[Pathfinder] Help Finding Class Fit

[SunfireSadar]

I've always had trouble figuring out what class to play in table top or video games (I just want to play them all!). But I'm starting to figure out what I enjoy in my characters and was hoping to tap into some other opinions for help in finding the right class, archetype, or combination of them for what I enjoy.

Here is a brief summary of what I like:

Combat
Frontline/"In your face"
Martial skills (vs. magic). Love the 'my weapon and I' feel
Run interference for or protect allies
Do *not* care about putting out big damage numbers

Non-Combat
Skills! I like being able to come up with clever solutions to problems when out of combat.
Enjoy non-combat challenges more than combat usually
Order of preference for non-combat activities (most enjoyable --> lease enjoyable): subterfuge (bluff, stealth, larceny, etc.), social (intimidate, diplomacy), knowledge (can be fun to role-play but usually I just become the encyclopedia).

I would probably just pick fighter or barbarian based on what I enjoy in combat, but skills are a challenge. I've played a rogue and enjoy having a plethora of skills, but I didn't enjoy combat - wasn't a fan of trying to setup for sneak attacks.

I'm leaning towards Inquisitor at this point as a good compromise between the fighter for combat and rogue for skills at this point.

I'm a fan of simple - I enjoy participating in a story and finding ways for my character to grow in narrative. Getting put in combat or a skill challenge is unavoidable and sometimes a vast majority of a 3 hour session - so I'd like to find a class that I enjoy in that situation as well = ). Being powerful is not a necessity - being useful to the group is enough.

Anyways, what do you think?

Thank you for your time in reading the post and formulating an responses!

[stack]

Inquisitor or bard would be my first thoughts. Inquisitor more-so, they can mix it up in melee just fine, especially if you get better weapons from deity/race. A variety of skills, enough magic to stay useful. Bard or alchemist could also be made to cover your needs. Even magus, but they take a bit more work to run in combat, have to know the touch spell rules well.

[malonkey1]

If you're willing to wait for the Advanced Classes Guide to come out/get put on the SRD, you could go Hunter. It's sort of a Rogue/Ranger Cross.

[Neknoh]

You could go for a paladin or a melee cleric, just make sure not to play your paladin lawful stupid ;-)

[Cassidius]

There's always the ranger as well. Pretty decent in combat and a good chunk of skills. Plus I've always thought the favored enemy and favored terrain lended themselves well to role play.

[Bigbeefie]

Front liners: Paladin, fighter, barbarian, ranger, samurai. All have high Base attack. Ranger has highest skill numbers of the full base attack and allow most out of combat.

2nd liners: rogues, inquisitors, bards, magics, monks, ninjas, gun singers, and alchemists. All have higher skill selection. But aren't suited to tank anything. They can dish a lot of damage and offer a lot out of combat.

Last is your non combatant casters. Witch, wizard, sorc, Oracle, cleric.

The druid can fall in several roles but they really aren't for those who don't know the different ways to build them.

In other words I think you would love the ranger. Just keep a 10 intelligence so you can have 4+ skills to manage what you want to out of combat.

[Kudaku]

While inquisitor, bards and magi will work well as front-line classes with a good skill set to help out in OOC-situations, they tend to rely rather heavily on magic (either via spells or supernatural/spell-like class features) to compete in combat.

Out of those classes the best defensive (or "tanky") class is probably the Magus. If you use Spell Combat to cast defensive spells like Mirror Image and Displacement instead of Shocking Grasp you become very frustrating to deal with. A 10th level magus in my current group is easily keeping pace with the paladin and the fighter/rogue in the AC department and his miss chance defense is significantly better than either of theirs.

All that said, based on what you're looking for I think you're really best off with a ranger with the right archetype. Maybe try an Urban Ranger switch-hitter or with the sword and board combat style option?

[Bigbeefie]

Yeah the switch hitter build ranger is amazing and very effective throughout entire campaigns. You won't get bored.

[Neknoh]

Now somebody has to explain it for us lesser mortals ;-)

[Gabe the Bard]

Barbarians actually get a decent number of skill points, better than fighters anyway. I'm playing a barbarian for the first time, and looking at the rage powers, there are a lot of utility abilities, including scent, flight, self-healing, status recovery, and a variety of things you can do while chugging ale. Also, taking cross class skills isn't such a bad idea in PF as it was in 3.5, so you could still get skills like diplomacy with only a -3 hit to your total modifier. So I'll throw in my two-cents for Barbarian with Invulnerable Rager archetype (you get DR/- equal to half your level starting at 2nd level, giving up trap sense and uncanny dodge). Then you'll have the front-line thing down, and you can pick and choose whatever rage powers and feats (maybe skill focus feats) to flesh out your character concept.

The problem with playing a gish is that you might end up spending most of your feats and class options trying to make your character stand on equal footing with a fighter or barbarian. That said, Oracle with the Battle or Ancestor mystery might fit well with the "my weapon and I" concept. Ancestor mystery lets you summon a weapon and armor, which are kind of weak but do have some good flavor. Battle mystery can give you proficiency with martial weapons and heavy armor, so you can at least look more like a frontline fighter. Also, Oracles are charisma based casters and have diplomacy as a class skill, along with additional class skills for their mystery, like intimidate for Battle and knowledge for Ancestor.

[Bigbeefie]

Now somebody has to explain it for us lesser mortals ;-)

A Switch hitter is a ranger who will focus his regular feats on his Melee combat and dedicate his Bonus feats to archery. In combat he will begin at range begining full round attacks ASAP for more damage sooner. He allows them to close on him and if they do he will switch from his longbow to his big 2 handed weapon and smash faces in melee. (when they close that means you get to continue your Full round attacks). Basically its a build that maximizes damage by Full round attacking every round and has steady damage from both modes of combat.

They look something like this:

Human Ranger 20 point buy
str: 18 dex:14 con:13 Int:10 Wis:13 Cha:9

Feats and Combat style feats (CSF):
Human feat: Power attack
1st Lvl: Cleave
CSF 1 2nd Lvl: Rapid Shot
3rd Lvl feat: Quick Draw
5th Lvl feat: Deadly Aim
CSF 2 6th Lvl :Many shot
7th Lvl Feat: (your Choice)
9th lvl Feat: Improved Crit: High Critical threat range 2-handed weapon
CSF 3 10th lvl: Improved Precise shot
11th Lvl feat: (your choice)
13th Lvl feat: (your choice)
CSF 4 14th Lvl: (your choice)

He skips point blank and precise shot because when the fighting turns melee he is in melee with his 2-handed weapon...SO he only worries about putting out damage with his feats.

[Neknoh]

Between this and an divine hunter paladin, I'm starting to wonder how I can best play two extra characters in this first Campaign of mine :D

[Bigbeefie]

Between this and an divine hunter paladin, I'm starting to wonder how I can best play two extra characters in this first Campaign of mine :D

Lol a divine hunter archer paladin + switch hitter will reck most encounters

[Neknoh]

The switch hitter is standing right in between Greatsword/Falchion fighter and the DH-Paladin, I want to play all three of them now (although the fighter has been rolled).

