from their SA, I get that, but when SA works the rogue is capable of meeting their damage requirements by level, so long as feats and items work to support the rogue's combat ability. Fighters on the other hand have ONLY combat-based abilities and very few skills, so their non-combat options are limited. However, if they build ONLY for meeting the very low combat benchmarks I've laid out, a vanilla fighter beginning play with a 16 Str wouldn't need a damage or accuracy booster for the first 4 levels at least.

During those first 4 levels you'll get at least 2 feats that don't have to be combat feats. If those were a Skill Focus in 2 of your Class Skills, that would mean that in any instance involving either of those feats, you would be relatively apt to succeed outside of combat. Thus... you have SOME reliable out-of-combat utility. Not nearly as much as the rogue or investigator above, but enough that your PC class isn't "not fine" in my opinion.

The only classes I've EVER changed in the entire history of my play in this system have been the Warrior and Adept NPC classes. For Warrior I typically give them one free bonus combat feat at level 1 and for Adept I've designed some with different (equally bad) spell choices based around arcane casting instead of divine casting.

[DungeonmasterCal]

I really don't have a problem with any of them, I guess. I'm not a fan of the Vigilante or the Shifter, but that's just a personal prejudice. We do tend to use the spell-less Ranger from Kobold Press more than the standard one, though. None of my group really sees being a spellcaster as being important to the class. So if I changed anything it would be to make that the standard version of the class.

EDIT: I do have a problem with one of the classes. I just forgot about it because I don't feel they fit my setting. The Gunslinger just rankles me for some reason. Part of that is the name. This ain't Boot Hill, so I really think the name Gunslinger is anachronistic. I've never allowed one in my setting, but I'm coming around to an idea for using them but by golly that name is gonna get changed.

[Andostre]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

EDIT: I do have a problem with one of the classes. I just forgot about it because I don't feel they fit my setting. The Gunslinger just rankles me for some reason. Part of that is the name. This ain't Boot Hill, so I really think the name Gunslinger is anachronistic. I've never allowed one in my setting, but I'm coming around to an idea for using them but by golly that name is gonna get changed.

Here's a few suggestions, Cal:

Pistol Handler
Bullet Shooter
Bullet Magician
Shootin' Expert
Black Powder Aggressor
Steve
Violence Firer
Guns-Don't-Kill-People-I-Do

Feel free to use any of those. You don't even need to give me credit. In fact, please don't.

[*Thelith]

Andostre wrote:

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

EDIT: I do have a problem with one of the classes. I just forgot about it because I don't feel they fit my setting. The Gunslinger just rankles me for some reason. Part of that is the name. This ain't Boot Hill, so I really think the name Gunslinger is anachronistic. I've never allowed one in my setting, but I'm coming around to an idea for using them but by golly that name is gonna get changed.

Here's a few suggestions, Cal:

Pistol Handler
Bullet Shooter
Bullet Magician
Shootin' Expert
Black Powder Aggressor
Steve
Violence Firer
Guns-Don't-Kill-People-I-Do

Feel free to use any of those. You don't even need to give me credit. In fact, please don't.

What is the range increment and damage for throwing a gun with a sling?

That is what a gun slinger does right?

[Zepheri]

For me, the ninja and samurai classes don't have much dedication, it was just a copy / paste of the cavalier and rogue classes and they didn't dedicate themselves to developing unique classes.

As for the swashbuckler class, I think it is not related to the gunslinger class except for the grid ability, if they would give it some use of the guns, I would say that it can be good but it does not have it, so if someone wanted to multiclass with these two classes would have to meditate a lot on how to mix them since it only has 1 single skill in common compared to other hybrid classes

[Lelomenia]

Fine as originally published or fine using all subsequent published content?

[Claxon]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

So what classes do you think are perfectly fine the way they are?

All of them

I would agree, with the caveat of knowing that there are some that should generally be avoided because you can probably achieve what you want to do with another class but be better mechanically.

