Pathfinder 1E Are the older melee classes getting less attractive/obsolete?

[jasin]

I'm looking at the swashbuckler's Precise Strike deed: +level to damage against most opponents, most of the time.

I'm not sure it's too much in itself, but it sure seems a lot compared to similar (full BAB, full warrior) classes that came before:

Paladin: +level to damage against up to 7 opponents per day, with bonuses to attack and AC.

Cavalier/samurai: +level to damage against up to 7 opponents per day, with somewhat conditional bonuses.

Ranger: up to +1/2 level to damage and attack, against some opponents.

Fighter: up to +1/4 level to damage and attack, all the time.

Slayer also looks pretty attractive, with up to +1/4 level to damage and attack, most of the time, with sneak attack on top.

Obviously, all those classes have all sorts of other abilities that make direct comparison difficult, but for all of them the ability to hit and deal damage is their bread and butter, and it seems difficult to get a new player enthusiastic at a glance about something like a samurai ("challenge key foes to get bonuses!") when they could be playing a swashbuckler or a slayer ("all bonuses, all the time").

 

[Puxido]

I don't see why any would get boring after a while? Their melee fighters, how more basic can it get? Otherwise its just magic classes, what fun would all magic classes be? Most all tabletop rpg's have the basic warrior/fighter, he's the opposition from the mage type character. The basics are probably the most fun.

 

[gamerprinter]

Honestly, most players I am familiar like a character concept more than specifically how much damage can they do. For example barbarian is one of the most damaging basic classes, yet I don't know anyone (in my group) who wants to play barbarian ever. Paladin, ranger and fighter, even rogue is preferable in my group. In fact, I can't seem to get my players to want to play APG/UC classes - nobody wants to play a cavalier. Only I (when I play and not GM) prefer to play samurai, but then I'm using one of 4 Rite Publishing samurai archetypes when I do play samurai - I never play the basic samurai as per UC. If I get the Advanced Class Guide, there's a chance that the players will look and the possibility that I might one for playtest reasons, but I doubt my players will even touch any of those classes, no matter how much damage is consistently dealt. While that is a certainly important aspect of melee classes, really what the other class features are may be the determining factors whether anyone I know will play the new ones or not. Really the concept of swashbuckler isn't too inviting to the players in my group ever, so what it does for consistent damage is almost meaningless.

Of course most players I know aren't min/maxers nor overly into optimization. They don't want suboptimal characters (generally), but aren't overly concerned with mechanically maxing damage every round. It has value, but isn't something to base a melee character around. What's important to you or your group might not correspond to anyone else, necessarily. You're assuming this is of key importance to every player, and that is just not true.

 

[Remathilis]

Pathfinder took the base classes and pushed them up to 11. Every class since has been edging toward 12. Summoner, Gunslinger, etc were bad enough, Arcanist and most of the ACG are downright broken. (So much so, I wager part of Pathfinder Unchained is there to bring some of the legacy classes UP to later PF standards. Again).

As much as I love Paizo, I'm glad I'm jumping off their train. There just seems to be an arm's race mentality going on between monsters and PCs (esp in their APs) and I'm growing weary of watching them spiral upwards.

 

[jasin]

Of course most players I know aren't min/maxers nor overly into optimization.

But of course.

They don't want suboptimal characters (generally), but aren't overly concerned with mechanically maxing damage every round. It has value, but isn't something to base a melee character around.

If you think damage isn't something to base a melee character around, than your conception of the game is different enough from mine that your opinion not very useful to me, especially if it comes with condescension as above.

 

[Puxido]

Summoner, Gunslinger, etc were bad enough,

Whats wrong with Gunslinger?

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Yup. And not just Melee.

Because, as a player, I want Options. A Fighter can hit things, but that's that. Sure you've got Feat chains to customize, but now with Brawler, they feat chain better and Swashbuckler is simply Cooler. I want to play the game doing adventurous, heroic, active things.

Barbarian is still a solid Class, but Bloodrager gives up a little Barbarian to gain so much more Sorcerer.