I guess I should start making a folder of rolled characters ;-)

[Bigbeefie]

The switch hitter is standing right in between Greatsword/Falchion fighter and the DH-Paladin, I want to play all three of them now (although the fighter has been rolled).

I guess I should start making a folder of rolled characters ;-)

I actually have a folder of Optimized Characters for every class for speed of rolling characters. Switch-hitter is my Ranger build in my folder. I have one on everything but a gunslinger, Ninja, and samurai as my group bans them usally because they just dont fit our groups imagination on DnD. we hate oriental classes and Gunslinger is downright OP as a optimized lvl 13 gunslinger can almost insta-kill CR 20.

[Septimus]

...
Looks like you almost described the Inquisitor class, minus the tanking, but with some work you can have an front line inquisitor even if it should be better to not be alone there. Have a look on the inquisitor handbooks: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19N7y6cKFLAr2KMMiKc8A1XG6R4iOmwaNFS7iAs17zyU/edit?hl=en_US and https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gFK_A8YV84hMUMXjxvCLFTnGO2GF7CMQiGIYyAQ2kns/edit#

[SunfireSadar]

Whoa! I didn't expect so many responses; You guys are awesome. I've always lurked around the forums reading posts, but just made an account today to ask a question!

Classes
Right now, I've got the following the classes on the radar:

Ranger You guys were spot on about this one! Great mixture of skills and dervish style fighting (plus pets!!). Seems like a Fighter/Thief mixture.

Inquisitor I picked this over Bard because of the ability to wear heavier armor and just the general front line focus. Lots of skills too w/ an edge for investigation. Seems like a Fighter/Thief/Mage (jack of all trades) mixture.

Barbarian A little skill challenged, has some incredible front line staying power and damage to boot. I'm very interested in something like this:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q5ow?Skull-Shackles-Character-Advice#19

One of the things that turns me off a little bit about the inquisitor is that I like simple (perhaps that means martial?). And inquisitor feels a tad prismatic (front line feats, spells, skills, judgments, and teamwork feats).

Question(s)

The core fighter gets a couple more feats, has a better health pool, and gets weapon/armor training. The inquisitor doesn't get all that, but it seems to get a lot more with teamwork feats carrying to allies, spells, judgments, etc. Am I missing something?

How important do you find skills (beyond perception) for playing your character in games? Are you crippled without lots of skills or can roleplaying make things fun for everyone involved instead of 'roll'-playing a series of skill tests?

I'm trying to get better at disconnecting my chose class with role-playing my class - it'd be fun to play a commoner being caught in the swirling torrent of adventure if I didn't think I'd be useless to the group of optimizers (plus we're playing Rise of the Runelords right now and I heard combat is pretty rough...)


Anyways, thank you to everyone who has contributed so far and for any future responses - they are much appreciated!

[VexingFool]

Question(s)
[LIST=1]
The core fighter gets a couple more feats, has a better health pool, and gets weapon/armor training. The inquisitor doesn't get all that, but it seems to get a lot more with teamwork feats carrying to allies, spells, judgments, etc. Am I missing something?

The Inquisitor only gets ¾ BAB to the Fighters full BAB.

The Fighter gets Heavy armor proficiency and the armor mastery helps him maintain his mobility. The Inquisitor only gets Medium armor proficiency and would need to have a decent DEX score to fill out the best mediums. The Inquisitor could pick up heavy armor but then is expending one of his feats.

Teamwork feats don’t ‘carry over’ to your allies. The Solo Tactics just allows him to treat his allies as if they possessed the Teamwork feats. The Fighter bonus feats are better because there is a larger list of Bonus Fighter feats which I believe includes Teamwork feats.

Fighters get D10 HD and Inquisitors D8. Which means a Fighter is a bit tougher unless a Inquisitor makes an larger investment into CON.

A Fighter’s weapon mastery is pretty much the equivalent of the Inquisitor’s judgements. Especially if you use mostly Justice and Destruction (which you have to do a lot because you only have ¾ BAB). The other judgements do offer some flexibility with healing, smiting, resiliency and resistance. But the Fighter’s weapon mastery is not limited to number of times/enemies per day.

Inquisitors are a bit MAD especially if you want to be a front liner. You need good STR,DEX,CON and WIS.

Inquisitors get 6 skill points per level to the Fighters 2 skill points.

The spellcasting and remaining class features(cunning init, Bane, moster lore) for the Inquisitor do put him over the top of the fighter in over all utility. But I think a fighter is a bit tougher frontliner. As someone said above I think they might be more of second liner like rogues.

In my current RotRL game I am running there is an Inquisitor and a Rogue who took the Precision and Outflank feats and they just wreck the solo bosses. In my experience the Inquisitor can hit quite hard but is a bit squishy.

[SunfireSadar]

The Inquisitor only gets ¾ BAB to the Fighters full BAB.

The Fighter gets Heavy armor proficiency and the armor mastery helps him maintain his mobility. The Inquisitor only gets Medium armor proficiency and would need to have a decent DEX score to fill out the best mediums. The Inquisitor could pick up heavy armor but then is expending one of his feats.

Teamwork feats don’t ‘carry over’ to your allies. The Solo Tactics just allows him to treat his allies as if they possessed the Teamwork feats. The Fighter bonus feats are better because there is a larger list of Bonus Fighter feats which I believe includes Teamwork feats.

Fighters get D10 HD and Inquisitors D8. Which means a Fighter is a bit tougher unless a Inquisitor makes an larger investment into CON.

A Fighter’s weapon mastery is pretty much the equivalent of the Inquisitor’s judgements. Especially if you use mostly Justice and Destruction (which you have to do a lot because you only have ¾ BAB). The other judgements do offer some flexibility with healing, smiting, resiliency and resistance. But the Fighter’s weapon mastery is not limited to number of times/enemies per day.

Inquisitors are a bit MAD especially if you want to be a front liner. You need good STR,DEX,CON and WIS.

Inquisitors get 6 skill points per level to the Fighters 2 skill points.

The spellcasting and remaining class features(cunning init, Bane, moster lore) for the Inquisitor do put him over the top of the fighter in over all utility. But I think a fighter is a bit tougher frontliner. As someone said above I think they might be more of second liner like rogues.

In my current RotRL game I am running there is an Inquisitor and a Rogue who took the Precision and Outflank feats and they just wreck the solo bosses. In my experience the Inquisitor can hit quite hard but is a bit squishy.

Good call on the BAB comment. The group that I play with moves pretty slowly, so haven't made it past level 4 or 5 to where you start getting extra attacks and so on!

[Spore]

Go for the ranger, I say. But please, if your DM hasn't mentioned any heavy involvement of one subtype of enemies/terrain, do yourself a favor and trade in your favored enemy and terrain (or go all out on terrain and go for guide/horizon walker to have every thinkable terrain).

[Firest Kathon]

If you're willing to wait for the Advanced Classes Guide to come out/get put on the SRD, you could go Hunter. It's sort of a Rogue/Ranger Cross.

If your DM is OK with it, you can also get the playtest PDF (http://paizo.com/products/btpy92zi?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Advanced-Class-Guide-Playtest) for free.

