He's so handsome, but he's SO DUMB! (Well-fluffed classes with poor mechanics)

[malonkey1]

Alright, in 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder, what classes, ACFs, and Archetypes did you really, really like the fluff to, but just hated mechanically?

For me, it was the Truenamer. Literally telling the universe what to do? Hell yes. The weak effects, ridiculously poorly scaling checks for underwhelming effect? Hell no. It's so sad that that was our only example of skill-based casting.

[OldTrees1]

Liked Fluff: Manuevers
Disliked Mechanics: Unreadied Manuevers, & Strikes are Standard actions rather than attack actions.

[dragonsamurai77]

Liked Fluff: Manuevers
Disliked Mechanics: Unreadied Manuevers, & Strikes are Standard actions rather than attack actions.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm


There are six types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, free actions, swift actions, and immediate actions.

No such thing as an attack action.

[Necroticplague]

Shadowcaster
Fluff: specialized mages who can manipulate the very fabric of their shadows with increasing skill until it is but a moment's thought.
crunch: a crappy archer (given their tendency to run out of mysteries too quickly at every oppurtunity).

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

No such thing as an attack action.

I think he meant as a different mode for a single attack, such as a disarm, sunder, grapple, etc. so you can make multiple strikes as part of a full attack, or use one when making an attack of opportunity. You can't spend standard actions this way, but if a strike is a special type of attack the same way a disarm or sunder attempt is, then it can be used in place of any melee attack you would be able to make.

[ben-zayb]

(Pedantry aside) I think OldTrees was referring to a "melee attack", which can be used to normally whack someone or to trip/grapple/disarm/sunder. I could be wrong though. Some homebrews I get anywhere from 1-4 maneuvers per round (depending on how you limit "melee attack" maneuvers per round, and usually only keyed off iteratives).

EDIT: Ninja'd!


Oh, yeah, and add Ninja to the list. And +1 Shadowcaster, I think they're so horribly crunched. Also, freaking monk.

Last but not least, the Scout. They got mechanics that are so bad and copypasted, everyone forgets that they have far too different fluff from the Ranger. (YES, this is a shameless plug for my homebrew).

[A_S]

No such thing as an attack action.
Maybe not by name in the SRD, but there is a class of actions that you can perform either as a standard action or as one of your iteratives (basic attack, trip attempt, try to deliver a held charge on a touch spell, etc.), and "attack action" is as good a name for that category as any. I believe it's even printed in a few sourcebooks (without being clearly defined anywhere, of course...this is 3.5 after all).

It would have been reasonable to make ToB maneuvers this type of action instead of standard actions.

*edit* double swordsage'd

[squiggit]

Re: Attack action/maneuver bit - Being able to dump every strike you have readied into a single TSS sounds a bit cheesy. Kinda.


Arcane Archer is a badass master of the bow who can weave devastating spells into his archery.

Mechanically it's bad at everything it's supposed to do but occasionally we dip it to fire off area spells.

Blighter: Dark anti-druid with undead themes is pretty cool. Mechanically so is 9 level casting in 10 levels!... Having to be a 5th level druid to enter it and having all those levels get burnt by the special requirement not so much. It's one of the only PrCs I know of that not only sucks, but actively makes you worse for taking it.

[ben-zayb]

I think I also have to add Reaping *freaking* Mauler to the list. I mean, with that badass name alone, you'd expect some good grappling/bashing mechanics.

[bekeleven]

I think I also have to add Reaping *freaking* Mauler to the list. I mean, with that badass name alone, you'd expect some good grappling/bashing mechanics.

Reaping mauler is fine. so long as you enter it through leviathan hunter or martial monk.

As for me, I wish the marshal class was more than 1 level long (occasionally 2).

[VoxRationis]

Last but not least, the Scout. They got mechanics that are so bad and copypasted, everyone forgets that they have far too different fluff from the Ranger. (YES, this is a shameless plug for my homebrew).

The scout's iconic ability is, to the best of my recollection, something new (although I myself question why moving 10 feet to the side makes you do more damage than standing still...). As for the other things, well, I would personally hate it if every class had a whole suite of strange new in-depth mechanics, so I'm kind of glad it has a lot of "copypasted" abilities.

[Slipperychicken]

Blasting. Why is it so hard for WotC to make a good at-will blast for PCs?

Also, I want guns to be balanced, but they aren't. You're either swinging doubled attacks against Touch AC for archer-damage, or you're using an exploding 1000gp crossbow with a tiny range increment.

[VoxRationis]

Blasting. Why is it so hard for WotC to make a good at-will blast for PCs?

Also, I want guns to be balanced, but they aren't. You're either swinging doubled attacks against Touch AC for archer-damage, or you're using an exploding 1000gp crossbow with a tiny range increment.

Guns frankly shouldn't be balanced. Either they're repeating, well-machined affairs that can pour out damage at a rate far exceeding anything that civilization had previously put into a man-portable package, or they're slow, inefficient, logistically problematic affairs whose primary advantage is ease of use. There's not much way to get them in between, except for having self-contained cartridges with percussion-type firing mechanisms but no repeating mechanisms. Any intelligent gun designer, upon realizing they had those things, would quickly put repeating mechanisms in, moving to the latter state of imbalance.

