Character Build Help [Pathfinder]

[AtopTheMountain]

So I feel like replacing my Pathfinder character, and I have some idea what kind of character to make. I have a pretty solid character concept worked out, I just need help with the mechanics. I don't mind if it's not optimized, but try to make it powerful.
The only book allowed is the Pathfinder main book. The campaign setting is Pre-Spellplague Forgotten Realms.
Goals (My current plan is in italics:
No armor or shield, but decently good AC and saves (Monk + Wis)
Melee-based, with large two-handed sword. Probably a falchion, but maybe a greatsword. (Paladin, Fighter)
Ability to focus on and deal large damage to a single enemy. (Smite Evil?)
Decent hit points (Toughness)
Good Charisma-based and interaction skills, especially Diplomacy and Intimidate (Paladin, Monk)
[optional] Some kind of magical or divine connection fluff with class(es) (Paladin)
Can you tell I'm basing this on the 4E Avenger?
We're currently level 6, but I'll wait a few levels before replacing it, so I'd like an 8th level build.

Currently, I have:
Human or Half-Elf
Paladin 5 / Monk 2 / Fighter 1 Paladin 8
Ability scores:
Str 17 start + 2 level = 19
Dex 12 start = 12
Con 14 start = 14
Int 8 start + 2 human = 10
Wis 10 start = 10
Cha 16 start = 16
Feats:
Human: Improved Initiative
1: Toughness
3: Power Attack
5: Weapon Focus -- Falchion or Greatsword
7: Vital Strike

ANY AND ALL INPUT GREATLY APPRECIATED!

[Tinydwarfman]

Don't dip monk, just wear a monk's robe. Also, ask you DM if you can use 3.5 feats to reduce your innate suckiness, cos you are MAD as hell.
(specifically carmendine monk or serenity for your monk bonuses to cha, or paladin bonuses to wis)

Also, bracers of armor are your friend.

I also see no reason for the level of fighter. Do you really need the feat?

[Akal Saris]

I'll second the vote to not take monk levels, and instead see if you can use a Monk's Belt from the 3.5 DMG (since it seems to have been removed from PF).

Alternatively, see if the DM will house-rule your Cha to AC as if you were a variant monk, in place of armor and shield proficiencies. Point out that it's a net loss for you and you'll still lose about 5 AC on average, but that it's important for your character concept.

Human
Paladin 8
Ability scores:
Spoiler
Str 19
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 8
Wis 12
Cha 16

Feats:
Spoiler
Human: Improved Initiative
1: Toughness
3: Power Attack
5: Weapon Focus -- Falchion
7: Extra Smiting

[Oblivious]

Unarmoured with a big sword is not well supported. There's no good way to do it. With your skill requirement, remember that class skills are less meaningful in Pathfinder: they're just a +3. Smite Evil favours more attacks per round, and probably isn't optimal with a two-handed weapon.

Maybe consider straight Barbarian. You still lose with no armour, but you could re-flavour Rage as "intense focus."

[Tinydwarfman]

I'll second the vote to not take monk levels, and instead see if you can use a Monk's Belt from the 3.5 DMG (since it seems to have been removed from PF).


Monk's belt is now monk's robe. Also, since the falchion has an 18-20 crit range, consider investing in critical feats. not much else you can do.

[Akal Saris]

Also, maybe the Duelist PrC would fit your idea with a bit of re-working? It's an unarmored swordsman, after all.

Good to know about the robe, btw. Nice move imo - leaves room for a stat boost belt now.

[Starbuck_II]

Battle -Oracle?
Inquisitor is also good vs single opponents.

[Saph]

Monk's Robe does not add your Wisdom bonus to AC. Also, Pathfinder Paladins don't need Wisdom. Check the link in my sig. :)

I'd say that going straight Paladin is probably the best plan, except for the armour issue. If you have a Wiz or Sorcerer in the party, the most efficient way to handle it would just be to get them to cast Mage Armour on you (bring a 1st-level Pearl of Power as well to help persuade a Wizard). Other options are Bracers of Armour, but they're very expensive.

Either way, though, I think Paladin would work better than Pally/Fighter and definitely better than Pally/Fighter/Monk. Remember that Paladins get a bunch of abilities that play off their Paladin class level, and note that they're also substantially more powerful than their 3.5 incarnation.

[AtopTheMountain]

At this point, I'm just going to go either straight Paladin or straight Barbarian. I realized that the wisdom bonus to AC really doesn't make up for the loss of armor at all, and that's all I'm getting from Monk. So I'll scratch the unarmored bit, and focus on his personality and background to make him interesting.