[Kudaku]

Rise of the Runelords? I probably wouldn't go with urban ranger then unless you really like the altered skill set. The majority of that AP moves around a lot so you will rarely benefit from your favored community bonus.

Bards can be absolutely terrifying in melee with the right archetype, but they usually lack staying power. Their HP and AC will suffer compared to the traditional melee classes (fighter, paladin etc). You can alleviate some of this by casting defensive spells, but then you run into the dreaded "buff round" while the rest of the melees are doing their thing.

Inquisitors with heavy armor and AC/fast healing judgements are surprisingly tanky, I'd argue they have more staying power (but less offensive power) than your typical fighter. Though it hurts your feat options, taking the heavy armor proficiency feat makes the class less MAD and your AC will be on par with the typical frontliners.

All that said, I still you think you might be best off with a ranger - rangers do very well in RotRL. If you haven't already, you should read the Player's Guide - it's a small booklet with background information, hints and tips for the players about to start RotRL. Among other things it suggests good favored enemy options for rangers. The PDF version can be found for free on the Paizo website here (http://paizo.com/products/btpy8bd9?Pathfinder-Rise-of-the-Runelords-Players-Guide).

[Kudaku]

Now somebody has to explain it for us lesser mortals ;-)

Adding to Bigeefie's post, the main attraction of the switch hitter ranger is that you're very rarely not able to contribute meaningfully to an encounter. Your archery won't be quite as devestating as a build that focuses exclusively on bows and your melee damage output will probably not be on the same level as a build that focuses exclusively on 2HF, but you're able to contribute meaningfully with both aspects, frequently both in a single encounter.

If you've ever played an archer vs an enemy with Fickle Winds or Wind Wall, or played a low-level melee character vs a flying enemy... Well, to me that flexibility is very attractive :smallbiggrin:

Then there's also the fact that the switch hitter is bolted onto a very flexible chassis - rangers get 6 skill points per level, two good saves, and an interesting (if not amazing) set of class features.

[marcielle]

It doesn't really get more 'my weapon and I' than a Bladebound Kensai Magus. You find a sentient weapon (or the weapon chooses you) who continues to grow in power and can be customised to fit your playstyle/tactics, all the while becoming so accustomed and skilled with it you are getting abilities and numbers fighters usually have to wait till late teens for. Also, it has a secret mission of it's own which it can choose to share with you, or subtly manipulate you into carrying out.
Int as a casting stat means that you will have a respectable amount of skill points.
Stealth up the wazzo with the invisibility line. Bladed dash and Force Hook used creatively, although less powerful than the mobility options a wizard has, look WAY more badass when pulled off. Dash up a wall and hit the guard with a full attack, felling him before he can so much a gasp.

Alchemists, while complicated, also deserve a mention. If a magus is a casting fighter, an alchemist is a casting barbarian. Hulkmode and smash! Or be a sneaky vivisectionist, poison and glue and guile. Disguise yourself with a quick drink, brew up some strength or invisbillity. Be a smartypants who can also punch a guy through a wall.

[Bigbeefie]

Oh rise of the Rune lords? Yeah The switch hitter could be your best option. I'll give you a good build that can help carry your party to victory through the campaign without giving any more spoilers then the players Guide for the adventure path does.

Going with my original build with a few Differences to complement what the OP is describing. It is partially optimized for damage but not 100% because I added your love for your Companion.

Human Ranger 20 point buy
str: 18 dex:14 con:13 Int:10 Wis:13 Cha:9

Trait 1: Outlander (exile): +2 on Initiative rolls. (used every single combat) (someone in the group should pick Favored son/daughter Ameiko Kaijitsu for the additional 10% over the amount of gp you normally would get from selling off treasure ) BUT NOT YOU!!! you want the Initiative Bonus to get to killing faster!!!!!

Trait 2: I recommend any one that raises your saves. Fort, reflex, or Will. Which ever one you feel will need the boost.

Feats and Combat style feats (CSF):
Human feat: Power attack
1st Lvl: Quick draw
CSF 1 2nd Lvl: Rapid Shot
3rd Lvl feat: Deadly Aim
5th Lvl feat: Boon Companion
CSF 2 6th Lvl :Many shot
7th Lvl Feat: Big Game Hunter
9th lvl Feat: Improved Crit: High Critical threat range 2-handed weapon
CSF 3 10th lvl: Improved Precise shot
11th Lvl feat: Critical focus
13th Lvl feat: Staggering Critical
CSF 4 14th Lvl:
15th Lvl Feat:
17th lvl feat:Stunning Critical

If you get to Level 18 your better off Taking a Level in Barbarian for final Boss fight you will get: Rage, +1 to will saves, Fast movement, and a d12 hit die.
What you loose from not taking lvl 18 Ranger: 4th favored terrian, crap choices of CSF, and no extra 4th level spell. Boo hoo.....you will gain more then you will loose by finishing barbarian.

As for Favored Enemy My recommendations for this campaign is: 1st Lvl- Undead, 5th lvl- Giant, 10th Lvl-Dragon, 15th Lvl- (???) I recommend the thing your final boss fight will be and you have to figure that out on your own.

Animal companion choice: Big cat with pounce OR a Big gator with death roll.

[stack]

Trait bonuses wouldn't stack, so you can't boost initiative twice with two traits that provide trait bonuses. I believe a trait bonus is the only type of bonus traits ever provide, but I've never checked.

[Bigbeefie]

Trait bonuses wouldn't stack, so you can't boost initiative twice with two traits that provide trait bonuses. I believe a trait bonus is the only type of bonus traits ever provide, but I've never checked.

There are some unspecified and others that say trait bonus. I know trait bonuses usually don't stack unless they are stated as a different buffs. Tis why my original choice is something to boost saves.

[Bigbeefie]

Trait bonuses wouldn't stack, so you can't boost initiative twice with two traits that provide trait bonuses. I believe a trait bonus is the only type of bonus traits ever provide, but I've never checked.

But went ahead and fix it anyways.

[SunfireSadar]

So...it turns out our party is comprised of the following:


Cleric (stand back and focus on buffing & healing)
Druid (pyromaniac blasting away - not a ton of control)
Ranger (sort of a switch hitter: sword & board & bow)
Paladin (earth breaker wielding behemoth - puts our crazy damage & does a good job staying up)


I feel a little bad to follow up like this after everyone's great advice, but it didn't feel like a good idea to step on a player's toes by doubling up on his class. He's pretty new and isn't exactly optimizing his ranger, but the DM helped him on the build to be a versatile front-liner.

So, I'm holding back on ranger a little bit at this point.

Given the party composition, it feels like we have the following covered and not covered:

Covered: Front line damage & staying power (ranger, paladin), range damage (ranger, druid, cleric), healing (cleric), buffing (cleric).
Not Covered: Battlefield control, debuffing, arcane buffs (haste, fly, etc.), stealth

Given the existing party composition, do any classes/archetypes stand out as a good fit for the party for a Rise of the Runelords campaign?