[Eldan]

Alright, in 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder, what classes, ACFs, and Archetypes did you really, really like the fluff to, but just hated mechanically?

For me, it was the Truenamer. Literally telling the universe what to do? Hell yes. The weak effects, ridiculously poorly scaling checks for underwhelming effect? Hell no. It's so sad that that was our only example of skill-based casting.

There's a good fix to Truenamers: it's called playing a wizard. You have verbal components. You are already telling the universe what to do.

[ben-zayb]

The scout's iconic ability is, to the best of my recollection, something new (although I myself question why moving 10 feet to the side makes you do more damage than standing still...). As for the other things, well, I would personally hate it if every class had a whole suite of strange new in-depth mechanics, so I'm kind of glad it has a lot of "copypasted" abilities.The Scout's Skirmish is just a Sneak Attack type of damage buffer, divided between offense/defense, with a different condition to use.

As for the logic, heh.:smalltongue: If I were to guess, it's the idea that movement implies you've more preparation or momentum?


And no, reaping mauler is bad. Unless you call yourself a a Grappling build without the Improved Grapple for at least the first 5 levels, the only significant feature it adds to grappling is a chance to make some creatures unconscious (for 1-3 rounds, to boot). And larger creatures apparently can't be reaping maulers for some fluff reason. Heh.

[Anlashok]

Guns frankly shouldn't be balanced. Either they're repeating, well-machined affairs that can pour out damage at a rate far exceeding anything that civilization had previously put into a man-portable package, or they're slow, inefficient, logistically problematic affairs whose primary advantage is ease of use. There's not much way to get them in between, except for having self-contained cartridges with percussion-type firing mechanisms but no repeating mechanisms. Any intelligent gun designer, upon realizing they had those things, would quickly put repeating mechanisms in, moving to the latter state of imbalance.
Well the silly thing with how pathfinder handles guns is that the repeating mechanisms don't do anything for you.

Honestly the biggest problem isn't guns really, but that they're tied to ACFs that give up way too much and the iconic gun using class is a nonspellcaster in a Paizo game.

Their rules are kind of ugly and clunky though and seem practically designed for exploitation.

[Roog]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm



No such thing as an attack action.

Not that it helps, but there was in 3.0.



ATTACK ACTIONS
These are the most common, straightforward actions that a character
or creature might take to attack. More specialized attack actions are
mentioned in Miscellaneous Actions, page 127, and covered in
Special Attacks and Damage, page 134.

Attack Actions were:
- Attack (melee)
- Attack (ranged)
- Attack (unarmed)
- Charge
- Full attack



Maybe not by name in the SRD, but there is a class of actions that you can perform either as a standard action or as one of your iteratives (basic attack, trip attempt, try to deliver a held charge on a touch spell, etc.), and "attack action" is as good a name for that category as any. I believe it's even printed in a few sourcebooks (without being clearly defined anywhere, of course...this is 3.5 after all).

The seems that the reason that the term appeared was that the rules for "attack actions" were removed when the section on actions was rewritten in the change from 3.0 to 3.5, but (unlike "partial actions") writers forgot that the term was obsolete.

[OldTrees1]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm



No such thing as an attack action.

Look at Trip and Disarm vs Bull Rush. Yes there is an attack action. It is what you do during a full attack/AoO/standard attack.

Biffoniacus_Furiou explained my post best.

[Roog]

Yes there is an attack action. It is what you do during a full attack/AoO/standard attack.

In 3.5 that is not a defined game term. Different people use the term "attack action" to mean different things. Due to the confusion it causes, its best not to avoid using the term.

[Gildedragon]

Thunder Guide:
The flavor is just awesome: be a recognized hero! have books printed about you! But then come the mechanics and they are just god awful. It's an NPC prestige class.

[ben-zayb]

In 3.5 that is not a defined game term. Different people use the term "attack action" to mean different things. Due to the confusion it causes, its best not to avoid using the term.
SRD Quote storm incoming:

A creature with a gaze attack can actively attempt to use its gaze as an attack action.
When you use the attack action or the full attack action in melee...
When you use the attack action or full attack action in melee...
This line shows the single attack the creature makes with an attack action
Exposing any vampire to direct sunlight disorients it: It can take only a single move action or attack action...
Zombies have poor reflexes and can perform only a single move action or attack action each round.
A rast that loses this ability falls and can perform only a single action (either a move action or an attack action) each round.
A ravid that loses this ability falls and can perform only a single action (either a move action or an attack action) each round.
A half-fiend fighting without weapons uses a claw when making an attack action.
A half-dragon fighting without weapons uses a claw when making an attack action.
A leShay can also actively gaze as an attack action by choosing a target within range, who must then attempt a saving throw.
In addition to the damage given on Table: Siege Engines, up to nine other characters holding the ram can add their Strength modifier to the ram’s damage, if they devote an attack action to doing so.

