[Pathfinder] What are some good characters? [Archive]

View Full Version : [Pathfinder] What are some good characters?

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 02:48 PM

eggs

2012-10-21, 04:35 PM

Are 3e materials fair game? They had enough Kobold buffs to make Kobolds just about the best race for any role, with the exception of frontline melee fighters. They make especially ridiculous Sorcerers (even without True Dragon-based tomfoolery).

Hobgoblins are terrible in 3e, and in PF, most of their notable abilities are specifically geared toward fear-stacking mounted-charger Cavaliers. Granted, that's not the worst tactic you could use with the Cavalier class, but no matter how you spin it, the character's still a Cavalier.

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 04:43 PM

I know nothing about 3e. All my information comes from the d20 SRDs.

From what I've read, sorcerors are rather inferior to wizards. My first choice for magic user is alchemist in any case. Kobold alchemists get extra bombs, which is nice. Plus, draconic aspect. I could end up breathing ice!

The Cavaliers seem like they're just kinda there in my eyes. They look like they're just martial characters with a specialty in mounts. The fell rider is intriguing, but not enough to make me want to play one. So, I may have to fall onto oread or orc for martial....

Cranthis

2012-10-21, 04:47 PM

Humans are always a solid choice.

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 04:51 PM

Myeh, I'm not particularly interested in any of the core races. PF's featured races hold the most appeal for me.

Also, I'm not entirely into martial classes. They seem rather screwed when up against anything with reach. Barbarian and fighter in particular seem like things that aren't entirely viable, and paladin just sucks outright. The only one that holds interest for me is the monk.

Cranthis

2012-10-21, 04:55 PM

Have you ever thought of duskblade? Its one of the few classes that, that are solid choice to go full 20 with. and anything with reach, if you have a healer, means nothing. In fact, its an advantage They can't use it on you if you step into their threatened area (Stepping in is not an attack of opportunity, but moving through and stepping out is).

But anyways, Duskblade is a great class. They get melee and magic, and they even do both in the same turn, at level 3 and up.

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 04:58 PM

Duskblade? Never heard of that. Again, all of my info comes from the online SRDs. Not sure what "full 20" means either.

Cranthis

2012-10-21, 05:04 PM

It should be in the srd, it is an official base class. But you can always search elsewhere for it here: http://dndtools.eu/

If it says a source on the page, its entirely accurate.

But full 20 is just all 20 levels, which is the max before "epic" levels.

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 05:07 PM

Seems like the magus, sans the blending of weapon and magic.

Cranthis

2012-10-21, 05:13 PM

Not sure what you mean by magus, there are probably 4-5 classes with magus in the name.

Duskblades actually channel their spells through their weapons, so they do the spell damage, and the weapon damage, and it creates some interesting combinations.

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 05:17 PM

So..... it's EXACTLY like the magus. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/magus) Unless the duskblade starts with that ability, in which case I see a kobold duskblade with an ax to grind in the future.

LTwerewolf

2012-10-21, 05:25 PM

You have to keep in mind that PF and D&D while being very similar and compatible, are not the same game. The magus you're talking about is the pathfinder class. The duskblade is the D&D class. They're similar, but not the same.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 05:28 PM

Okay...

Let's see here.

The 3.5e SRD is here:

http://www.d20srd.org/

The Pathfinder SRD is here:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

Now, these are two different systems. Got that? 3.5e D&D has a lot of books that didn't get in the SRD, for example, whereas Pathfinder tries to put most of their official stuff in their SRD.

Do you know what actual game you are playing? 3.5e? 3.0e? Pathfinder? Pathfinder with some 3.5e stuff added in? 3.5e with some Pathfinder stuff added in?

Also remember -- that several classes aren't as good as they seem, as far as being effective at doing things...

In fact, I think I should give you my essay!

D&D 3.5e is a very...interesting game system. At it's heart, it is a game which started with several assumptions: that fantastically wealthy, violent hobo land pirates go underground to the homes of things that look different than them, kick down the doors to these homes, kill the inhabitants, and take their stuff. Then they go back to town, sell most of the stuff, keep the useful bits, buy things that help them go to newer and different places where things that look MORE different then they, kill them, take their stuff, et cetera. It is a game where the stalwart fighter stands in the front and swings his sword, the rogue looks for and disables traps, or perhaps sneaks around to stab bad things with a dagger, the Wizard stands in the back and blasts things, and the Cleric keeps all of them healed while doing this. This is the heart of the game because that was how the game was played in the past, often because it was a competitive, team event played at tournaments where people wargame for points, and there is a single team which is the winner. Further, you might not know the people on your team, having just met them five minutes ago at a convention, and so everyone played a simple role that was easy to understand and pick up and go, and in the old rules, was actually generally a fairly solid way to get through modules in a short amount of time. This is also where the idea of an adversarial GM that is trying to kill the player characters comes from. Every assumption that is 'weird' or arbitrary in the game stems from things inherited from this idea regarding how the old games used to work.

However, that's not often how the game is *played* these days, and for the most part, we aren't interested in playing that particular legacy game with it. It has been quite some time since 3.5e books started coming out, and people have had lots of time to look at them and think about them and tinker with them and figure things out. They've come up with several interesting conclusions. Namely, that if you look at the toolset represented by all these books, you essentially have a fantastic array of lego pieces to make characters to tell any sort of fantasy story you want, because Wizards of the Coast tried to be inclusive of a huge variety of fantasy gaming styles in their rules. People have also figured out that there is a dramatic and huge variation in the power level of the 'lego pieces' -- that is the classes and options tied to them -- when you start doing things with them other than the old edition legacy assumptions. So given that, the question is this: what sort of story do you want to tell with your characters, and what power level and complexity level do you want in the rules? Do you want to be people altering the fabric of reality to fit their very whims, or the gritty soldier for whom death is a real possibility in any fight -- in other words, something lower power level like Lord of the Rings, or the wuxia swordsman who is somewhere in between the two examples? Any sort of Fantasy story is a possibility, but you have to know what you want, first!