I'm thinking something along the arcane caster line:

Magus (seems like melee + magic - good comprise for what group needs and what I like - but do all spells go to buffing me vs. group? Is this a selfish class?)
Sorceror (guessing melee is out = ( - but should have plenty of out of combat cleverness that goes beyond use of skills).
Wizard (same as sorcerer, but I'm not entirely a fan of memorizing spells - I'd rather just know them like sorcerer).


Am I missing any obvious classes/fits to the party listed above?

I'm probably over thinking this - tend to do that picking classes for long term campaigns. How do you guys just stick to one class for years at a time!? I'd want to play them all - they all seem like they can be fun!

Anyways, thank you once again for any responses and apologies for not gathering full party composition before you guys posted answers about rangers. I haven't ruled one out, but I would rather made our party versatile as a whole.

[Kudaku]

No worries, it's commendable of you to step aside and let the new guy play the ranger without getting overshadowed :smallsmile:

Magus:
The magus spell list is fairly group-friendly, you get some really really good self-only buffs (Mirror Image, Bladed Dash) but lots of general group-wide buffs (Haste!) too. I had a magus player in my RotRL group and he was absolutely devastating damage-wise, easily outpacing the paladin, ninja, inquisitor, and fighter/rogue. However, he couldn't hold a candle to the conjuration-focused wizard when it came to utility. The slow spell progression is a bit of a downer, the class design encourages you to mainly prepare buff spells and touch range spells for Spellstriking, the spell list is a bit more limited than it appears at first glance, and because it's a little MAD you will most likely have the save DCs you could get from a sorcerer or wizard on debuffs and crowd control spells.

Sorcerer/Wizard:
Battlefield control, buffs, debuffs, stealth... I know you're not a big fan of memorizing spells, but I think you might be best off with a Wizard. The sorcerer could work, but you might struggle to cover everything with your Spells Known. The Thassilonian specialist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/arcane-schools/paizo---arcane-schools/classic-arcane-schools/thassilonian-specialist) Wizard is extremely thematically appropriate for the Rise of the Runelords, and it has tons of roleplaying potential.

The thassilonian specialist is also nice in that it gives you quite a lot of spells per day, which makes the wizard a lot more fun to play at the start of the AP where you typically run out of spell slots very fast. You can always retrain the arcane school away at higher levels if you find the spell list restrictions too limiting.

For Rise of the Runelords I'd probably play a Thassilonian Specialist wizard in that party, probably specializing in Greed or Sloth.

Edit: I just realized something... Have you had a look at the Witch class? It is a nice mix of Wizard and Sorcerer in that while it does memorize spells ahead of time, it also has access to unlimited use Hexes that can be absolutely devastating debuffs. The spell list is not quite as flexible as the Wizard's, but you mainly lose out on blasting spells - which in your case isn't really needed anyway.

[Scootaloo]

With that mix? Go bard or rogue.

- Bard offers a fair number o crowd control spells. Running one I've found that Sleep and Daze alone render low-level encounters nearly trivial, and powers like grease are just good battlefield control. A lot of bard spells are save vs. suck though, so you'll want to look at ways to either get your DC up or bring their saves down. Inspire courage is also a great boost for this pack of miscreants - and since it buffs you as well, you're ALMOST a full BAB class. If you go bard, invest your first (or one of your first, if human) feats into Lingering Performance. This can effectively triple the amount of rounds you have bardic performance available.

- Rogue of course offers their skillsets. You never realize what you're missing without a rogue until someone gets their face caught in a beartrap (true story!) They're also one of the few classes that can dual wield optimally, since if you're doing it right, each whack with a weapon is a sneak attack, and so the damage loss from slightly higher miss rate and off-hand strength penalties is more than negated.

- Both classes are combat-capable, though Bard becomes a little more MAD than rogue (all a rogue ever needs is dexterity to be good at combat; sneak attacks make the strength bonus for damage negligible, and you will eventually have weapon finesse; it's inevitable). Moreover both are very good outside of combat. The Bard especially is great for detective work, and unless the game is a straight-up war simulation you WILL be using bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and the like... Which it sounds like none of the others are going to be prime in.

Yeah, you could go Wizard / sorcerer (I'd recommend sorcerer between the two, just 'cause that party needs a "face" and charisma does that) and could arguably get a "more powerful" character out of it. But you initially wanted a front-line type, and both bard and rogue are way better at melee than either caster (though aren't good at taking hits), and the party has need for skillmonkeys and someone who's OT dumping charisma down the drain.

[Bigbeefie]

Alright I recommend a true Battlefield control wizard or a Witch.

Having no anvil will hurt in several fights and possiably cause many many deaths. The fact your ranger is going sword and board+archery means he will probably be either a.) feat starved and Be in combat more often taking more damage then the real switch hitter. Not to mention you have a melee Paladin who will be taking a beating. The druid will have his "healing" cut out for him tho I'm totally glad my group used a Cleric because of all the "other" sorts of damage later in the campaign and the better spell selection.

Someone mentioned a Thessalonian wizard. Its a good class built for Rise of the runelords but I still recommend against it. Play a specialty wizard but dont go the route of Sin magic here is why:

Restrictions: A Sin mage does not get to customize his choice for opposition schools—his opposition schools are determined for him when he chooses his specialization. These restrictions are more significant than those most wizards follow, and are known as prohibited schools. A Sin mage can never prepare a spell that is in one of his prohibited schools—he treats these spells as if they were not on the wizard spell list. If using a spell trigger or spell completion item to cast a spell from one of his prohibited schools, he must use the Use Magic Device skill to do so.

But a normal wizard would do just fine. I recommend Conjuration, Transmutation, or necromancy....in that order

But I really like the WITCH as a class for rise of the runelords. With the right Hexes you will have something to do every fight besides casting spells and you still get a awesome spell list. Ill omen in a witch only spell which is freaking amazing. They are int casters and can learn spells to teach thier familiar from all the wizard spell books that will come. You will also profit off the heavy wizard drops from book 3+. A witch can make a great Battlefield control specialist and can still take a few Know skills to help the group.

I recommend against a Magus. Totally....its one of my favorite classes but here are the 2 reasons why he wont fit your group.

A magus is a Hammer/DPS....he know minor amounts of control style spells just a few walls and he gets them late after a witch/wizard get wall of force or a Cleric get Blade barrier.

2ndly a Magus runs through more resources to end fights then any other class. Your usually wasting a few points from your arcane pool or burning through a few spells just to keep damage pace with those who have full BA bonuses. Not bad idea if you get plenty of rest but I know this campaign at certain parts will stretch your party on resources and this guy might run out of gas trying to make up for damage the stupid and Boring ranger is doing (forgive my mocerkery I hate sword and board on anyone but a fighter) and trying to make up for the paladin being out of smites.


No you need Control style spells to limit the incoming damage and you need utility. The Wizard or Witch offers that. as for Sorc I feel they are scum in comparison to prepared casters. Because to use metamagic as a Sorc you have to spend the full round "charging" up the spell unless it is quickened (even metamagic from rods)....as a Wizard or witch they need no extra time to charge up the spell.....Also know skills are more useful then most people think. Free action to identify what your fighting and to learn his weakness at the start of every battle can save lives.