[nedz]

It's a Known Dysfunction that Attack action is never defined, even though we all know what they are.

[Roog]

SRD Quote storm incoming:

And none of those actually define what an attack action is; they all assume that it is defined somewhere else.

In 3.0 the term "attack action" is specifically defined, in 3.5 it is not. In 3.0 "attack actions" specifically include charge and full-attack. In 3.5 "Attack" is listed as an action, so a reasonable interpretation would be "attack action" = making an attack as a standard action, the same way you could say "the aid another action" or "the ready action".

It's reasonably clear that the quotes you gave use assume that that is what an attack action is, but OldTrees1 has already interpreted the term differently in this thread, and none of the quotes you gave specifically contradict this view.

Since the term is not specifically defined, it's better to use a clearer term (like "standard action", depending on the context). For example, using the term "attack action" makes some of the rules you quoted dysfunctional. This is because they stop the following from using any standard action except attack.
- vampires in direct sunlight
- zombies
- ravids and rasts that loose their flight

So zombies can't charge, because that would require a generic standard action (which they do not have). Vampires in sunlight can't cast spells, or use spell-like or supernatural abilities.

[ben-zayb]

And none of those actually define what an attack action is; they all assume that it is defined somewhere else.

In 3.0 the term "attack action" is specifically defined, in 3.5 it is not. In 3.0 "attack actions" specifically include charge and full-attack. In 3.5 "Attack" is listed as an action, so a reasonable interpretation would be "attack action" = making an attack as a standard action, the same way you could say "the aid another action" or "the ready action".

It's reasonably clear that the quotes you gave use assume that that is what an attack action is, but OldTrees1 has already interpreted the term differently in this thread, and none of the quotes you gave specifically contradict this view.It is defined. Also, see the Table on Standard Actions, and Attack is explicitly defined under all such Actions.
Making an attack is a standard action.
Ergo, there is an Attack action. But there isn't an "Attack Action" type.

[Roog]

It is defined. Also, see the Table on Standard Actions, and Attack is explicitly defined under all such Actions.
Ergo, there is an Attack action. But there isn't an "Attack Action" type.

Attack is not on the Table of standard actions, but "Attack (melee)", "Attack (ranged)", and "Attack (unarmed)" are. It is not explicitly defined. The rules do not state that there is any such specific thing as an attack action.

[OldTrees1]

Are we still arguing over the attack action? I used it as the best term for the concept I was trying to communicate. Everyone here now understands the concept I was trying to communicate. End of derail please?

[Incanur]

Guns frankly shouldn't be balanced. Either they're repeating, well-machined affairs that can pour out damage at a rate far exceeding anything that civilization had previously put into a man-portable package, or they're slow, inefficient, logistically problematic affairs whose primary advantage is ease of use.

Historically in Europe, personal gunpowder weapons and stereotypical knights in shining armor coexisted for over a hundred years. Around the start of the 16th century in particular, guns and crossbows appear to have been thoroughly similar in power. I don't see why a roleplaying game couldn't approximate this. In 3.5 D&D it's easy enough to refluff heavy crossbows as arquebuses and great crossbows to muskets.

[LTwerewolf]

Historically in Europe, personal gunpowder weapons and stereotypical knights in shining armor coexisted for over a hundred years. Around the start of the 16th century in particular, guns and crossbows appear to have been thoroughly similar in power. I don't see why a roleplaying game couldn't approximate this. In 3.5 D&D it's easy enough to refluff heavy crossbows as arquebuses and great crossbows to muskets.

Because technology evolves through need. Between magic and the weapons that already exist (and the magic that can augment them) the need wouldn't necessarily be there. Gunpowder began to come into use in order to begin to nullify many of the armors that arrows were ineffective against. Gunpowder and crossbows were used at the same time due to cost effectiveness, not due to relative power.

[Slipperychicken]

Because technology evolves through need. Between magic and the weapons that already exist (and the magic that can augment them) the need wouldn't necessarily be there. Gunpowder began to come into use in order to begin to nullify many of the armors that arrows were ineffective against.

You never know. People might want a cheap, accessible alternative to magic weapons. And spellcasters might not be as common (or as willing to churn out weapons) as arms manufacturers would like them to be.

[LTwerewolf]

You never know. People might want a cheap, accessible alternative to magic weapons. And spellcasters might not be as common as arms manufacturers would like them to be.

This is entirely possible; however I believe that since the alternative is there, and it being a route that is known, people would tend toward the route known over the route unknown that would possible be anything but fruitful. If you need proof of this, look at how science evolved for an incredibly long time (even now, really) where assumptions were made based on the assumed accuracy and direction of what is currently known to be true.

[Incanur]

Gunpowder and crossbows were used at the same time due to cost effectiveness, not due to relative power.