Monk can punch and can be customized to do that well a certain way. Brawler can punch with Whatever-the-heck-extra-style-points-I-feel-like-on-the-fly.

Bard is a great support class. But a Skald can support the party, AND at level 5 with Spell Kenning, get's "Option to craft every magic item ever because I can access every spell ever" (well, maybe not Druid only ones).

With Alchemist and Investigator as options, I have no reason to ever play a Rogue again.

Witch made the Wizard look dull, Arcanist makes the Wizard obsolete. And then Shaman made the Witch look dull.

..As they make better classes, the original ones seem less appealing.

 

[jasin]

Pathfinder took the base classes and pushed them up to 11. Every class since has been edging toward 12. Summoner, Gunslinger, etc were bad enough, Arcanist and most of the ACG are downright broken.

Well, I wouldn't say every class, but the general trend seems to be in that direction, yes.

What makes it more noticeable in ACG is how close many of the classes are in concept to some of the previous ones. The inquisitor seems about as powerful as the warpriest, but I liked it a lot more because it seemed to open up new character concepts. But the warpriest is a holy spellcasting warrior, and we already have the cleric. The slayer is a a stealthy agile assassin, and we already have the rogue. The hunter is an archer with a pet, and we already have the ranger. Any Advanced Player's Guide classes' power creep seemed unintentional, the ACG classes in many ways seem to intentionally go for the existing concepts, only better.

(So much so, I wager part of Pathfinder Unchained is there to bring some of the legacy classes UP to later PF standards. Again).

I don't think that's even open for debate, considering the classes that are getting rehauled are barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner, and the monk, rogue, and summoner seem to be getting the most complaints (admittedly, that would mean Unchained will be bringing the summoner down to standards).

As much as I love Paizo, I'm glad I'm jumping off their train.

Going for 5E?

There just seems to be an arm's race mentality going on between monsters and PCs (esp in their APs) and I'm growing weary of watching them spiral upwards.

Yes, the APs can be a bit unforgiving, and certainly aren't shy about using the new more unusual classes as opponents, which might prod the players into feeling they have to "keep up".

 

[Kinak]

I think the classes people actually want to play in our group will shift around a bit, but it's not really for balance reasons.

Slayers fit a "DPS" role better than rogues. Swashbuckler actually seems to work as a swashbuckler and looks fun. The investigator looks fun to play. Hunters might be a tolerable pet class.

But we'll still see fighters and rangers, paladins and rogues. If anything, the new classes will cut down on the conflict in our group over who gets to play the fighter.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Eirikrautha]

I'm looking at the swashbuckler's Precise Strike deed: +level to damage against most opponents, most of the time.

I'm not sure it's too much in itself, but it sure seems a lot compared to similar (full BAB, full warrior) classes that came before:

Paladin: +level to damage against up to 7 opponents per day, with bonuses to attack and AC.

Cavalier/samurai: +level to damage against up to 7 opponents per day, with somewhat conditional bonuses.

Ranger: up to +1/2 level to damage and attack, against some opponents.

Fighter: up to +1/4 level to damage and attack, all the time.

Slayer also looks pretty attractive, with up to +1/4 level to damage and attack, most of the time, with sneak attack on top.

Obviously, all those classes have all sorts of other abilities that make direct comparison difficult, but for all of them the ability to hit and deal damage is their bread and butter, and it seems difficult to get a new player enthusiastic at a glance about something like a samurai ("challenge key foes to get bonuses!") when they could be playing a swashbuckler or a slayer ("all bonuses, all the time").

Correct me if this has changed in the final draft, but does not Precise Strike require a swift action to use and is precision damage?

So the Swashbuckler must give up most of his other class features (since parry/riposte and charmed life are also swift actions) in order to do damage that won't affect any opponent immune to precision damage. And this is on top of the fact that the swashbuckler can only do so one-handed, meaning he doesn't get the x1.5 most two-handed damage dealers get.

This hardly seems overpowering (or even barely adequate) to me...