All in all my recommendation is a Wizard or a Witch. I really Like the Witch tho and think you would get a lot of play/use out of a witch when a normal wizard just sits back and watches some fights go by without do a single thing. A witch can dive in and throw hexs without wasting a single resource.

[Kudaku]

I don't really think the rogue brings all that much to the table. I believe the cleric/druid (Sense Motive) and the paladin (Diplomacy/Intimidate) can share face duty fairly well, and the ranger has a fairly good skill list to pick up the general slack. The one area I think you might be missing out on that you didn't mention is knowledge skills - the druid, ranger, paladin and cleric probably cover KN: religion and KN: Nature between them, but Arcana, History, Local etc are all handy to have at times.

A bard is a better option and Inspire Courage will serve this party well, but I still think a bard's slow spell progression and sharply limited known spells will struggle a bit to fill the full Arcane slot without relying heavily on scrolls and wands.


Someone mentioned a Thessalonian wizard. Its a good class built for Rise of the runelords but I still recommend against it. Play a specialty wizard but dont go the route of Sin magic here is why:

Restrictions: A Sin mage does not get to customize his choice for opposition schools—his opposition schools are determined for him when he chooses his specialization. These restrictions are more significant than those most wizards follow, and are known as prohibited schools. A Sin mage can never prepare a spell that is in one of his prohibited schools—he treats these spells as if they were not on the wizard spell list. If using a spell trigger or spell completion item to cast a spell from one of his prohibited schools, he must use the Use Magic Device skill to do so.

But a normal wizard would do just fine. I recommend Conjuration, Transmutation, or necromancy....in that order

This is a fair point - Thassilonian specialists do pay a fairly hefty price for the extra spell slots. I still find them enjoyable and without spoilering anything I can say sin magic is very appropriate for Rise of the Runelords.

What you could do is play Sin Mage for the first few levels and enjoy your extra spell slots, then retrain into a normal specialist at level 7 or so if you miss the expanded spell list. The price shouldn't be more than 350 gp and a few days of downtime, and you'll be a bit more useful than the typical low-level wizard because of the bonus spells.

Or just play a general wizard, either serve do you well.

[Bigbeefie]

Also the OP should read this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i5hWkHXHOetRlpLOmxbpoEWod77psN0JcwFvxClNrGc/edit?pli=1

This a a Link to the guide called: The forge of Combat

My group use to make groups very unbalanced full of stuff that can get groups killed. After reading this guide and learning a bit more on pathfinder we now make groups that can upset DMs due to their extreme effectiveness. (currently in wrath of righteous 3rd book and only 1 fight has lasted longer then 1 round...including boss fights) The guide offers examples of unbalanced parties and they are true as we have first hand fell victim to too many Hammers and no anvils plenty of times.

After you read it pass it on to your group so they can read it....Knowledge is power.

After you finish reading that here is a good Guide page you can look up suggestions and theory crafting:

http://zenithgames.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-comprehensive-pathfinder-guides.html

Not every guide is Gospel like the Forge of Combat but they do all offer better feat choices and examination of classes with what works and what is Sub-par. Sub par isnt bad when 1 character is...but if you have a whole group of sub-par they might have fun for a while but their death will catch up to them and Death of a character is no fun for anyone.

A lot of People sub-par and say its for RP purposes.....My group has learned that Combat is combat and out of combat is when the RP takes place. Use your skills, gear, traits, and personality to RP situation that wont get you or your party killed. But your feats those are for ending combat and keeping yourself and party alive with. Remember this a Group game. =)

[Kudaku]

One little note of warning - the tactics optimization guides isn't for everyone. I'd give it serious thought and discuss it with your GM before showing it to the rest of your party.

[Bigbeefie]

One little note of warning - the tactics optimization guides isn't for everyone. I'd give it serious thought and discuss it with your GM before showing it to the rest of your party.

The Forge of Combat: isn't for people who like to die a lot, like to have 0 combat efficiency, like unbalanced parties, and generally enjoy very little progression, or have a DM who always gives his players everything by customizing easier fights for the sub-par party.

But read it yourself and share it with your DM. It really is just a practical look at surviving the Combat side of the game. If your party seems to fail because of some of the things you read in there and the DM can see some of those things he might find it to be sharable with the group for future campaigns to try out.

But I believe you should at least let your group read it as what harm can come from reading something? What harm can come from letting them read someone with more experiences notes? Its like learning from an educated teacher as opposed to the guy who just learned off of you tube.

I will say this though...The Forge of Combat will change your views on Combat in pathfinder and will lay down real Truths about it. It is not a "optimization" guide...it is a Balancing guide on how to form a efficient working group who can survive to dig deeper into the Story of a campaign. Playing in a campaign is fun....Being the cause of party wipes is not fun. This helps you look at combat in the way it should be looked at. Not the "anything will work" approach because not anything will work when the DM is sending you into deadly encounters.

[SunfireSadar]

Forge of Combat
I can appreciate the general intent behind this book. I know that table-top games can be played multiple ways: dungeon crawls, story telling, etc. To make a taboo comparison, I see understanding the composition much like running a dungeon in an MMO. It's ideal to do it with a tank, a healer, some control and damage - but you can do it with some weird combinations too if you want a challenge.

Our group is new to table-top and you can tell - our combats take hours sometimes and packs of goblins have almost spelled TPK for us. We're still in that "read optimization guides and make characters that are awesome - but don't really know why and don't care what everyone else is doing as long as they don't get in my way"

Anyways, it's good information - I took a read through it and the symptoms of 'missing an anvil' described our group well. I'll talk to GM about sharing the materials with our group - we've actually been talking about how to speed combat up.

Which brings me to my next point...

Magic - 'Sparkling Spice of Fun' or 'Rage Inducing Rule Sunder-er'?
I've only played a rogue in lower level games, but have heard all the stories about mages breaking games and trivializing the encounters that the GM spent hours planning.

I got a taste of this in a one off game when I was playing an Inquisitor in a mostly martial party. We get to the BBEG of our session and I won initiative - so I figured: "Eh, I'll caste silence - why not?" Turns out the bad guy was a caster/summoner and the room we were supposed to be trapped in with him ... well...it turn against him and trapped him in there with us. The DM told me later that he spent like an hour planning all these fun spells and situations for us to overcome....and....then I happened.

We laughed it off since it was a single session - but how badly do spell casters break games post say..level 7? If you pick good spells and make good use of them to control the battlefield - does that frustrate the crap out of you if you're a DM? Or are all those stories about wizards breaking games because those players were basically trying to do so on purpose?

Wizard vs. sorcerer
I understand that wizards have more spell versatility than sorcerers in terms of spells knows, but aren't sorcerers more versatile in how they can use the spells they know?

Let's say I have 3 open level 1 slots. As a wizard, I would memorize 1 grease and 2 mage armors. So if I need 2 grease's, I'm out of luck. As a sorcerer, I should be able to cast any combination of grease & mage armor up to 3 total casts - isn't that versatility of it's own kind?