There's no clear evidence of this. On the whole guns and crossbows seem thoroughly competitive 1450-1550. Early gunners performed impressive feats during the second half of the 15th century, and gunners and crossbowers marched together in late 15th century. Still, as late as 1548 an experienced French commander considered crossbows potentially superior. The combined evidence suggests to me that neither had an overwhelming advantage overall until after 1550 or so. Guns did somewhat better against armor at close range, while crossbows were more reliable and perhaps accurate.

[VoxRationis]

No perhaps about it. Gunpowder weapons were really, really inaccurate before the development of rifling, and even then weren't great.
Anyway, I agree with the point that you could have your muskets be like crossbows; I forgot that crossbows have an unrealistically high rate of fire in D&D and you could do the same with muskets.

[Roog]

This is entirely possible; however I believe that since the alternative is there, and it being a route that is known, people would tend toward the route known over the route unknown that would possible be anything but fruitful. If you need proof of this, look at how science evolved for an incredibly long time (even now, really) where assumptions were made based on the assumed accuracy and direction of what is currently known to be true.

By that logic the game should not have crossbows (and quite a lot of other equipment).

[Slipperychicken]

This is entirely possible; however I believe that since the alternative is there, and it being a route that is known, people would tend toward the route known over the route unknown that would possible be anything but fruitful. If you need proof of this, look at how science evolved for an incredibly long time (even now, really) where assumptions were made based on the assumed accuracy and direction of what is currently known to be true.

I'd consider it analogous to explorers searching for the northeast corridor to Asia. People pretty much always search for a cheaper way to do things.

[LTwerewolf]

No perhaps about it. Gunpowder weapons were really, really inaccurate before the development of rifling, and even then weren't great.
Anyway, I agree with the point that you could have your muskets be like crossbows; I forgot that crossbows have an unrealistically high rate of fire in D&D and you could do the same with muskets.

They're not as inaccurate as a lot of places portray. Over 300 feet they're not incredibly accurate, but then again neither were crossbows. With both, you would get about 1.5'' (about 4cm) groupings, assuming highly skilled marksmen. Consider that over this range, your average modern rifle (again, assuming a good marksman) has a grouping less than half that. Now, in comparison to modern firearms, they're both painfully inaccurate. That doesn't mean they're not still effective at these ranges.


By that logic the game should not have crossbows (and quite a lot of other equipment).

I disagree. Magic is not the easiest solution. Crossbows are a very easy solution. Simple weapon anyone can pick up. Point and shoot. However between the magic solution and the easy solution (and perhaps the psionic solution), the assumed solutions would be covered without resorting to science to develop yet another solution for a problem already solved. I would see people creating crossbows that shoot magic before guns.



I'd consider it analogous to explorers searching for the northeast corridor to Asia. People pretty much always search for a cheaper way to do things.

If a player were to bring that argument up to me as a dm, I would allow them to come up with a method in which they would have reasonably come about, and allowed them in a campaign. It would be a reasonable explanation, depending upon their method.

[Anlashok]

The argument about guns not being prevalent because magic exists seems a bit odd.

For one the settings, by default, don't necessarily argue a high degree of magic for everyone involved. "Just get magic crossbows" doesn't seem like the most effective answer when mages aren't common and any sort of notable one is going to be doing something more important than mass producing weaponry.

For another, by default guns in said setting are relatively rare and uncommon novelty pieces. Arguing that guns wouldn't become prevalent in a high magic setting seems moot when making guns prevalent in the first place is nonstandard.

[Sir Chuckles]

Reaping mauler is fine. so long as you enter it through leviathan hunter or martial monk.

As for me, I wish the marshal class was more than 1 level long (occasionally 2).

+1 for the Marshall.
I love those kind of characters, and having a class specifically dedicated to doing the whole Leadership and boosting from a non-musical standpoint is great. It just makes me sad that it basically boils down to "One level if you're a Diplomancer, otherwise just go White Raven Tactics."
I'd make a fix myself, but I'm no good at that.

Also, I'd like to raise the point that the real-life capabilities of guns should only have minimal bearings on the game information. Game design and balance trumps "real world" logic nearly every time. I mean, muskets actually had less penetrating power than bows and crossbows. And we're discussing a game where you can develop to point of "I can survive 50 stab wounds and then turn around do a triathlon with no penalty."

[LTwerewolf]

The argument about guns not being prevalent because magic exists seems a bit odd.

For one the settings, by default, don't necessarily argue a high degree of magic for everyone involved. "Just get magic crossbows" doesn't seem like the most effective answer when mages aren't common and any sort of notable one is going to be doing something more important than mass producing weaponry.

For another, by default guns in said setting are relatively rare and uncommon novelty pieces. Arguing that guns wouldn't become prevalent in a high magic setting seems moot when making guns prevalent in the first place is nonstandard.

My argument was against another person saying guns and crossbows were supposed to be as common and the same. They're not. But again, innovation through desperation is typically the standard of science. We don't need high level magics to replicate ranged weapons for mundanes. A level 1 wizard/sorc can get access to spells that equal or surpass a single shot crossbow.

[Tengu_temp]

"Early guns were worse in everything than bows and crossbow" is historically inaccurate. If they were, nobody would use them.