[Tyndmyr]

Unarmoured with a big sword is not well supported. There's no good way to do it. With your skill requirement, remember that class skills are less meaningful in Pathfinder: they're just a +3. Smite Evil favours more attacks per round, and probably isn't optimal with a two-handed weapon.

Maybe consider straight Barbarian. You still lose with no armour, but you could re-flavour Rage as "intense focus."

This. No armor leads to relatively weak AC...it's hard to avoid unless you have stupid high dex. Still, a barbarian at least gets some bennies from no armor, and they fill the bill as a single target damage dealer.

Skip pally entirely. It offers you very little over a fighter, even in 3.5. In pf, both fighter and barb got some extra stuff. Not a lot of extra stuff, granted, but still, it makes the decision even easier.

Plus, if you go straight one class, you always get the bonus +1hp/sp.

[Greenish]

Skip pally entirely. It offers you very little over a fighter, even in 3.5. In pf, both fighter and barb got some extra stuff. Not a lot of extra stuff, granted, but still, it makes the decision even easier.It should be noted that paladin, too, got "some extra stuff", to put it mildly. If you want a charismatic melee'er, pally is your choice.

[Tyndmyr]

I remember thinking it still suffered from all the main issues...ie, can't go toe to toe with a fighter(unless of opposing alignment) or barb. Crappy casting and MAD.

I don't recall the details, but I definitely know monk was still quite weak as well. Even without the ubercharger possibilities, fighter or barb support a melee build much better than a pally does. Plus, you get to avoid the unholy mess that is alignment issues/code of conduct.

[Greenish]

I remember thinking it still suffered from all the main issues...ie, can't go toe to toe with a fighter(unless of opposing alignment) or barb. Crappy casting and MAD.It's less MAD now, without needing Wis, though it still suffers.

But (part of the) concept was "Good Charisma-based and interaction skills, especially Diplomacy and Intimidate" and "some kind of magical or divine connection fluff with class", not going toe-to-toe with a PC built fighter or barbarian in single combat. The auras and mercies alone make you useful for your party.

[AtopTheMountain]

Yeah, our party is rather light on healing thus far. We have a druid, but the guy playing the cleric is extremely unreliable (to be expected, since we just met him and invited him in). So I'm leaning towards Paladin instead of Barbarian, especially since I feel like the Barbarian class only supports a few roleplaying concepts, while there was a whole thread here about a week ago concerning interesting ways to play a Pally. I'm thinking like a cross between an Avenger and a Grey Guard.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, at a minimum, talk to your DM regarding falling and so forth. Purchase a phylactery if necessary.

Barbarian can support quite a few concepts if need be, especially now that they are literate. Don't get hung up on the name/fluff, there's no particular reason why a barbarian can't be, say, a holy man or some such. You can refluff the rage into ki or divine power, if you prefer.

Healing is a much more mechanical issue...though tbh, it's not strictly necessary to have a dedicated healer. Stats are harder to make ridiculous in PF, but on the bright side, cross class no longer matters much, and wands are still a static DC. If you're anywhere close to WBL, having a healer around all the time is quite optional.

[Runeclaw]

Monk's Robe does not add your Wisdom bonus to AC.

Which makes it a rather expensive way of getting +1 AC.

[Runeclaw]

I remember thinking it still suffered from all the main issues...ie, can't go toe to toe with a fighter(unless of opposing alignment) or barb.

True. Paladin is not the best choice for killing your fellow party members. Works well for smacking down evil monsters, though. Smite Evil is a BIG upgrade. And Aura of Justice is a major smack-down.

[Runeclaw]

Human: Improved Initiative
1: Toughness
3: Power Attack
5: Weapon Focus -- Falchion or Greatsword
7: Dodge

Improved Initiative is usally only worth it if you have a tactic that relies on going first. For a Power Attacker, I don't think it's worth it. If anything, it could be a disadvantage, as if you have to move to the enemy, you can't Full Attack them. Better most times to let them come to you, suffer one attack, and then rock-and-roll. Of course, the difference between a single attack and a Full Attack only really gets rolling at level 6 for a two-handed fighter.

Toughness is much improved in PF - its basicaly 3.5's Toughness and Improved Toughness rolled into one, if I recall correctly.

Power Attack is somewhat nerfed but still worth taking.

Weapon Focus and Dodge are considered clasically bad feats (unless you're heading for something that requires them), as they only give you a small static advantage, but with only Pathfinder core to choose from, your options are admittedly somewhat limmited. Cleave is pretty fun. Vital Strike is probably better than a +1 to Attack or AC.

[AtopTheMountain]

I just noticed that I don't have the requisite 13 Dex to take Dodge, so I'm changing it to Extra Smiting Vital Strike.