Of course, just because anything is possible, doesn't mean that there isn't something close to a consensus amongst experts as to what the system is best at. What they say is something along these lines: the system is best for fantastic characters, fantasy superheroes of some sort (but not silver age uber-superheroes though), doing crazy, incredible things to the world around them, things which are overtly superhuman and heroic. While 3.5e is capable of much lower power and grittier things, it really starts to shine when you accept the power level of 'everyone has superpowers of some sort', provided you make choices of the correct legos appropriate to that power level. This is the case especially because of, if you are attempting to actually simulate reality with the game rather than simulate certain types of stories, things get 'wonky'. Of course, if you want to use rules based on D&D 3.5e to simulate actual reality, there are third party products such as Codex Martialis which do this admirably.

Also, there is a reason we aren't playing 4th edition. The reason is this: Wizards of the Coast realized that D&D 3.5e was laughably, ridiculously unbalanced. However, in their quest to make something manageable, they have reduced the game to only a miniatures tactical combat system where the scope of the sorts of things the characters can do which the actual rules can cover is very, very limited. This is intentional on their part, and is maybe what they had to do to balance the game. Unfortunately, it does greatly limit the sorts of stories that can be easily told with the rules in the system, even if you know your way around it backwards and forwards. This has been mitigated somewhat as 4e went on, but is still somewhat true. This is not the case with 3.5e -- if you know your way around it, you can make anything for any sort of Fantasy story.

Finally, I thought I should make a note about some of the continuations of 3.5e which you might have heard of, such as Pathfinder and it's lesser known cousin Trailblazer. Some folk may have claimed that these fix all of the balance problems in the game. This is not true; what they do is merely continue support for the game, though they do attempt to fix some balance problems that become issues for several groups, but they for the most part ignore the inherent power and versatility differences of the 'legos' themselves, though they have been gradually adding options that allow improvements in the capability of the lower performing classes, much like D&D 3.5e did in it's actual run. They do attempt to make changes so that everyone, especially those very low-optimization level players, has some interesting and fun things to do, and for the most part, they succeed in providing obvious options for lower power gamers. However, you should note that there is at least ONE D20 system which provides the breadth of possible abilities and feel of classes and customizability that 3.5e offers, and large parts of the 'feel' of 3.5e, while keeping balance intact between the classes. This system is Ruleofcool's Legend, and I encourage you to check it out.

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 05:34 PM

Ah.

In any case, the kobold is what I'm most interested in playing as racewise. They're dragon halflings, what's not to like?

Edit because ninja: The nearby gamestore runs PF.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 05:34 PM

Ah.

Which game are you playing, though?

So PF with no 3.5e at all, then? Much of the advice so far has been assuming you play 3.5e or 3.PF (ie, 3.5e with PF stuff added in, or PF with 3.5e stuff added in).

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 05:55 PM

I'm surprised nobody said anything about my comments on the various classes.

So, if not kobold, what featured races would be nice with monks and magi? Because that -4 STR penalty probably doesn't do the little lizards any favors in the martial regard.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 05:57 PM

Well, we are trying to narrow down the rules upon which you will be operating before we comment on classes!

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 05:58 PM

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's just basic Pathfinder.

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-10-21, 06:03 PM

So, I have been wanting to play DnD/PF for a couple months now. In the time of not being able to, I've tried to come up with what I'd like to play, and came up thus:

Kobolds for magic classes and gunslingers
Hobgoblins for martial classes

As far as classes:

Core classes

Fighter: Doesn't appeal to me very much. It just seems so basic. Run toward enemy, swing weapon, likely get wasted. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantDeathRadius)
Barbarian: As much as I like berserkers, that just seems cliché for hobbos, orcs and similar.
Cleric: White Mages never held much interest for me.
Paladin: Almost seems pointless, due to how obnoxiously restrictive it is. Break a rule? NO MORE PALADIN FOR YOU
Rogue: I'm not the sneaky type, so this is a bleh option for me.
Wizard: Be prepared for ANYTHING. Utterly annihilate EVERYTHING. I love magic.
Sorceror: Not as versatile as wizards.
Bard: Why do we have these again?
Druid: Only appeal for me is turning into an elephant. Other than that, not particularly interesting.
Monk: Flurry of Blows! AAAATATATATATATATATATATATA WATAAAA!
Ranger: Not really any opinion.

Base classes

Gunslinger: I'm a weapons nerd, guns are awesome. BANGBANGBANGBANG
Alchemist: Explosions are even better. BOMBS EVERYWHERE, WHEEEEE!
Witch: I still don't get what this even IS.
Summoner: I'm reminded of His Dark Materials.
Cavalier: Just seems kinda there.
Oracle: Like the Witch, what even IS this?
Inquisitor: Doesn't seem very different from a cleric.

What's good for kobolds and hobbos? I'd play Lawful or Neutral Good.

It looks like today you are one of the Lucky 10,000 (http://xkcd.com/1053/)!

Allow me to explain some facts about D&D, and why your initial reactions to the base classes are, just like the rest of us, not quite what we'd expect.