"It's not realistic for guns to be balanced" is a flawed argument, because nothing in DND is remotely realistic.

"Magic and guns shouldn't coexist" is a flawed argument, because they do exist side by side in lots of other fantasy stories and games.

There is no good reason why guns shouldn't be balanced, viable weapons. It's just that Wizards and Paizo failed at balancing things again, as they often do.

---

Speaking of ranged weapons - Arcane Archer. I love the idea of a ranged gish, but this class is so bad, you'll be a better archer just as a straight fighter. Or ranger. Or bard. And while melee gishes that don't suck were released eventually, I don't think anyone ever made something for archers.

[jedipilot24]

I can't believe no one's said it yet.
Monk and Ninja.
Fluff: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Martial Arts badass
Crunch: poorly designed classes with conflicting abilities.

CW Samurai.
Fluff: An honorable, noble warrior
Crunch: The worst PC class in 3.5; the only thing worse than CW Samurai is the NPC Warrior and that's only because the Samurai actually has class features even if they are terrible.

Heirophant:
Fluff: The divine equivalent of Archmage.
Crunch: It's a trap as it doesn't advance spellcasting.

[Slipperychicken]

If a player were to bring that argument up to me as a dm, I would allow them to come up with a method in which they would have reasonably come about, and allowed them in a campaign. It would be a reasonable explanation, depending upon their method.

Wizard: Hey.
Investor: What is it this time, dumbledore? Another bag full of squirrels? I'm still trying to recoup my losses on that one.
Wizard: You know fireballs, right?
Investor: Yeah? They require bat guano and sulfur.
Wizard: Cheap stuff, big boom, right?
Investor: I'm listening.
Wizard: So, like, what if we used those same components to let anyone make fireballs?
Investor: But doesn't that take 3rd level spell slots? Those don't grow on trees, you know.
Wizard: I've got an idea, that maybe if we can combine them in the right proportion, we can use fire instead of magic to set off the explosion.
[some explanation, a lunch, and a few drinks later]
Investor: And all you need to do this is reagents.
Wizard: It'll be huge.
Investor: Well, it's just spell components, so it won't be the biggest loss I've taken. Sign these papers, buy as much bat-**** and sulfur as you need. Since you're just mixing reagents here, I'll want to see a boom by the end of the month.


[Earlier that day, at the wizard's lab...]

Wizard: Welp, just another boring day, casting fireballs for !!SCIENCE!!
Wizard: I wonder...
[casts summon monster III, small fire elemental appears]
Wizard: All right, prepare to eat FLAME! Whoops!
[trips, sulfur and bat guano fly out of hands, hit fire elemental, small explosion commences]
Wizard: Say...

[Roog]

This is entirely possible; however I believe that since the alternative is there, and it being a route that is known, people would tend toward the route known over the route unknown that would possible be anything but fruitful. If you need proof of this, look at how science evolved for an incredibly long time (even now, really) where assumptions were made based on the assumed accuracy and direction of what is currently known to be true.



By that logic the game should not have crossbows (and quite a lot of other equipment).
I disagree. Magic is not the easiest solution. Crossbows are a very easy solution. Simple weapon anyone can pick up. Point and shoot. However between the magic solution and the easy solution (and perhaps the psionic solution), the assumed solutions would be covered without resorting to science to develop yet another solution for a problem already solved. I would see people creating crossbows that shoot magic before guns.

Make up your mind.

Your argument for guns not being developed applies just as well to crossbows as to guns. Crossbows are only an easy solution once they have been invented. You believe that you would see "people creating crossbows that shoot magic before guns", the same logic would imply that you would see people creating bows that shoot magic before crossbows".

[Arbane]

Guys, can you take the guns in fantasy argument to its own thread? This one is for kvetching about badly-designed classes.

[Killer Angel]

I can't believe no one's said it yet.
Monk and Ninja.
Fluff: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Martial Arts badass
Crunch: poorly designed classes with conflicting abilities.

CW Samurai.
Fluff: An honorable, noble warrior
Crunch: The worst PC class in 3.5; the only thing worse than CW Samurai is the NPC Warrior and that's only because the Samurai actually has class features even if they are terrible.


That's so true.
I'd also add Paladin, the noble, sacred and heroic warrior, the armed wing of the gods.
It's awesome, but mechanically, the class stay far behind its potential.

[Muggins]

What about Warlocks? They make pacts with demons, irrevocably tainting their souls for temporary power, and what do they get? A wimpy magical attack and a handful of SLAs - or, alternatively, a versatile and wimpy magical attack.

It's a shame that it didn't have any kind of specialisation system, weakening one side of their skills in order to improve the other. As-is, they're the mediocre jacks of blasting and spellcasting. What if you could sacrifice your Other Invocations for improved eldritch blast damage, or sacrifice your Blast Shapes/Essences for more Other Invocations? Alas.

[Kane0]

The Hexblade

Fluff: A competant warrior that utilizes curses and limited malignant spellcastig to get the edge in combat.