But despite that, I would say it's not worth the effort to go back and rework any classes that are on the low end because you can (probably) do what you want with another class already.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Claxon wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

So what classes do you think are perfectly fine the way they are?

All of them

I would agree, with the caveat of knowing that there are some that should generally be avoided because you can probably achieve what you want to do with another class but be better mechanically.

But despite that, I would say it's not worth the effort to go back and rework any classes that are on the low end because you can (probably) do what you want with another class already.

Now there I can't disagree. You want to be a rogue, you COULD play a rogue... but depending on the general focus of the build you're intending, you will likely accomplish your goals BETTER as a Slayer, Inquisitor, Investigator, etc.

But I'd say the same for a lot of Core classes. I don't create NPC rangers much anymore as antagonists, but I make a lot of NPC hunters. If I'm not using the warrior NPC class, I've built several melee martial types using bloodragers, brawlers and warpriests instead of fighter or barbarian.

Personally I like meshing brute force and spells together, so those classes work better for my purposes. As new material came out, better solutions to build issues presented themselves.

[Claxon]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

So what classes do you think are perfectly fine the way they are?

All of them

I would agree, with the caveat of knowing that there are some that should generally be avoided because you can probably achieve what you want to do with another class but be better mechanically.

But despite that, I would say it's not worth the effort to go back and rework any classes that are on the low end because you can (probably) do what you want with another class already.

Now there I can't disagree. You want to be a rogue, you COULD play a rogue... but depending on the general focus of the build you're intending, you will likely accomplish your goals BETTER as a Slayer, Inquisitor, Investigator, etc.

But I'd say the same for a lot of Core classes. I don't create NPC rangers much anymore as antagonists, but I make a lot of NPC hunters. If I'm not using the warrior NPC class, I've built several melee martial types using bloodragers, brawlers and warpriests instead of fighter or barbarian.

Personally I like meshing brute force and spells together, so those classes work better for my purposes. As new material came out, better solutions to build issues presented themselves.

Yeah, I agree strongly.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Claxon wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

So what classes do you think are perfectly fine the way they are?

All of them

I would agree, with the caveat of knowing that there are some that should generally be avoided because you can probably achieve what you want to do with another class but be better mechanically.

But despite that, I would say it's not worth the effort to go back and rework any classes that are on the low end because you can (probably) do what you want with another class already.

I think this is Pathfinder's greatest strength. Being able to customize a character in almost unlimited ways, especially to overcome what might be perceived as a "design flaw" in a class by using archetypes, feats, and traits is what I love most about it.

[Greylurker]

I think the Fighter has come a long way. With the stuff in the Armor Master and Weapon Master books plus some of the other thin books they have gained a lot more options. and depending on your DM the combat stamina stuff can add even more.

Only real problem is finding it all, cause it's scattered all over the place. Would have been nice to take the stuff in those thin books and compile it in a few hardcovers

[Claxon]

Yeah, the real problem is that over the lifetime of PF1 most classes were given options that put them in a good place. The problem is knowing those options exist in the first place and finding them.

[Greylurker]

Rogue Genius Games put together a "Feat Reference Guide" book that compiles a lot of the feats from the thin paizo books, and renames ones that were Golarion Specific. That's helped me a lot.

[Arkham Joker]

The 'Non-generic cleric' is a very simple but yet solid and effective approach to customising the Cleric.

https://sites.google.com/site/grindorsgoods/nongenericcleric

I've always said that due to the varying nature of the deities themselves, you need a modular approach to the Cleric in order for it to make thematic and mechanical sense.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Greylurker wrote:

I think the Fighter has come a long way. With the stuff in the Armor Master and Weapon Master books plus some of the other thin books they have gained a lot more options. and depending on your DM the combat stamina stuff can add even more.

Only real problem is finding it all, cause it's scattered all over the place. Would have been nice to take the stuff in those thin books and compile it in a few hardcovers

I could never afford all of the splat books that were published, so I just have to rely on www.d20pfsrd.com and www.aon.com for their collections of feats, etc.