Fighter... it's good for a two-level 'dip' for a couple of bonus feats, but yes, it's generally not a good idea for more than that (unless you want 9 for Zhent variant)

Barbarian is a pretty good base chassis for a build designed to produce damage output. If you have access to Complete Champion, you can get Spirit Lion Totem variant and net yourself Pounce, for a full attack on a charge, which greatly improves their damage output against ranged targets.

Cleric. You've made the same assumption as the rest of us when we first saw the class. It was a while before someone realize just how powerful this class actually is. It really can be a 'Party of One' fairly easily. If you have access to Complete Divine, it gets broken very quickly by being able to spend turn undead uses to power metamagic feats like Persist Spell (self-buff now has 24 hour duration) when used on Divine Power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm). Now you have the same BAB as a Fighter or Barbarian... and you still cast spells.

Paladin... yea, you're pretty much correct. It's most often used in two or four level dips for a more advanced build (like the Sorcadin for your primary casting stat to all saves), or used as an Ubermount build. There are exceptions, but in general the Paladin is a sub-par class. However, there are some variants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinVariantsFreedom SlaughterAndTyranny) which makes them more alignment-friendly.

Rogue... isn't just sneaky anymore. It's a powerful chassis for damage output. All you need for Sneak Attack is to deny opponent their Dex bonus to AC, or be flanking the opponent. With the book 'Tome of Battle', this gets very easy, but even in Core, if you simply use Use Magic Device on a Wand of Grease, you can force a Balance check on opponents... which by default removes their dex bonus to AC even if they MAKE their save.

Wizard... you pretty much got it right. It takes a lot of knowledge of spell mechanics to come up with a solid list, though. For example, forget Fireball and Lightning Bolt. That's just some mediocre damage output. Go for shut-down spells like Grease, Glitterdust, and Stinking Cloud.

Sorcerer... most people do look on the Sorcerer as the Wizard's kid brother, and true he isn't quite as powerful, but you can still set up combos that break the game.

Bard... I don't blame you, we all had the same initial impression. It didn't hurt that the 2e Bard stank so badly. But really, this can be one of the most powerful Force Multipliers in the game, if done right. If you can get access to 'Dragon Magic', you get to pick up a feat called Dragonfire Inspiration. Basically, now Inspire Courage can add d6's of damage to ALL allies. Quite powerful, particularly when paired with a class that can spam summon spells like a Druid or Summoner.

Druid. Think of it like this... you are a spellcasting Bear that is riding a bear, summoning bears, and throwing bears at people. It's simply un-bear-able. One of the most powerful classes in the game. Just pick up Natural Spell and it's hard to go wrong.

Monk. Again, this is a mistake we have all made, so no one is blaming you. The ability, however, is now called 'Flurry of Misses' for a reason. They've only got a 3/4 BAB, and now you're giving them an additional attack penalty? The other problem is that to use Flurry of Blows, you need a Full Attack Action. Which means you needed to have already started your turn next to your opponent. Since they can't wear armor if they get their AC bonus, which is generally pathetic, and a sub-par hit die size, that's also called 'A Greasy Stain'.

Rangers are a decent full BAB class with actually relevant class abilities.

Until you give us a better idea of what you want to play, it's going to be tough to give you some options.

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 06:08 PM

I like causing lots of damage. I can't begin to tell you how many times in other (video) games where I've neglected healing or defensive stuff for raw power.

eggs

2012-10-21, 06:09 PM

From what I've read, sorcerors are rather inferior to wizards.The one major advantage Sorcerers have is in spell output: the Arcane Fusion spells in complete mage and the interaction of their metamagic casting times with the Arcane Spellsurge spell from dragon magic lets them churn out a lot more spells within one round than Wizards can (at least, without a whole lot of work on the wizards' part).

The less practical advantage is Kobold shenanigans, in which a certain feat gives access to an extra sorcerer level (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a) removes ability penalties for age categories, and some have argued (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220856) grants access to 2 more sorcerer levels and the ability to trade Sorcerer casting mechanics for Wizard.

My first choice for magic user is alchemist in any case. Kobold alchemists get extra bombs, which is nice. Plus, draconic aspect. I could end up breathing ice!
As a heads-up, the breath weapon ability is pretty terrible (2d6 damage is low, Con-based saves are low for a Kobold, ). Kobolds' nerfing compared to 3e went a bit into overkill, the same way that 3e's splatbook Kobold buffs overshot a bit when compensating for the core version.

The Cavaliers seem like they're just kinda there in my eyes.
Yeah, they're crummy, which is a bit of a problem for Hobgoblins. The special abilities it gets that give it unique abilities are geared toward a lackluster class. The stats and intimidate bonus are useful, if a bit generic. As far as what could do well with Hobgoblin, Barbarian could use some of the fear abilities effectively, and if 3e materials are fair game, something like Warblade can work well with just about anything.

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-10-21, 06:13 PM

I like causing lots of damage. I can't begin to tell you how many times in other (video) games where I've neglected healing or defensive stuff for raw power.

Well then, I have some suggestions for you.

First off, allow me to introduce you to a concept called The Charger. The ultimate example is a build referred to as the Ubercharger, although we won't be getting that silly with it.

The combo of feats are:

Power Attack. Increases damage output at the cost of attack penalty. Increased with two-handed weapons.
Leap Attack (Complete Adventurer). Increases Power Attack multiplier on a charge. Now we're looking at +3 damage per -1 to attack.
Shock Trooper. Now we take a penalty to AC instead of BAB. So now there's no reason to not do it.

This combo requires the following classes:

Spirit Lion Totem variant Barbarian1. This trades the +10' movement for Pounce. This means you get Iterative attacks on your charge.

A Valorous Weapon gives a further damage multiplier increment, giving you a 4-1 ratio for traded off BAB and damage.

As far as the rest of the levels, a couple of levels in Fighter makes getting all those feats easier and earlier.

If you have access to Tome of Battle, Warblade rounds out the build nicely.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 06:13 PM

Okay, then. Now, here are some relatively weak pathfinder classes:

Monk
Rogue
Fighter
Gunslinger
Barbarian
Ninja
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Soulknife
Cavalier

Some relatively average power level pathfinder classes:

Alchemist
Bard
Inquisitor
Magus
Psychic Warrior
Wilder

and some relatively powerful pathfinder classes:

Cleric
Druid
Witch
Wizard
Oracle
Sorcerer
Psion
Summoner

Note this is mostly about potential power level and agency and how much they can affect the world around them, and how effective and versatile the tactics they have access to are in achieving myriad goals. Classes generally aren't empirically 'good' or 'bad'; they are suited and unsuited to different play-styles. In my essay, I talk about what sort of game people try to run, and then everyone choosing options that fit in that gaming style. Do you know anything about the patterns or assumptions of the game at the gaming store, or how people are playing their characters, or how the GM is running things, or what they are running? Do note that it is relatively common for someone to play a wizard who fits fine in a party of monks and fighters; all you have to do is play it like the game was generally played in the pre 3.0e editions, so don't consider this a comparison in ways it was not intended. But do realize, that the more you pay attention to the coolest and most awesome sorts of things a character can do, the more likely you are to disrupt low power games if you are playing, say... a Druid. Make sense?

Also, people are still mentioning things that aren't relevant to you. Arcane Fusion and Arcane Spellsurge are, as best as I can remember, non-PF options. Leap Attack, 3.5e-style power attack, and Shocktrooper are something that Pathfinder seriously nerfed, or depending on the particular thing, flat out took away. Make sense? You might want to restart a thread that says, in the title and the first line, [PF] and 'This is for Pathfinder ONLY, no 3.5e!' prominently...

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 06:19 PM

I suppose.

I don't know how they run their games. I haven't played, and I've been trying to get there for MONTHS.

Can't I change the subject title?

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 06:19 PM

Well, try editing things and change the subject title and the first post, but that might not help you get better replies. It depends, really...

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 06:22 PM

So anyway.

Psionics, huh? I tried reading about that, but it didn't really make a whole lot of sense. And I still don't understand Oracles and Witches.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 06:26 PM

Psionics is just a magic system that runs on mana called power points. Nothing particularly special about it. It has spells like anything else; many spells are the same as arcane versions, and you can make them more powerful by spending more mana on them. Surely you've seen similar systems described in fantasy novels and in video games?

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 06:28 PM

I'm not sure, but then I have a rather poor memory.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 06:31 PM

You've never seen a system of magic where casting a spell taxes the caster, and they have a limited amount of mental endurance with which to cast spells, which is renewed by rest? Have you read any non-D&D fantasy books with spellcasters? Played any non D&D fantasy computer or video games?

eggs

2012-10-21, 06:37 PM

And I still don't understand Oracles and Witches.
Is there something we could explain?

Witches are like Wizards, except with at-will Hex powers instead of specializations. And their spellbooks are packaged with their familiars.

Oracles are similar to Sorcerers, but with the Cleric Spell list, Mystery ability menus instead of set Bloodline ability tracks, and with Curses (packages of disadvantages and associated scaling advantages, typically geared to compensate for the loss).

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-21, 06:39 PM

There are some pathfinder-specific handbooks for you, if you would like...

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1932.0

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 06:50 PM

Alright, I'll give these a look.

What's the point of the Inquisitor?

grarrrg

2012-10-21, 07:17 PM

Alright, I'll give these a look.

What's the point of the Inquisitor?

Think of it as a Divine Bard, it is a "do anything" type of class. It has no "one thing" that it is best at. Unlike the Bard, it's Unique Thing is Self-Buffing (as opposed to the Bard's Group-Buffing).
Melee/Ranged/Spells/Skills, it can do anything. BUT If there is one thing that you REALLY want to do, then it is a bad choice, because Flexibility means lack of Specialty.

It has 6th level Divine spells, (worse than Cleric, better than Paladin).
It has 3/4 Bab, BUT this can be partially offset by your Judgment(s).
It has 6 Skills per level (2nd best you can get).

Like most Jack-of-all-Trades classes, it typically works best in really small, or really large groups.

eggs

2012-10-21, 07:21 PM

What's the point of the Inquisitor?
It's geared toward a pretty specific niche somewhere between the Ranger, Paladin and Cleric, but in all honesty, I've always just thought it and the Cavalier were just there to showboat/expand PF's teamwork feat mechanic.

It's not an awful damage-dealer and it's pretty versatile, but you weren't wrong when you said Clerics did the same things better (at least at mid- to high-levels).

Voyd211

2012-10-21, 09:03 PM

My friend wants to play a half-dragon human rogue. How viable is that setup?

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-10-21, 09:51 PM

My friend wants to play a half-dragon human rogue. How viable is that setup?

Half-dragon is a sucker's bet for -ANY- class, being LA +3

Eldariel

2012-10-21, 09:58 PM

Half-dragon is a sucker's bet for -ANY- class, being LA +3

Isn't this thread about Pathfinder?

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-10-21, 10:30 PM

Isn't this thread about Pathfinder?

What, you mean Pathfinder doesn't have Level Adjustment?

qcbtnsrm

2012-10-21, 11:13 PM

What, you mean Pathfinder doesn't have Level Adjustment?
Not as such, and not by that name. Pathfinder functionally recommends against it. But there are rules supporting it. Basically their total LA is the same as their CR regardless of racial hit die or abilities. Half-dragon as a +2 CR template would then count as the equivalent of a +2 LA. It is probably worth it for a melee type, +8 Str and +6 Con is fairly worthwhile. The Str immediately compensates for the lost BAB. And the Con should make up for the lost HP within a few levels. But as always, it probably hurts a caster too much.

Voyd211

2012-10-22, 07:09 AM

How viable is an oread magus? I'm looking at options besides my default "kobold bomber alchemist."

Axier

2012-10-22, 08:05 AM

How viable is an oread magus? I'm looking at options besides my default "kobold bomber alchemist."

Oread is a really good choice. Check out Stone in The Blood and Crystaline Form for alternate features for your pointless Earth Affinity ability. Treacharous Earth that replaces your magic stone ability would come in handy, make an area around you difficult terrain 1/day is much more useful than magic stone.

They also have Fleshgems, which is kinda like making yourself into a crystaline chia pet. The 50g ones work as armor spikes, although they are better for monks...

The feat tree that gives you earth glide (3 feats, one at 9th and one at 13th) can come in handy. Mobility and the ability to trap the mooks you can grapple into the ground. Suffocation on earth would suck.

They have a strength bonus, and the extra wisdom would come in handy. You don't need charisma, so its really just a good deal.

Now that I have looked at it again, I want to make an Oread Tetori Monk, use fleashgems as spiked unarmor, and grapple things into the earth.

Chained Birds

2012-10-22, 08:23 AM

Now that I have looked at it again, I want to make an Oread Tetori Monk, use fleashgems as spiked unarmor, and grapple things into the earth.

Dragging people into the ground seems a bit evil even if the subject of the suffocation is a big baddy that you know can't get out of it. Now grappling people through walls and arranging them in funny ways through the walls or flooring; that would be awesome!

:smallbiggrin:

Voyd211

2012-10-22, 08:24 AM

Deathkeeper

2012-10-22, 09:40 AM

I specified magus.

Also, is there any fundamental difference in weapons choice for martial classes? Because I don't particularly like swords. I'll either smash (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DropTheHammer) your (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CarryABigStick) face (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerFist) or chop it off entirely. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnAxeToGrind)

Well, there is a Staff Magus whose point is to beat people up with magic/quarter staves. Otherwise, you could use a flail or mace fine with a magus, since Spell Combat only specifies a 1-handed weapon.

Psyren

2012-10-22, 11:09 AM

It's geared toward a pretty specific niche somewhere between the Ranger, Paladin and Cleric, but in all honesty, I've always just thought it and the Cavalier were just there to showboat/expand PF's teamwork feat mechanic.

It doesn't have to be - there's an archetype for the Inquisitor that lets you toss the teamwork feats (which are mostly crap anyway) in favor of a much better ability.

I would imagine there is something similar for Cavalier by now, but I have no idea as I haven't really read the class.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-22, 11:17 AM

Also, is there any fundamental difference in weapons choice for martial classes? Because I don't particularly like swords.

Generally, in D20 systems, two-handed polearms that give you reach and tactical options (such as tripping) are superior to other options, though pathfinder did nerf several of the solid choices that made melee in 3.5e reasonable.

Voyd211

2012-10-22, 11:45 AM

Spell Combat requires the use of one-handed weapons, so polearms are OUT.

Spiked Gauntlets appeal to me, though. Have a face full of pointy pain!

If not that, I can lop of some heads or drop a hammer.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-22, 12:34 PM

There is something very very important you seem to be missing. Going under Tue assumption that you are defining 'good' as 'powerful', take a look at the patterns in the three categories of classes. Notice anything? The powerful classes solve problems through using superpowers called 'spells', and generally don't have to worry about anything so muggle as making actual melee attack rolls, unless they really want to for some reason... and by the time they do, they have probably already won the four / solved the problem. You must get out of your box of 'I attack in melee' as the optimal way to interact and enforce your will on the world.

Voyd211

2012-10-22, 01:34 PM

I'm just trying to consider non-casters, and your listing says the gunslinger sucks. Guns are the only ranged weapons I like, outside of magic anyway.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-22, 01:49 PM

I'm just trying to consider non-casters, and your listing says the gunslinger sucks. Guns are the only ranged weapons I like, outside of magic anyway.

You misunderstand my list. It doesn't say whether or not things suck. Many of the less powerful character classes can one shot any enemy they are likely to.go up against if built right. That is not the main measure of power. The main measure of power is the ability to do things--generally other than attacking--that let the character solve problems. Also, the lower power character classes are often just fine for many game styles.

Voyd211

2012-10-22, 02:44 PM

Hm. I presume you are referring to buffs/debuffs, disarming traps, communication, mobility, etc.

That or I am more knowledge-deficient than I thought.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-22, 03:19 PM

Hm. I presume you are referring to buffs/debuffs, disarming traps, communication, mobility, etc.

That or I am more knowledge-deficient than I thought.

Unfortunately, it is likely the latter. here are some links to help you reset your calibrations...

Be sure to read the parts that describe how character types actually use their superpowers to solve problems.

http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=js2ujrpimc35nqlu2g6ak9obh1&topic=4938.0

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryBreakerPower

Yes, the most powerful classes have access to all of those from that last link. Note these lists are 3.5e specific, not PF specific. This just means that the particular tricks used varies between the games, not that the actual overall capabilities change.

Voyd211

2012-10-22, 04:15 PM

Any opinions besides Gavin's? I'm getting somewhat confused by his explanations. Or lack thereof, mostly just links.

Something to remember: I have NEVER played a tabletop RPG before. Closest I've done is Legend of Drizzt, and I hardly think that counts.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-22, 04:23 PM

What I am saying is...

You are underestimating the maximum power level of spellcasters in these systems. They don't do things like the abilities you see in computer RPGs. They do things like the big bad evil characters that the whole world has to unite against to stop, or, alternately, the sorts of things you see deities doing in legends and myths. Make sense?

Deathkeeper

2012-10-22, 04:24 PM

What your character "does" will be largely restricted by what you pick. The Gunslinger might be able to destroy in open combat, but that's all he'll be doing. Whereas the "power" classes will be able to rock in combat, avoid most obstacles, do fine when dealing with NPCs, and manage items, etc. They can be built in such a way that they can "do" anything (and completely frustrate your DM).

That does not, however, mean they are the only good classes. It just means they are more versatile. In many cases people find "low tier" classes more fun to play.

In essence, your choice is still largely based on what you want to do, but if what you want to do is to be so good that the DM actively works to get around your tricks, then you'd be looking at the things Gavin was talking about.

Voyd211

2012-10-22, 04:46 PM

eggs

2012-10-22, 05:01 PM

I've never gotten past treating PF like a second language, but this thread (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1932.0) links to pretty in-depth analyses of building each of those classes.

Generally speaking, it's easier to give advice to someone who's gone through handbooks and come up with a few concrete outlines than it is to respond to an open-ended class advice request, even when the guides are slightly out of date.

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-22, 05:34 PM

I'm not a munchkin. I don't just want to be "lol nuke everything."

If you think that blasting things -- even expertly -- is the definition of power... well... that kinda shows you have a bit to learn. ;)

But what we are saying is either of these two pieces of advice:

'Don't think about things as class first. Think about what you want the character to do, both in combat, and out. In combat, do you want to be an archer, a melee character, a supporter, a buffer, a debuffer, a battlefield controller? Out of combat, do you want to focus on social skills, utility spellcasting, manipulating the environment, having assistants do things for you? Do you want to adapt to the world, or force the world to do what you tell it to? What do you want to be good at, in the broadest way of thinking about how your character interacts with the world?'

-or-

'Go read the handbooks for each and every class. Get an idea of what options seem to jump out at you. Make an effort to make an example character, and ask us to help you tweak it.'

Voyd211

2012-10-23, 07:07 AM

Alright, tengu gunslinger. What can we do with Mangiz McSkurr here? And does Pathfinder have bayonets?

(totallynotamixtureofalucardandanderson)

Edit: Also, I see that being bigger has absolutely no advantage whatsoever. I get the lowered AC (bigger targer is easier to hit), but why oh WHY would a large character deal less damage? What is the POINT of being any larger than a human? Why is Enlarge Person a thing?

Axier

2012-10-23, 09:52 AM

I'm not a munchkin. I don't just want to be "lol nuke everything."

Also, my mental processes (Question ye not my methods, mortals!) have come up with Gunslinger for range, Barbarian for melee and Alchemist for magic.

Any recommendations for those three classes? Kobold would obviously be bad for a barbarian. The core races are still my secondary options, I like the featured/uncommon races better.

Humans are exelent Gunslingers, as well as Drow Noble being broken for them.

Everything without a STR negative makes for a deacent Barbarian, but Orc Barbarians have some EXCELENT class options, so long as you want to be the stupid, ugly, and strong type.

Alchemist is wonderful for anything with intelligence bonuses, or just plain good all around. As long as you arent negging INT, you can't go wrong.

Voyd211

2012-10-23, 11:56 AM

Squirrel_Dude

2012-10-23, 12:36 PM

It doesn't have to be - there's an archetype for the Inquisitor that lets you toss the teamwork feats (which are mostly crap anyway) in favor of a much better ability.

I would imagine there is something similar for Cavalier by now, but I have no idea as I haven't really read the class.There is. It's called the Gendarme. You give up Teamwork feats and Tactician, receiving instead Mounted Combat feats and a better capstone ability.

Squirrel_Dude

2012-10-23, 12:39 PM

Could somebody please answer my last post? Tengu gunslinger, with the automatic sword proficiency that race carries, in case of being caught in close combat. Oh, and the dubious value of increasing your size.Trust me, you won't be using anything other than your gun if someone gets close to you. You'll already be close in combat so you can hit that fighter's touch AC, ignoring all his special armor.

eggs

2012-10-23, 01:23 PM

Could somebody please answer my last post? Tengu gunslinger, with the automatic sword proficiency that race carries, in case of being caught in close combat. Oh, and the dubious value of increasing your size.
Tengu's unique features don't do anything interesting for gunslinger, but the ability modifiers are generally useful.

And larger creatures don't deal less damage. They deal more damage (bigger dice), they're less likely to hit. The advantages of being large are boosted CMB and reach, the disadvantages are lower AC and attack. Generally, frontliners like being bigger, casters and sneaks like being smaller.

Voyd211

2012-10-23, 02:35 PM

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-23, 02:48 PM

There are several components to armor class.

There's dodging and things that prevent a blow from even touching you, like dodge bonuses, armor class from a monk's wisdom, or armor class from dexterity, or magical 'deflection bonus', all of which prevent a blow from touching your person.

Then there is simply having enough armor that a blow that touches you doesn't do anything. This means having a thick hide from natural armor bonus, plating yourself in steel from armor bonus, or a shield bonus.

So a fighter with a 10 dex and enough shield or armor to have his armor class at (say) 18, has an armor class of 18 or a touch armor class of 10.

So when you swing a sword at him and get a 16, it does connect, but it bounces off of his armor or his shield.

If you have attacks that are touch attacks or ranged touch attacks... that heavy armor, shield, whatever, don't matter at all. So the number you are trying to hit in an attack roll is MUCH lower.

Go read this:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat

Squirrel_Dude

2012-10-23, 02:48 PM

So, like Ultra Trunks in DBZ? Way more powerful, but can't land a single blow.

Aaah, touch attacks. The exact definition keeps escaping me, mainly because I'm pretty sure Disintegrate is a touch spell.Touch attacks are attacks that ignore a targets shield, armor, or natural armor bonuses. Basically, they are an attack that isn't affected by defenses and that a target must actually dodge to not be hit by them.

Guns ignore armor and shields within their first range increment because they are simply punching right through them. Ray attacks (like disintigrate) normally hit touch AC because armor doesn't protect you from being disintegrated.

"Touch" attacks simply refer to any attack that only needs to touch a target for it to do damage. That's why you can have ranged touch attacks.

Savvy?

Psyren

2012-10-23, 03:58 PM

Touch attacks are attacks that ignore a targets shield, armor, or natural armor bonuses. Basically, they are an attack that isn't affected by defenses and that a target must actually dodge to not be hit by them.

Or deflect - high deflection AC is like trying to get the same pole on two magnets to come into contact.

And miss chance applies just as strongly to touch attacks as it does to regular, which is another reason why it's so useful.

Mjollnir075

2012-10-23, 10:35 PM

Listen, Voyd211,
A lot of what these guys are saying doesn't appear to make any sense to you.
That's not a bad thing, It's just, without having ever played DnD/PF before, most of these suggestions are going to be way over your head.

"Aaah, touch attacks. The exact definition keeps escaping me, mainly because I'm pretty sure Disintegrate is a touch spell."

This. Everyone here is giving you links and hints that are designed for the players who have some serious time spent into the game.

The one suggestion I can give you is to just join a game at a nearby gamestore if possible and get a feeling for the basics. Then come back and poke the hivemind that is the Playground.

Voyd211

2012-10-24, 07:11 AM

I kinda understand the Touch Attack now. It's like Ms. Mowz's slap attack in Paper Mario, yes? It bypasses defense and gets straight to hurting you.

So, the reduced armor class for bigger creatures and increased attack bonus for smaller ones just means "Bigger target! I CAN HIT YOU!" I have been reading the SRD, and looking up stuff. It's just that the SRD has lousy wording sometimes.

And as for playing at a gamestore, that's what I've been trying to do for months. Gateway Games and More, the nearest store I know about, hosts a Pathfinder session every other Friday, but I haven't been able to go for various reasons. Younger siblings had soccer, I can't drive, personal real-life stuff like that.

The alternative is collecting my friends and trying to work that out, but none of us really want to be DM.

Deathkeeper

2012-10-24, 07:25 AM

You may want to make note that while in basic effect touch attacks and attacks against touch AC are the same, they are actually different things. Spells like Shocking Grasp and disintegrate are touch attacks, guns are attacks that go against touch AC.
It's a bit confusing, but the distinction becomes important with a few feats that are neat for Gunslingers. Speaking of which, Do you need any help actually understanding the class features of the classes you're asking about?

Voyd211

2012-10-24, 07:46 AM

Psyren

2012-10-24, 08:09 AM

Do you have a computerized form of D&D like Neverwinter Nights? That's a great way to learn the basic rules at your own pace. It seamlessly handles things a new player might not have down pat like touch attacks, saving throws, damage reduction, spell slots, combat maneuvers, critical confirmations etc.

Voyd211

2012-10-24, 08:24 AM

I do have NWN2, although I haven't gotten very far into it.

Deathkeeper

2012-10-24, 09:46 AM

A little bit. For instance, I know that guns didn't have proper magazines until the 18th or 19th century. Logically, this means that most PF firearms would be single-shot without multiple barrels, yes? Flintlock firearms weren't made with multiple rounds in mind. In addition, I think reloading takes a while, what with stuffing the powder, then the bullet down the barrel with a stick. (/gun nerd)

It almost seems like if you want to not get stuck with melee (though with Tengu, that's not a problem), you'd be better off carrying several weapons pre-loaded.

I'm rambling, aren't I?

Yes, check the Mastering Combat- firearms in Your Campaign section of the SRD (cut & pasted from Ultimate Combat) for the rules.

Or, I'll just explain it all right here. In D&D/Pathfinder, there are several kinds of actions. Full round (your whole turn), Move (self-explanatory), Standard (attack, cast spell, etc), Swift (fast actions, they're pretty rare, actually), and Free (talking, Quick-Draw).
2-Handed guns (Rifles, blunderbusses) take a full-round to reload. Pistols and such need a standard action to reload. Normally you get one move and one standard action per turn, although you can substitute another move action in place of your standard action. Therefore, pistols do less damage, but can be reloaded faster. Yes, reloading a flintlock gun in one turn (about six seconds) is very unrealistic, but it's a fantasy game.
By the way, yes, guns have multiple barrels in Pathfinder.
However, you can make your character reload guns faster by using a feat (those perks you get every odd level) called Rapid Reload, and by using alchemical cartridges instead of balls&powder. Cartridges cost more to produce and have risks, but the speed is usually worth it.
Each gun has a range increment. Shots within that range work normally and ignore armor. Shots outside of that take -2 for each increment out of (If your increment is 20 ft, 5-20 ft shots are normal, 25-40 ft shots take -2, while 45 and over takes -4, penalties increasing with each 20 ft) and don't ignore armor normally.
Every gun has a misfire number. If you roll that number on an attack, it misfires, and is considered broken (-2, I believe on attacks). If it misfires again before you clear it out, the gun will explode. For example, a pistol's misfire number is 1, it only misfires on a natural 1, whereas rifles can have 1-2, which misfires on 1's and 2's, or even higher. The risk of alchemical cartridges is that they increase the misfire rate. For example, using a cartridge could cause your pistol to misfire on a 3.

Am I going too fast?

Voyd211

2012-10-24, 09:50 AM

Not really, it makes sense.

I plan on using pistols anyway. Big guns don't appeal to me as much. A pistol, you whip it out and BANG.

Unless the big gun in question is a volley gun, or something that spits out more dakka. Unfortunately, PF seems to lack both of these.

Psyren

2012-10-24, 10:07 AM

I do have NWN2, although I haven't gotten very far into it.

This is perfect, as it uses 3.5 rules. I hear the standard campaign isn't much story-wise (never beat it myself), but all the crunch you need should be there at least.

Deathkeeper

2012-10-24, 10:08 AM

Okay. That should work fine. Do you have a general preferred playstyle in terms of combat? Pistols don't really excel in combat due to a few things. For example, the Gunslinger archetype Musket Master can reload rifles as fast as a pistol after a few levels. Plus they have more range than pistols.
However, they are very maneuverable, and the Pistolero is nothing to sneeze at. Damage won't be too high until level 5, when you get to add your sweet, sweet Dex modifier to damage. This is true for all gunslingers.

For the record, there are dual-wielding builds to have two pistols or a sword and pistol (there is even a feat chain for the latter). The former works with a bit of finagling around to reload, and I have to idea if the latter is viable.

Voyd211

2012-10-24, 10:23 AM

Deathkeeper

2012-10-24, 01:59 PM

Dual wielding? Now you're speaking my language.

My playstyle in games is usually "proceed slowly until hit, then attack everything that moves in a blind panic." Yeah, I'm not much of a strategist.

Tengu get a Dex bonus, yes? That sounds wonderful for Pistolero.

Basically, how that works would be to have weapon straps for your pistols, you you can drop one to reload the other and then retrieve the dropped pistol with an action (Swift, I believe). This would work for a melee weapon, I suppose, but it wouln't be as smart since doing so would provoke a bunch of attacks of opportunity.
Tengus get a boost to Dex and Wis, which is good (Wis gives slingers grit, which lets them do cool things.) However, the penalty to Con will hurt, since they will need to get closer to enemies if you're using pistols. Con is your health, effectively.

Voyd211

2012-10-24, 02:43 PM

You know, I can't find a clear answer to this anywhere: How do you determine your character's HP? I know Con comes in somewhere, but beyond that, I haven't found any information on the subject.

Eldariel

2012-10-24, 03:06 PM

You know, I can't find a clear answer to this anywhere: How do you determine your character's HP? I know Con comes in somewhere, but beyond that, I haven't found any information on the subject.

Every class, racial level and so on has a hit die ("HD"). Fighter HD is d10, Barbarian d12, Cleric d8, Bard d6 and Wizard d4 in default; a bit different in PF (Wizards are d6, no d4s exist). By default you take maximum HD on 1st level and roll for all subsequent levels.

This is a common source of houserules though; taking average for all subsequent levels is in line in power with the normal rules but reduces the "Barbarian rolled 1 for his HD" and in general the randomness of it. Other options are a bit higher powered, up to maximizing every HD.

So yeah, you get your HD + Con Modifier for each level. So level 1 Barbarian with 14 Constitution (+2) has HD of 12 (first level is always maximized) from class and +2 from Con or 14 HP. 2nd level would have him roll a 12-sided die and add +2 from Con to it, or take average for 6.5 (rounded down for 6 on this level).

This is all in the SRD.

DrDeth

2012-10-24, 05:51 PM

And, your favored class bonus, which can be 1 HP per level or a skill point or several other things from the APG

I want to point out that Duskblade is a 3.5 class. Shock Trooper is also 3.5 along with Spirit Lion Totem .

The Psionic classes are not part of Pathfinder. They are from a outside source or 3.5.

I am not saying that your DM may not allow 3.5 or outside stuff in. But folks- let us not suggest outré stuff to a newbie, eh?

Gavinfoxx

2012-10-24, 07:32 PM

DrDeth

2012-10-25, 12:09 AM

Psionic classes are also kinda sorta pathfinder. While technically 3rd party from Pathfinder, Paizo gave them more of a blessing... the ones at d20pfsrd, at least.

That is, if you are using the pathfinder psionic classes!

Ok- sorta. Not Paizo, but yes the 3rd party ones for PF are as close as you're gonna get. Not legal for PFS, however.

Axier

2012-10-25, 10:11 AM

On the note of size increases, they would totally still benifit pisteleros.

Bigger pistols, bigger bullets, more damage.

Only downside is a hit to dex from the size increase, so I would recommend a size increase and something like strongarm bracers, so you can wield huge pistols in your large hands.