Crunch: A less awesome arcane counterpart to the paladin (and to a lesser extent ranger), trading away lay on hands, smite, etc for a weak debuff and not much else.

[ben-zayb]

If we are heading that direction of what constitute bad mechanics, we could save some time by just saying T4 classes and below are badly written.

[Muggins]

For some odd reason, though, that happens to be where most of the examples are. I can't think why.

Wizards don't have poor mechanics, do they? The thread is about classes for which the crunch doesn't support the fluff. Further, Tier 4 is not "this class can't do it's job," it's "this class is a one-trick pony that can't do much else." The barbarian is meant to be good at fighting, and he is. The hexblade, on the other hand, is an "magical fighter" that fails to deliver on the magical side.

[ben-zayb]

For some odd reason, though, that happens to be where most of the examples are. I can't think why.

Wizards don't have poor mechanics, do they? The thread is about classes for which the crunch doesn't support the fluff. Further, Tier 4 is not "this class can't do it's job," it's "this class is a one-trick pony that can't do much else." The barbarian is meant to be good at fighting, and he is. The hexblade, on the other hand, is an "magical fighter" that fails to deliver on the magical side.Verily, Core Barbarian has tons of class features that screams "Face Smasher" aside from Rage's temporary STR/CON +4 to +8 bump. Clearly, the mechanics was so good that they need a supplementary book to give new mechanics to actually more than double the actual Core Barbarian potency.

Don't confuse competency due to feats and broken mechanics (charge multiplier stacking) to competency due to class features.

And yeah, Warlock's mechanics works enough for at will abilities. They could use more help, but they are serviceable without extra unnecessary baggage.

The point of my post was to point out nitpicks like this that's basically really just asking for more, instead of actually having class with bad mechanics.

[Grim Reader]

Blighter: Dark anti-druid with undead themes is pretty cool. Mechanically so is 9 level casting in 10 levels!... Having to be a 5th level druid to enter it and having all those levels get burnt by the special requirement not so much. It's one of the only PrCs I know of that not only sucks, but actively makes you worse for taking it.

Small correction: Blighter does not require you to be a Druid. It requires you to at some point have been a Druid capable of casting 3rd level spells. There are so many ways to background fluff that away...

[Darkweave31]

Poor arcane archer... so pretty, so dull. I love the concept... so much in fact that I may try to write a guide on how to achieve it without this failure of a class.

Also Master of the Unseen Hand... awesome telekinetic combatant! that doesn't grant you more uses of telekinesis... and destroys your caster progression... huh

Maybe if they had given it telekinesis at will as a capstone...

[Incanur]

The Hexblade

Fluff: A competant warrior that utilizes curses and limited malignant spellcastig to get the edge in combat.

Crunch: A less awesome arcane counterpart to the paladin (and to a lesser extent ranger), trading away lay on hands, smite, etc for a weak debuff and not much else.

While I agree the hexblade could use a boost - though tier 4 is fine for many campaigns - saying it's worse than the paladin goes too far.

[Snowbluff]

[Oh god, the gun rules in PF. These things are terrible. None of the fluff or mechanics of the Gunslinger are sound.

For a while Crossbows were better than guns. Crossbows are very good at penetrating armor. It's the crossbow that killed plate armor, not the firearm.

Guns had a hard time penetrating real life steel. In PF it's possible to have armor that is much more resilient than that, but guns will still punch through it. If old school firearms being touch attack is a rule, then crossbows would do that as well.

The costs and misfire rules involved in firearms is ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that the best designed, build, maintained firearms of the era would explode 5%-25% of the time it was fired.

They still fun to abuse, though.

[3WhiteFox3]

While I agree the hexblade could use a boost - though tier 4 is fine for many campaigns - saying it's worse than the paladin goes too far.

The Hexblade is a weak tier 4, and the Paladin is a high tier 5, so they are around the same balance point. Not to mention the fact that Paladins get a lot of splatbook support that the Hexblade doesn't.

[Slipperychicken]

[Oh god, the gun rules in PF. These things are terrible. None of the fluff or mechanics of the Gunslinger are sound.

For a while Crossbows were better than guns. Crossbows are very good at penetrating armor. It's the crossbow that killed plate armor, not the firearm.

Guns had a hard time penetrating real life steel. In PF it's possible to have armor that is much more resilient than that, but guns will still punch through it. If old school firearms being touch attack is a rule, then crossbows would do that as well.


I personally think they should have taken a page from Shadowrun, and given each weapon an armor penetration value (for example, a crossbow might ignore 3 points of armor and natural armor bonus, a high-powered gun might ignore 6, and a siege weapon might ignore ~18) to reflect their effectiveness against armor. That way, creatures like elephants and dragons might still shrug off bullets, and heavy armor might still be somewhat useful against guns.

[Spore]

Pathfinder Rogues/Ninjas.

The dream: So cool on paper, generous splatter of skills, nimble enough to avoid ANY attention, can rob merchants blind and be an overall charming socialiser.
The reality: Sneak gets heavily outclassed by the 2nd level Spell Invisibility. Ninjas get spotted by 1st level spells (alarm) and killed by the combination of two spells (See Invisibility + Disintegration). Robbing merchants is impossible if the DM decides that loot is strictly kept inside a mimic...their bluffing gets outclassed by Sorcerers, their Diplomacy fails through back rolls and surprisingly limited skill points.

And if you want to be borderline combat effective, there go all your feats and rogue tricks.

[squiggit]

If we are heading that direction of what constitute bad mechanics, we could save some time by just saying T4 classes and below are badly written.

Except things like Barbarians do succeed in accomplishing their job.


I find it hard to believe that the best designed, build, maintained firearms of the era would explode 5%-25% of the time it was fired.
It's good that you find that hard to believe, because advanced firearms in pathfinder can't explode. Even basic firearms require two successive botch rolls, nevermind reliable guns.


If old school firearms being touch attack is a rule, then crossbows would do that as well.
Sadly they just don't line crossbows much (they tend to always be the worst option to specialize in). Also simple weapons that hit touch AC seem a bit strong.

[Incanur]

The Hexblade is a weak tier 4, and the Paladin is a high tier 5, so they are around the same balance point. Not to mention the fact that Paladins get a lot of splatbook support that the Hexblade doesn't.

I say they're both solidly in tier 4 myself, and potentially great for dipping (like many tier-4 classes). For a build that does no-save debuffing rather well and makes an excellent caster's companion, I recommend paladin of tyranny 3/hexblade 4/whatever x. Take Bind Vestige and Improved Bind Vestige at level 1 to get Focalor's aura of sadness, then grab the dark companion ACF at level 7. Then you can inflict -6 to saves merely by being adjacent to an opponent (-4 at level 3).

[Slipperychicken]

Pathfinder Rogues/Ninjas.

The dream: So cool on paper, generous splatter of skills, nimble enough to avoid ANY attention, can rob merchants blind and be an overall charming socialiser.
The reality: Sneak gets heavily outclassed by the 2nd level Spell Invisibility. Ninjas get spotted by 1st level spells (alarm) and killed by the combination of two spells (See Invisibility + Disintegration). Robbing merchants is impossible if the DM decides that loot is strictly kept inside a mimic...their bluffing gets outclassed by Sorcerers, their Diplomacy fails through back rolls and surprisingly limited skill points.

And if you want to be borderline combat effective, there go all your feats and rogue tricks.

You forgot stealth, where you need to choose between the following:

Scout ahead and get skewered by encounters which were designed for the whole party to deal with.
Stay with Fullplate McClanksALot (and his total stealth modifier of -3) and resign yourself to the fact you will never sneak past anything ever again.


And unless the GM wants you to sneak, you won't get the chance to. At the very least, you'll always get discovered via fiat for the bossfights and cutscenes. Diplomacy is another matter entirely: The GM will typically ignore your skill rolls when resolving social encounters (unless you roll a natural 1, in which case he'll decide you farted loudly, blurted out your secret, or called the guy an idiot), and will angrily mumble something about "rollplayers vs. roleplayers" if you press him on it.

[Lord Raziere]

the wizard.

fluff: magical professor who studies magic for SCIENCE!

crunch: either omnipotent god or somebody constrained by Vancian casting and thus you can only cast the spells you like up to four times a day, which requires certain stupid spell components.

what? just because your stronger for it, doesn't mean its not a poor mechanic....

[malonkey1]

the wizard.

fluff: magical professor who studies magic for SCIENCE!

crunch: either omnipotent god or somebody constrained by Vancian casting and thus you can only cast the spells you like up to four times a day, which requires certain stupid spell components.

what? just because your stronger for it, doesn't mean its not a poor mechanic....

No, no, I agree. Wizards are OP. When I want to play a Wizard-like character in a game (that's not explicitly optimized), I usually use a fixed-list caster, or finagle some other class into behaving like a Wizard (fluffing the Factotum as using small bits of arcane power to do his tricks, for example).

[Snowbluff]

I personally think they should have taken a page from Shadowrun, and given each weapon an armor penetration value (for example, a crossbow might ignore 3 points of armor and natural armor bonus, a high-powered gun might ignore 6, and a siege weapon might ignore ~18) to reflect their effectiveness against armor. That way, creatures like elephants and dragons might still shrug off bullets, and heavy armor might still be somewhat useful against guns.
This is called natural armor and hardness. "This has a thick hide, so you're less likely to damage it." More bonuses to attack through magic and other abilities already make it redundant. Not to mention damage reduction already exists.

Also, you would like 4e's proficiency. Some weapons have higher chance to hit for being easy to use.


It's good that you find that hard to believe, because advanced firearms in pathfinder can't explode. Even basic firearms require two successive botch rolls, nevermind reliable guns. The cost of firearms is already too damn high, which should I have to pay 50,000 GP minimum to avoid a crappy critical fail system?
It was hyperbole. The rule sucks. Reliable guns are a stopgap mechanic that fails utterly to give appropriate tools to mundanes.