Spell Casters
I've pretty much always played melee/martial classes up to this point - and damn that magus still tempts me!! But, for those of you that play wizards, witches, oracles, sorcerers, etc:

Any advice on how to play the spell casters smoothly? I figure the best thing I can do for my party is make sure I know my spells so we're not sitting around waiting for me to read all of them and figure out what I want to cast.

[Kudaku]

The Forge of Combat: isn't for people who like to die a lot, like to have 0 combat efficiency, like unbalanced parties, and generally enjoy very little progression, or have a DM who always gives his players everything by customizing easier fights for the sub-par party.

:smallsigh:


...but how badly do spell casters break games post say..level 7? If you pick good spells and make good use of them to control the battlefield - does that frustrate the crap out of you if you're a DM? Or are all those stories about wizards breaking games because those players were basically trying to do so on purpose?

If you play your wizard well and the GM doesn't take that wizard's potential into account then you will be able to significantly impact (if not curb stomp) most encounters by level 7 or so whenever you choose. As an example I had a lvl 8 wizard turn a losing battle completely around by casting a single spell, summoning a (literal) herd of celestial bison.


I understand that wizards have more spell versatility than sorcerers in terms of spells knows, but aren't sorcerers more versatile in how they can use the spells they know?

The main advantage wizards have over sorcerers is that they can mix and match their spell selection to whatever challenges they have coming up. The sorcerer is slightly ahead in spells per day, but a specialist wizard (and you benefit greatly from specializing) gets roughly as many spells per day and gets earlier access to the more powerful spells to boot.

Since there is no limitation on how many spells the wizard can learn (aside from gold and time spent inscribing spells) he wizard can afford to learn highly specialized spells which he will then only prepare if necessary. IE if the wizard knows he's going to be fighting a necromancer he can prepare niche spells like Command Undead, if he knows the party will be exploring a sunken ship he can memorize Air Bubble, if the party will be infiltrating a keep he can prepare Invisibility Sphere, if the party will be scaling a cliff in order to reach a mountain cavern he can prepare Spider Climb, and so on.

On the other hand, sorcerers are sharply limited in what spells they can learn so they have to pick broadly useful spells, spells that will be of help in most situations. Command Undead, Air Bubble, Spider Climb and Invisibility Sphere are all unlikely spells for a sorcerer to learn.

There's also the fact that sorcerers get access to new spells one level slower than the wizard. This is not necessarily a huge deal but personally I've always found this frustrating.

That doesn't mean that sorcerers are bad though, just not quite as flexible as the wizard. A well-played sorcerer is definitely a huge asset to any party.


Any advice on how to play the spell casters smoothly? I figure the best thing I can do for my party is make sure I know my spells so we're not sitting around waiting for me to read all of them and figure out what I want to cast.

Out of game? Read over your spells thoroughly, make sure you understand the primary function and any variations on each one of your spells. Note down the save DC of each of your spells somewhere highly visible, you'll most likely have to name them quite often.

If you can, make spell cards (http://www.thegm.org/perramsSpellbook.php) and keep them on hand - whenever you get fuzzy on the Range of Magic Missile, the duration of Invisibility, if Glitterdust is a Will or a Fortitude save etc, check your spell card. Much faster than looking the spell up in the book.

Be a little careful about playing an arcane caster that focuses heavily on summoning monsters - if you don't have the stats on hand and you're controlling more than one monster your turn can take a really, really long time. Like with the spellcards, ideally you should have printouts of the stats of any monster you will be summoning.

In-game... Scrolls - on your downtime scribe scrolls of those niche low-level spells that are really useful in the right circumstance but you don't want to set aside a spell slot for. For instance Air Bubble is a great spell to have on a scroll, and your party will love you when go "hang on a minute, I have just the thing..." whenever you're stomped by some obstacle.

[Bigbeefie]

If you play your wizard well and the GM doesn't take that wizard's potential into account then you will be able to significantly impact (if not curb stomp) most encounters by level 7 or so whenever you choose. As an example I had a lvl 8 wizard turn a losing battle completely around by casting a single spell, summoning a (literal) herd of celestial bison.

Ah yes the Smiting stampede....kicks ass every time. Another big favorite of mine is the smiting Dire Crocodile that wants to death roll the enemy caster who was hit with a Dimensional anchor...Feeble armed wizard should have lifted more books to escape that grapple..Do you even lift bro..ah good times, good times.

Yes you can literally Curb stomp the encounters with the right spells. But why should that discourage you? I mean for the first 6 Levels your ducking falling leafs because they will break you.

Its one thing to play a good wizard and turn the tide of the fight....that is your job to do...

Its another thing when you deep theory craft and cheese out a way to break a campaign.

And trust me on this...your playing rise of the runelords.....if the players are going to avoid wizards because of there "power" then your going to be fighting a lot of them and they will see fit to use that same curb stomping power against you. I mean heck it is THE wizard campaign after all. I've played a lot of the Piazo premades and RotRLs is defiantly a great campaign to be a INT caster. Like I haven't played another that was so screaming for a INT caster to be in the party....its Like Wrath of the Righteous Screams to be a paladin cause this was made for favoring them.

[Bigbeefie]

But I will Add a Witch I believe is easiest INT caster to play since you prepare like a cleric from a list where you can take anything on the list you think is useful.. You just commune 1 hour with your familiar and presto you got your spells for the day....you don't have to carry around books, spend money to put spells into the book, and waste time hunting down or studying spells.

I do understand the word "witch" can be misleading....as most people think woman hag who casts spells....I like to think Witch doctor, or tribe shaman. The word witch is unappealing to be honest. But man are they a freaking awesome and strong class.


Magus can be confusing with spell combat, balancing Caster and fighter (how to gear ext..ext.) as well as balancing your limited resources (Arcane pool and limited spell list), Writing in new spells and the costs associated with it. Dealing with a spell book.

[Kudaku]

But I will Add a Witch I believe is easiest INT caster to play since you prepare like a cleric from a list where you can take anything on the list you think is useful.. You just commune 1 hour with your familiar and presto you got your spells for the day....you don't have to carry around books, spend money to put spells into the book, and waste time hunting down or studying spells.

This is incorrect - witches learn and prepare spells the same way as a wizard, except she treats her familiar as the spellbook. This is mainly a drawback since you can't make a backup spellbook (outside of some fairly expensive magic items), and the familiar is generally more vulnerable than a spellbook.


Familiars store all of the spells that a witch knows, and a witch cannot prepare a spell that is not stored by her familiar. A witch’s familiar begins play storing all of the 0-level witch spells plus three 1stlevel spells of the witch’s choice. The witch also selects a number of additional 1st-level spells equal to her Intelligence modifier to store in her familiar. At each new witch level, she adds two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new witch level) to her familiar.

[Bigbeefie]

This is incorrect - witches learn and prepare spells the same way as a wizard, except she treats her familiar as the spellbook. This is mainly a drawback since you can't make a backup spellbook (outside of some fairly expensive magic items), and the familiar is generally more vulnerable than a spellbook.



How is a Familiar more vulnerable then a book? If your level 2 and you cross a river and fall in...a spell book can be ruined by water damage if its not in a protective place that is water tight....a familiar can take a bath....to me that more durable...