[Tinydwarfman]

I remember thinking it still suffered from all the main issues...ie, can't go toe to toe with a fighter(unless of opposing alignment) or barb. Crappy casting and MAD.

I don't recall the details, but I definitely know monk was still quite weak as well. Even without the ubercharger possibilities, fighter or barb support a melee build much better than a pally does. Plus, you get to avoid the unholy mess that is alignment issues/code of conduct.

No it probably can't go toe to toe w/ a fighter, but neither can a rouge. A pally is a team player. It can very close to rival a fighter if he is evil though. The Paladin is at least tier 4 now.

[Oblivious]

I mostly recommended Barbarian because it could get away with no armor better. One thing to consider with the Paladin: low skill points. Taking an int penalty means two skill points per level, which limits what you can do for social skills.

There's no Extra Smiting in Pathfinder. Vital Strike is good for melee combatants, and especially two-handed. It basically gives you extra damage when you can't full attack.

[Tyndmyr]

No it probably can't go toe to toe w/ a fighter, but neither can a rouge. A pally is a team player. It can very close to rival a fighter if he is evil though. The Paladin is at least tier 4 now.

1. Of course makeup can't go toe to toe with a fighter.

2. He's asking for AC and saves, a two handed weapon, the ability to deal good single target damage, decent hp, etc. Recommending a rogue would be a fail on the basis that in a head to head comparison with a barb or fighter, he comparatively sucks at this. This isn't about if rogues or pallys suck...it's about fulfilling the criteria best. A barb in pf is pretty decent at beating someone into the ground with a 2h, and can be built pretty tough. Some of the rage powers boost saves. The pally is simply inferior at acheiving his goals.

[Tinydwarfman]

1. Of course makeup can't go toe to toe with a fighter.

2. He's asking for AC and saves, a two handed weapon, the ability to deal good single target damage, decent hp, etc. Recommending a rogue would be a fail on the basis that in a head to head comparison with a barb or fighter, he comparatively sucks at this. This isn't about if rogues or pallys suck...it's about fulfilling the criteria best. A barb in pf is pretty decent at beating someone into the ground with a 2h, and can be built pretty tough. Some of the rage powers boost saves. The pally is simply inferior at acheiving his goals.

1: Gah, I usually rely on spellchecker to correct me, but it doesn't work if it actually is a word...

2: Barbarians in pathfinder didn't get buffed at all. Their rage powers suck, and nothing of value was really added. Paladins got some huge buffs though, and can really do some damage if you go two handed. Not to mention they actually good saves and AC, and the barb actually has to take a feat to wear full plate.

8th level pally smiting deals a whopping +16 to evil creatures, and probably +3 to attack and AC. He will have around 6 less strength than the barbarian while raging, but that definitely evens out. Pally also gets a free +2 bonus to his sword, (as he probably will if he is going damage) and the ability to heal, cast some divine spells, and even gives allies a +4 to fear and charm affects.
If the Barbarian is evil, you can sure as hell bet he should be afraid of the paladin.

I also believe OP wanted some divine flavor and charisma no?

[Greenish]

2. He's asking for AC and saves, a two handed weapon, the ability to deal good single target damage, decent hp, etc.Those weren't the only criteria. Paladins offer decent damage with two-hander, good AC, good HP (less than barbarian, but can heal self as swift action) and better saves. They also get charisma and magic, which OP asked for.
Some of the rage powers boost saves.Two good saves + cha bonus to all saves. :smallcool:

[AtopTheMountain]

I've already dumped the Unarmored part, and therefore Paladin is looking much more attractive than barbarian. Especially nice is the Bonded Weapon class feature -- at level 8, I can turn my +1 Falchion into a +2 Keen Falchion for 8 minutes every day, which means I'll threaten a crit on 1 out of every 4 attacks. Nice deal :smallcool:

[Tinydwarfman]

Yeah, I really liked that that made an option for people that didn't want to be mounted:smallcool:. I mean really, I don't think the iconic paladin has a horse - the wizards pictures didn't even have one!

[Oblivious]

I think Barbarian meets the criteria initially listed in the OP best, but I'm willing to take it at face value when OP says that Paladin is a better match for the campaign/party/vision/whatever. I'll go into the knitty-gritty just because I think it's funny.

Barbarian is particularly well suited to two-handed weapons because of its high strength. Paladin is particularly poorly suited to two-handed. I would rank the Paladin's weapon preferences thusly:

1) Bow and arrow. Lots of attacks and lots of full attack actions to smite with, lots of stacking enchantments with a weapon Divine Bond.

2) Dual wielding kukris. Lots of attacks to smite with, each with a high chance of scoring a crit. By my interpretation, smite damage multiplies on a crit.

3) Sword and shield. Not a particularly good option, but better than two-handed.

4) Two-handed. You are a smite machine, and your smite damage will dwarf weapon/strength damage. Your smite damage will get high enough that Power Attack is not worthwhile.

Against evil opponents, Paladins win the damage competition hands down. Barbarian Rage Powers are better suited to combat maneuvers and tactical combat (strangely enough).

Barbs have more HP, but Paladins have swift healing. I think Paladins win here.

Paladins will have higher charisma, but Barbarians have more skill points. At mid to high levels, barbs will have better cha-based interaction skills if they prioritize it (rather unintuitively).

Re-fluffing is easy.

Why do I think this is funny? Well, Paladins are particularly bad at honourable melee combat but make good archers. Paladins have brute strength going for them but Barbarians' Rage make them good strategic/intellectual combatants. The barbarian (think about what 'barbarian' means) will be very well-spoken.

Edit: But yes, I think Paladin is the better option once you've decided to wear armor if you know you will be fighting evil.

[AtopTheMountain]

I think Barbarian meets the criteria initially listed in the OP best, but I'm willing to take it at face value when OP says that Paladin is a better match for the campaign/party/vision/whatever. I'll go into the knitty-gritty just because I think it's funny.

Barbarian is particularly well suited to two-handed weapons because of its high strength. Paladin is particularly poorly suited to two-handed. I would rank the Paladin's weapon preferences thusly:

1) Bow and arrow. Lots of attacks and lots of full attack actions to smite with, lots of stacking enchantments with a weapon Divine Bond.

2) Dual wielding kukris. Lots of attacks to smite with, each with a high chance of scoring a crit. By my interpretation, smite damage multiplies on a crit.

3) Sword and shield. Not a particularly good option, but better than two-handed.

4) Two-handed. You are a smite machine, and your smite damage will dwarf weapon/strength damage. Your smite damage will get high enough that Power Attack is not worthwhile.

Against evil opponents, Paladins win the damage competition hands down. Barbarian Rage Powers are better suited to combat maneuvers and tactical combat (strangely enough).

Barbs have more HP, but Paladins have swift healing. I think Paladins win here.

Paladins will have higher charisma, but Barbarians have more skill points. At mid to high levels, barbs will have better cha-based interaction skills if they prioritize it (rather unintuitively).

Re-fluffing is easy.

Why do I think this is funny? Well, Paladins are particularly bad at honourable melee combat but make good archers. Paladins have brute strength going for them but Barbarians' Rage make them good strategic/intellectual combatants. The barbarian (think about what 'barbarian' means) will be very well-spoken.

I'm not seeing what's making 2-handed at the bottom. It seems much better than Sword 'n' Board, since you don't really need that extra +1 or 2 AC when you have full plate, and as you said, damage will get rediculously high.
Also, I'm not seeing why archery is any better than melee, since you still need to take feats to do any more attacks than a meleer. Kukri: Well, I'm using a Falchion, so I have the same crit chance, and will do better damage.

Question: Do you still get 1 1/2 times your Strength modifier with two-handed weapons? I'm too lazy to look it up in the PRD.

EDIT: Also, what does MAD stand for? I keep seeing it around, and from context I think it means that you need a lot of different ability scores to be high. (I'm relatively new to forums)

[Tinydwarfman]

Hmm, I never thought about a paladin dual wielding... I guess because I never TWF in core. I just hate being so MAD.

EDIT: The main problem w/ archery is that you get lots of attacks, but do little damage. A paladin archer fixes this quite admirably. And yes, you still get 1&1/2 str mod to damage.

[Oblivious]

Yeah, the value of archery and dual-wielding is just lots of attack rolls -> lots of smite damage.

Honestly, placing sword and board above two-handed was sort of arbitrary. I think the marginal benefit of more AC is greater than the marginal benefit of more damage when you're smiting, but then you aren't smiting all the time.

You've intuited the meaning of MAD correctly.

I really don't mean to put your build down; honestly, I think Paladin archers are kind of cheesy. You said you wanted a powerful build but were willing to sacrifice perfect optimization to satisfy a vision, and I think that's what you've done.

[Tinydwarfman]

I dunno, At higher levels (read more than 6) you can get your tower shield animated and go to town w/ a great sword. At lower levels S&B is better if you want to be defensive though.
I think there should be a fighting style for one handed fighters. After all, it is generally far more effective than two weapon fighting or 2h in real life.

Also for clarification: MAD stands for multiple attribute dependency. You get a cookie if you can figure out wizards are so depressed:smallwink: