Pathfinder 1E What's broken or needs vast system knowledge?

[Empirate]

DM "oversight" and the DM "judging whether it's a decent idea" implies more autocracy than I'm comfortable with at the gaming table. I spend much more time DMing than playing, but I wouldn't dream of denying or granting "rights" (to dip, or whatever else) to my players.

I like to work with my players to come up with interesting stories that are also fun from a mechanical standpoint. How you arrive there can differ a lot, and maybe I've been blessed with the best players ever who don't go munchkinning on our game anyway. But in my opinion it's not for a DM to allow or disallow based on his/her whims, or what he/she considers too powerful. Working out a consensus on what should be part of the game (mechanics as well as topics) is the basis for DM-player trust, and that in turn is the basis for good and fun roleplaying.

 

[Anastrace]

The summoner class needs some watching as the Eidolon can be extremely effective and cut into a hth specialist's role.
Pounce is a huge power up.

I can second this. We played a short 3 session game once with a friend who was playing a synthesist summoner, and the rest of our melee could practically just take a smoke break during combat.

 

[N'raac]

Not every dip is based primarily or exclusively on the mechanical advantages. Those, to me, are the problem. To clarify, my initial statement of

When I read comments like "every Barbarian needs a one level dip as a lame Oracle", I consider dipping to be a powergaming construct rather than a tool to construct interesting characters.

should be expanded to note that multiclassing in general, including dipping in some cases, can be used in either capacity.

However, "I only want one level" seems much more common in the Powergaming capacity than in the capacity of realizing an interesting character concept.

S'mon nails it. The issue isn't that a dip can never be a good thing, but the "every character X should have a 1 level Y dip" issue. Seriously, EVERY barbarian should be an Oracle and be Lame? And not one of them should ever take a SECOND level in Oracle, since that would not provide an equivalent power boost? Isn't advancement along that path also building on that interesting character concept that cried out for incorporating Lame Oracle?

[ASIDE: Simple solution to Lame Barbarian? Remove all Oracle Curse references to "level" with "Oracle level". If the Barbarian needed 5 Oracle levels to be immune to Exhaustion, that would be the end of Lame Oracle Dips. And that would also demonstrate how many of those constructs are based on great role playing reasons because that Lame Oracle so perfectly fit my character concept, and how many are based on a desire to eliminate the Rage drawback. What percentage of Barbarians for whom Lame Oracle is compelling based on that character background and concept take that level at any point other than 5th character level (ie as soon as it will eliminate Fatigue, and certainly not before)?]

Similarly, it sounds like Empirate's character fits well as a Lore Oracle. Since he has received these visions all his life, did he start his career as an Oracle or a Paladin? Seems like those visions wouldn't start at, say, third level. [ASIDE: I liked the 3e optional rules for starting out as a 1/2 level in each of two classes - has that ever been written into Pathfinder rules? That would seem eminently suitable to the Oracle/Paladin in question, who has clearly been lead to both classes from childhood.]

It also seems like this guy would advance as both a Paladin and an Oracle, rather than taking a 1 level dip then progressing exclusively in a single class. Mechanically, that might suggest a Paladin archetype that trades out his spells, since the Oracle will provide these, and probably better. But then the archetype also needs to fit the concept. It seems like advancement in both streams would be the logical path for a lot of well-reasoned concepts that cry out for more than one class.

In practice, of course, it's often very difficult to differentiate between a concept that cried out for specific mechanics and specific mechanics which synergize well being shoehorned into a concept after the fact. [And sometimes it's laughably easy, of course.]

Some are easier to justify than others - the Barbarian gets civilized fighting training, so he takes one or more Fighter levels (the 3e issue was that he took 2 levels, each with a bonus feat, but never 3 since he wouldn't get a bonus feat from that level) or gets enhanced training as a scout so he takes a Ranger level or two, seems a lot more plausible than the Barbarian getting some book learnin' and gaining a level of Wizard or Alchemist. Especially when the book learnin' ends now that I have that one thing I wanted from a single level of this particular class.

 

[Dandu]

(the 3e issue was that he took 2 levels, each with a bonus feat, but never 3 since he wouldn't get a bonus feat from that level)

Why should Krag, son of Kor, of the Bonsplitter clan of the Bloodfist tribe take Advanced Tactical Combat 112 at the Academy of War when he knows, based on his reading of the class curriculum and from talking with other students, that it does not offer him more benefits than making a pilgrimage to the Shrine of the Wolf Totem and asking the shamans to help him commune with the Wolf Aspect and learn to trip things better?

 

[Keldin]

[ASIDE: Simple solution to Lame Barbarian? Remove all Oracle Curse references to "level" with "Oracle level". If the Barbarian needed 5 Oracle levels to be immune to Exhaustion, that would be the end of Lame Oracle Dips.

I think they already accounted for that. The lame Oracle/Barbarian with only one Oracle level would actually have to have eight levels of Barbarian (i.e. be a 9th level character) to gain immunity to fatigue (not exhaustion - that's at 15th level).

An oracle’s curse is based on her oracle level plus one for every two levels or Hit Dice other than oracle.
-- Pathfinder SRD: Oracle Curses

 

[Derfmancher]

Speaking as a GM/Player in a group that both loves things to be "fluffy" according to lore and be as optimized as possible..

1. One of my favorite GMs and I agree that Traits are the most broken thing in PF. If you allow any at all, don't allow adopted to take the human feat, and only allow one trait. Even then they can get a little crazy if players take their time to pick a good one.

2. Most rules mastery? Most in my group would say spells.. but as the party default wizard, I tend to disagree. Just about anything can be taken advantage of *better* with more knowledge. However if I was to say something specific, I would agree that to make the very best use of AoO you need to have a solid grasp of the rules.

To be honest someone that has skimmed the books can't really mess too much with things, but once a player has been around for a while, and reads things in more detail.. some obvious exploits can be seen.

 

[GlassEye]

1. One of my favorite GMs and I agree that Traits are the most broken thing in PF. If you allow any at all, don't allow adopted to take the human feat, and only allow one trait. Even then they can get a little crazy if players take their time to pick a good one.

You're confusing Racial Traits (the abilities that a particular race gets, such as the human's bonus feat) with Race Traits. Adopted gives access to another race's Race Traits not Racial Traits.

 

[Empirate]

Oh, and to finally provide my own take on the OP's questions, even though my actual Pathfinder experience is limited to a single 1.5 year campaign:

1. Summoner looks like a bit of a problem, what with there being two characters for the price of one. Leadership is similar and should not normally be allowed as a feat.
High level spellcasters of all kinds are potentially problematic, but may also become just the thing to keep your epic planehopping campaign on track (what would the mundanes do without a timely Heal or Break Enchantment or Raise Dead? What would they do if they needed to go to the City of Brass on the Elemental Plane of Fire? Do you actually want to play out a continent-spanning travelogue, or do you want the PCs to just teleport over to the next adventure? Etc.).

2. System mastery is rewarded a lot where one-time choices have great impact further down the road, and potentially in every encounter. For example, Oracles and Sorcerers take a surprising amount of system mastery to play well, since you can make or break them with your spell selection. Wizards and especially Clerics and Druids are more forgiving.

Rogues, Fighters, Barbarians etc. are just a little exercise in picking a fighting style and skillset and sticking to it. You mostly just need to know one small segment of the rules to master them.

The jacks-of-all-trades I'd rate the hardest: Bards and Inquisitors especially. It's easy to feel very much underwhelmed when playing them, but if you know what you're doing (i.e., you can think on your feet, you pick a specialty and know how to get a lot of mileage out of it, you come up with synergies between all the different class abilities), they can be amazing. Great and varied system knowledge pays off a lot if you're able to participate in next to every activity common to an adventurer, and the Bard and Inquisitor can do that.

 

[gamerprinter]

The jacks-of-all-trades I'd rate the hardest: Bards and Inquisitors especially. It's easy to feel very much underwhelmed when playing them, but if you know what you're doing (i.e., you can think on your feet, you pick a specialty and know how to get a lot of mileage out of it, you come up with synergies between all the different class abilities), they can be amazing. Great and varied system knowledge pays off a lot if you're able to participate in next to every activity common to an adventurer, and the Bard and Inquisitor can do that.

Bards, I can agree with, but inquisitors, I find to be a superior class - in a way, a better ranger than ranger. Not top tier, but certainly not comparable to a bard.

Inquisitor and witches are my favorite new classes from Pathfinder. When I say that I don't mean most optimized (I am not an optimizer min/maxer), rather the ones achieving RP and party goals more than any other classes and the most interesting.

 

[Empirate]

Bards, I can agree with, but inquisitors, I find to be a superior class - in a way, a better ranger than ranger. Not top tier, but certainly not comparable to a bard.

Inquisitor and witches are my favorite new classes from Pathfinder. When I say that I don't mean most optimized (I am not an optimizer min/maxer), rather the ones achieving RP and party goals more than any other classes and the most interesting.

I have nothing against Inquisitors, and in fact I love their versatility. However I believe a novice player could easily "miss the point", or be overwhelmed with the multitude of options, and end up with a rather ineffective character.