True I was in a haze last night at 3 am before bed and missed that part about adding spells.


except she treats her familiar as the spellbook.

There is times in selling as a Wizard i'm laying down 10k gold just for spells then another 5k inscribing them in my book....while the rest of my party actually buys useful items with there 20k gold. I get 5k to play with.

A witch can teach her familiar spells from scrolls. She buys the scroll but not a cost to teach it to her familiar. So that is unlike a spell book.


But forgive my mis-reading late last night but my opinion of a witch being easier then a wizard to play as a INT caster still stands.

[Kudaku]

How is a Familiar more vulnerable then a book? If your level 2 and you cross a river and fall in...a spell book can be ruined by water damage if its not in a protective place that is water tight....a familiar can take a bath....to me that more durable...

AoE spells stand out - familiars get Improved Evasion for a reason. Furthermore, it limits the utility value of the familiar since you really don't want to risk it in the ways a wizard often can: Using it for scouting, stealthy infiltration, touch attacks etc. It really depends on your GM and ideally the familiar should be treated with the same respect as a spellbook (ie the GM really shouldn't mess with it), but it is more visible and thus more vulnerable than your typical spellbook.

...And your level 2 wizard doesn't have a watertight container for his spell book? :smallconfused:


There is times in selling as a Wizard i'm laying down 10k gold just for spells then another 5k inscribing them in my book....while the rest of my party actually buys useful items with there 20k gold. I get 5k to play with.

A witch can teach her familiar spells from scrolls. She buys the scroll but not a cost to teach it to her familiar. So that is unlike a spell book.

10k gold on spells and then 5k on scribing? Are you sure you have that math right? Typically scribing costs are about 20-25% of the price of a scroll with the same spell level.

Witches actually have a significantly harder time learning spells than wizards, since the witch also can't copy spells out of a spellbook the way wizards, magi and alchemists can.

Instead witch familiars can teach one another spells for free, but that requires another witch that you're only friendly terms with. Most of Paizo's APs (including RotRL) have few or no witches - partially because the witch wasn't created when they were written. A helpful (and reasonable) houserule is that witches can learn spells from spellbooks the way wizards can, but RAW it wouldn't work.

[Bigbeefie]

AoE spells stand out. It really depends on your GM and ideally the familiar should be treated with the same respect as a spellbook (ie the GM really shouldn't mess with it), but it is more visible and thus more vulnerable than your typical spellbook.

Same for your gear...if you book catches on fire your pretty screwed. As far as AoE they are usually weak sauce on damage (as most creatures don't optimize for AoE damage)

Your Familiar has Improved evasion for AoE and some improved Familiars have Energy resistance and/or DR. Your familiar will always take half damage or less from all AoE.

You can hide your familiar the same way you hide your spell book. In a pack, Familiar pocket, ext ext.



When a witch learns a spell from a scroll the scroll is burned and the familiar consumes the ashes - the scroll is destroyed.

Witches actually have a significantly harder time learning spells than wizards, since the witch also can't copy spells out of a spellbook the way wizards, magi and alchemists can.

Anytime a Wizard learns from a scroll it is useless afterwards anyways same as if it turns to ashes and destroyed. Witchs and wizards still have to buy the scroll or find it.

Wizards/Magus can copy out of other spellbooks but it still cost money to transfer it over to your own spell books and you have to spend that money.


I believe enough scrolls drop and you will be able to keep a good portion of your money as a witch compared to the other 2. On top of selling all those spell books to afford the scrolls.

The whole point of my last few posts have been recommending a Witch for a First time spell caster....He has never played a spell caster...and I am recommending the witch as the easiest of the 3 INT casters. a Sorc is the easiest to play but I think Rise of the Rune lords calls for a INT caster over a CHA caster with very little Know skills and less utility for a party that already has enough Hammers and a ARM but is lacking an Anvil/cc specialist. Having played RotRLs without a Anvil and had many a death to the paladin and Sorcerer because of lack of CC I am recommending SOMEONE in his group play something with Good CC capabilities. The witch is easy to play in comparison and has HEXS to help him do something every combat if it doesn't require a spell to be cast. He will feel useful and relevant the entire campaign.

That is the only real point I was trying to make without having to get into Familiar verses Spell Book.

[SunfireSadar]

I'm spending some time reading over the Witch (Warlock?) & Wizard in a variety of resources (PF books, d20pfsrd, optimization guides, etc.) to make up my mind on which of them I'll play.

For the most part it looks like a witch trades some survivability and takes on more risk with the familiar in trade for far more useful 'cantrips' or hexes for combat. I haven't quite sorted through all the spells yet to determine the differences there.

Anyways, I suspect I'm at a point that I'll just have to make up my mind for myself and there isn't much more help you guys could give me in that process...unless you can read minds!

Anyways, I really appreciate all the help that everyone has given me with this!

Bigbeefie & Kudaku: Thank you so much for taking the time with each little twist of this conversation to provide thoughtful and articulate answers - they really helped and continue to. I wish I could +1 your reputations somehow! May the dice forever roll in your favor! :biggrin:

[Bigbeefie]

I'm spending some time reading over the Witch (Warlock?) & Wizard in a variety of resources (PF books, d20pfsrd, optimization guides, etc.) to make up my mind on which of them I'll play.

For the most part it looks like a witch trades some survivability and takes on more risk with the familiar in trade for far more useful 'cantrips' or hexes for combat. I haven't quite sorted through all the spells yet to determine the differences there.

Anyways, I suspect I'm at a point that I'll just have to make up my mind for myself and there isn't much more help you guys could give me in that process...unless you can read minds!

Anyways, I really appreciate all the help that everyone has given me with this!

Bigbeefie & Kudaku: Thank you so much for taking the time with each little twist of this conversation to provide thoughtful and articulate answers - they really helped and continue to. I wish I could +1 your reputations somehow! May the dice forever roll in your favor! :biggrin:

Your welcome Bro.

just last thing don't confuse Cantrips....Cantrips are only 0 level spells. You can use a cantrip as much as you like but they are 0 level spells and eventually are overlooked for more powerful spells later. Minus Detect magic which is used the entire campaign. Cantrips are on ALL FULL spell casters divine or arcane.

Also a Familiar is not as big a risk as you would think especially if you take Improved Familiar or just keep your Familiar in a safe place like you would a spell book. You will deal with a familiar or bonded object regardless if you play a wizard or a witch. So you aren't "sacrificing" any survivabilitiy. Most Arcane casters are stuck with simple weapons and no armor. You sacrifice survivablitiy when you play a spell caster to gain outrageous game changing power at later levels through high spell casting....though you can make arcane casters extremely hard to hit with their defensive spells like mirror image, blur, displacement at your lower levels and just let your Hammers do their jobs to get you to those higher levels. Then they rely on you to help them out in combat by making it easier for them.

Either way have fun deciding what you want to play. I wish you the best in RotRLs one of the greatest APs ever written and defiantly one of the Hardest I've played through.

[SunfireSadar]

...
just last thing don't confuse Cantrips
...