Sadly they just don't line crossbows much (they tend to always be the worst option to specialize in). Also simple weapons that hit touch AC seem a bit strong.

Weapon proficiency means crap ~90% of the time. Simple weapons hitting touch AC isn't much different if the build is proficient and dedicated to their use.

[squiggit]

Also, you would like 4e's proficiency. Some weapons have higher chance to hit for being easy to use.
Proficiency bonuses are cool, but 4e screws it up because accuracy is so good in that game, you end up using a rapier, deathshovel, longbow or spiked chain and that's basically it. Maybe a polearm and rogues can use daggers.


stopgap mechanic that fails utterly to give appropriate tools to mundanes.
Well it is pathfinder, what else could you expect?


Weapon proficiency means crap ~90% of the time. Simple weapons hitting touch AC isn't much different if the build is proficient and dedicated to their use.
Oh I know, but it just goes back to your previous statement and my assertion that they don't much care for crossbows.

[Snowbluff]

Proficiency bonuses are cool, but 4e screws it up because accuracy is so good in that game, you end up using a rapier, deathshovel, longbow or spiked chain and that's basically it. Maybe a polearm and rogues can use daggers.
Yeah, that can suck. On the other hand, it gives a mechanical reason to use a rapier, which is pretty cool. :smalltongue:


Well it is pathfinder, what else could you expect?

Oh I know, but it just goes back to your previous statement and my assertion that they don't much care for crossbows.
Well, it's not really a matter of expectations. We seems to be in agreement that this is a pile of bontha poodoo, though. :smalltongue:

[Hangwind]

Soulknife:smallfurious:

[SimonMoon6]

Acolyte of the Skin


Fluff: Gain power by replacing your skin with that of a demon.

Crunch: Lose five caster levels to get minor abilities that you could mostly duplicate through spells if you hadn't given up five caster levels.

[ShurikVch]

For a while Crossbows were better than guns. Crossbows are very good at penetrating armor. It's the crossbow that killed plate armor, not the firearm.
True, crossbows were better than early firearms.
(Especially in some moist environment)
But, please, don't overestimate CB anti-armor effectiveness
Wiki say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_armor#Plate):
In the early years of pistol and arquebuses, firearms were relatively low in velocity. The full suits of armor, or breast plates actually stopped bullets fired from a modest distance. The front breast plates were, in fact, commonly shot as a test. The impact point would often be encircled with engraving to point it out. This was called the "proof". Armor often also bore an insignia of the maker, especially if it was of good quality. Crossbow bolts, if still used, would seldom penetrate good plate, nor would any bullet unless fired from close range.

In effect, rather than making plate armor obsolete, the use of firearms stimulated the development of plate armor into its later stages. For most of that period, it allowed horsemen to fight while being the targets of defending arquebuseers without being easily killed. Full suits of armor were actually worn by generals and princely commanders right up to the second decade of the 18th century. While heavy, it permitted mounted commanders to survey a battlefield while providing safety from musket fire. Same can be said about CBs, unless by "crossbow" you mean "ballista"
Field artillery could reliably penetrate plate armor, but the main reason of it's disappearance from battlefield... Plate armor was ungodly expensive. It was OK while armies were smaller, but try to outfit 100K soldiers with it!

I actually like Musket from DMG: longest range increment in the game, d12 damage (if medium-sized), X3 crit., reload as standard action... But ammo is kinda expensive...

Poor mechanics:
Whip - provokes an attack of opportunity, don’t threaten the area into which you can make an attack, deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher

Garrote (Song and Silence) - Can't use Death Attack, requires grapple on classes that are terrible at grappling

Crowbar - why no proficiency with it? Is it so complicated to swing around and whack someone?

[Incanur]

It's a contested topic, but note that many 16th-century sources say heavy muskets could penetrate any practical armor at 100-200+ yards. And given the massive powder charges these heavy muskets used - 38-50+ grams - they might well have been able to.

Fourquevaux didn't consider crossbows very good a penetrating armor, though he still preferred the crossbow to the gun, which he acknowledged did pierce armor except when poorly charged, too hot, or fired from too far away.

[Vortenger]

I'd like to one day play a Swashbuckler whose only use is not swashing buckles for the team cleric... (or leaning on Daring Outlaw.)

[VoxRationis]

The Combat Trapsmith was mentioned in another context by someone else. I consider it a strong example of this.

[Jon_Dahl]

Hexblade and Soulknife already mentioned, well done guys!

[malonkey1]

Oh, I have another:

Swordsage. It was possibly one of the fluffiest classes in ToB, perfect for the "Mystical Kung-Fu Master" archetype. However, it recovers maneuvers so poorly that you basically have to take a feat to cheat it into viability.

As an addendum, the Arcane Swordsage. An interesting idea for an arcane fighter, but it was so vague and breakable that no sane, experienced DM would allow it.

[ben-zayb]

What about DipMindbender? Fluffed as being extra competent at controlling others by way of their minds, the class is reduced to a Mindsight enabler with the half-caster progression (the class features are slightly underwhelming, but definitely better than vanilla wizard).