I should have used a different word there. We're on the same page; I was implying that hexes are a nice way to fill your turns like a wizard might with cantrips in the beginning. Only hexes seem to scale and stay useful...




...
So you aren't "sacrificing" any survivability
...


When saying witches sacrificed survivability, I had two things I was thinking about:

They have d6 dice. I was thinking wizards had d8 dice for some reason - so this is a totally invalid reason and should be ignored. :redface:
As far as I can tell, the hexes the witch uses are 30ft. Since I'll probably want to be cackling every turn like a bat out of hell, it seems to imply closer proximity to bad guys than a wizard would have to endure. I suppose defensive spells & access to healing spells makes this somewhat of a wash. it's nice that hexes seem to be Supernatural abilities vs. Spell-like abilities though!


@Bigbeefie:
What makes witches easier than wizards in your opinion? They seems more or less equal to me (again - I haven't perused the spell list in detail yet in case the wizard has so much versatility in spells they can gimp themselves by spreading too thin).

The familiar seems cool and I always lean towards pets when I can have them, but I don't see how it makes things easier.

Memorizing spells seems to be 8 hours of rest in addition to another 1 hour of communion with your familiar.A witch may know any number of spells. She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting 8 hours of sleep and spending 1 hour communing with her familiar. While communing, the witch decides which spells to prepare.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch#TOC-Spells

They seem to gain the same amount of spells for free (2/lvl)
Replacing a familiar seems more expensive early on but cheaper in the long run (given the flat 500g/lvl cost) than a wizard who pays/spell.


Hexes definitely seem like something I can always be doing even if I'm out of spells completely to help the group land their spells or blows.

[Bigbeefie]

Only hexes seem to scale and stay useful...

it's nice that hexes seem to be Supernatural abilities vs. Spell-like abilities though!


Hexes definitely seem like something I can always be doing even if I'm out of spells completely to help the group land their spells or blows.

You pretty much answered the question you posted to me Lol those are some of the reasons to play a witch.



As far as I can tell, the hexes the witch uses are 30ft. Since I'll probably want to be cackling every turn like a bat out of hell, it seems to imply closer proximity to bad guys than a wizard would have to endure. I suppose defensive spells & access to healing spells makes this somewhat of a wash. it's nice that hexes seem to be Supernatural abilities vs. Spell-like abilities though!

30 ft isn't too big a problem. First and foremost sometimes rooms aren't much bigger then 40'X40' so you can still be behind your Line.....

Next thing is you can be flying 30" above them

Next option is you can be Invisible and cast friendly hexs like Fortune Hex and Cackle to keep it running all without breaking Invisible (Learn what breaks Invisiblity you can abuse it as a witch.)



They seems more or less equal to me (again - I haven't perused the spell list in detail yet in case the wizard has so much versatility in spells they can gimp themselves by spreading too thin).

They Basically are when it comes to Spell casting...Both run on INT, have to prepare....But what makes a Witch nice is the HEXs for beginners.

Usally when a wizard exhausts his spells he is done...might as well camp for 9 hours...a witch can keep going with her Hexs....she can Even save casting spells because a Hex could be enough to handle the encounter. Lets take a Simple encounter: Your party enters into a room with 2 Creatures at level 3. (a fairly minor encounter)

The Wizard: I can sleep them both wasting a spell (about only thing I have to do), I can just use my crossbow (Boring), or I can go back to reading my spellbook.

The witch: I can sleep 1 of the 2 enemies with my Slumber hex, I can then Evil eye/ misfortune the other next round (if needed and enemy 2 isnt dead) pretty much eliminating there offense, I could cast the same sleep spell the wizard was thinking and end the fight, I can get out my boring Crossbow and pretend to help, or I can go back to looking at my porno mag because who reads really reads when your a cool as me.

Basically it gives the new player more choices, they seem more like they are contributing to every fight since hexs scale and can be used on new targets unlimited amounts per day.




Memorizing spells seems to be 8 hours of rest in addition to another 1 hour of communion with your familiar.
Same for both classes witch and wizard. just worded differently for the respective class.


They seem to gain the same amount of spells for free (2/lvl)
A wizard can pick any 1 spell from there entire list they can cast and then 1 spell from their specialized school (being a much shorter list)
A Witch gets any 2 spells a level on their list that they can cast without being limited to schools of magic.

Witches also get cure spells, summon nature Allies, and a few Witch only spells (Ill Omen Level 1 spell will be a bread and butter spell that Wizards wished they had access to.)


Replacing a familiar seems more expensive early on but cheaper in the long run (given the flat 500g/lvl cost) than a wizard who pays/spell.
Witches are cheaper if/when you need the replace.

You will find with a witch you will spend less upfront/overall Gold on spells then a Wizard does...more cash to put somewhere else.



Hexs make a new players time as a spell caster easier and more enjoyable in my opinion. You can fall back on Hexs where a wizard has nothing else to fall back on. Tho a Good wizard is miles ahead of a witch after optimizing, but Optimizing isn't for first time spell casters and will only overwhelm them.

[Kudaku]

The whole point of my last few posts have been recommending a Witch for a First time spell caster....He has never played a spell caster...and I am recommending the witch as the easiest of the 3 INT casters. a Sorc is the easiest to play but I think Rise of the Rune lords calls for a INT caster over a CHA caster with very little Know skills and less utility for a party that already has enough Hammers and a ARM but is lacking an Anvil/cc specialist. Having played RotRLs without a Anvil and had many a death to the paladin and Sorcerer because of lack of CC I am recommending SOMEONE in his group play something with Good CC capabilities. The witch is easy to play in comparison and has HEXS to help him do something every combat if it doesn't require a spell to be cast. He will feel useful and relevant the entire campaign.

That is the only real point I was trying to make without having to get into Familiar verses Spell Book.
Oh, I agree that the witch is a serious contender - I think I was actually the first to mention the witch when he said he wanted to play an arcane caster. I just want to make sure we're offering objective and correct information when comparing the wizard and the witch. :smallsmile:

@Sunfire
The witch trades versatility, primarily in the form of her spell list, which is narrower than the wizard, for some unique spells (like Ill Omen, which is amazing) and class features with unlimited use, primarily hexes. The great thing about hexes is that they're very good in combat (especially on the low levels) so you're less reliant on using spells to contribute meaningfully to the party.

However most wizards will get more spells per day, since the vast majority of Pathfinder wizards choose to specialize - an option the witch does not have.

Note that if the witch loses her familiar she'd have to replace the familiar (500g/level) AND it would have to re-learn spells (either by buying scrolls or seeking out another witch). The new familiar does not automatically know all the spells the old one did, it starts off only knowing cantrips, patron spells, and two spells of each spell level.

Another potential issue is that if the witch dies the familiar forgets all the spells in 24 hours - if your character perishes make damn sure they get you resurrected in 24 hours or less.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the familiar mechanics for the witch and my groups have several house rules in place to mitigate some of the downsides involved in it - another option is to play an archetype that alters how the familiar works, like the Bonded Witch.

Finally, whatever you choose to play I'm happy to help out and hope you have a fun time in Rise of the Runelords :smallsmile: