Good starting class in Pathfinder

[Invader]

I'm finally making the switch and trying out Pathfinder after a decade and a half of 3.x. Which class/abilitiy is most specific to pathfinder if I was looking for something that I haven't already seen in 3.x?

[Gallowglass]

Alchemist. Its a different mechanic than any 3.5 class.

[Waker]

A Summoner is a decent start. They have a small, but effective spell list that lets them do a bit of buffing, BFC and summoning of course. The real draw to the class is the Eidolon, which you determine the form and abilities of as you level. Unlike a lot of other classes where you have an animal companion/familiar, you aren't quite as locked in as that. You could make an Eidolon look like Jaws, Goro from MK, a Griffin or any number of other things.

Alchemist is a lot of fun. You can play a skillmonkey who has a good bit of buffing and utility type magic. Plus with bombs, you can deal a respectable amount of damage or apply debuffs and BFC.

Brawler is a good way to play a martial artist, but without the maneuvers that scare off some players/DMs. Probably one of the biggest draws of the class is the ability to spontaneously acquire feats, so that if you need to know how to Bullrush, you can do so.

And that goes without even talking about the ton of archetypes (alternative class features) that are available to each class. You can be an excellent archer using the Monk's Zen Archer acf. Dreamt of being a Pokemaster? Alchemists Preservationist has you covered. Do you love wizards and guns? How about Spellslinger? (Though many people really dislike that last one.)

[Elricaltovilla]

The Pathfinder designers really seem to shine when it comes to bard style casting Gish classes. There's a bunch of them and their later classes have some very interesting abilities.

Alchemist, magus, skald, warpriest, inquisitor, investigator and hunter are all worth checking out.

Of course, there's also a myriad of 3PP material too and some of that is very good, even if I'm a little biased in my opinion :smalltongue:

[Spore]

I will repeat items previous people told you about just because I want to give you my opinion on them. Important to know: Pathfinder really focusses on single classes. Most of the times multiclassing hurts your build.

Alchemist: Played one, VERY fun, you have either natural attacks with your mutagen or focus on bombs to be most effective. But your other class features never become lackluster. The discoveries are flavorful and you still feel quite mundane.

Magus: Pathfinder's solution to 85% of the gish builds of 3.5. It's easy to use, has incredible nova potential, a good balance point. Paladin/Sorc/Dragon Disciples are still possible, as are Eldritch Knights or the Bloodragers (Sorcerous Barbarians) they tend to be very different (and most of the times weaker).

Summoner: aka build-your-own-monster tool kit. Although the class is universally panned for allowing OP things (it's still T2 but it is basically a superpowered bard with a T2 Fighter attached) it is still really fun to see what you can create. You can have one HEFTY natural attack oneshotting anything you hit. You can have up to 8 natural attacks dealing damage. You can have poison fangs. Your eidolon can simply eat people (I've thought about building the Blob recently). You can have an undead minion or an angel able to smite enemies with its holy powers. They even can cast SLAs although this is not recommended because it's very limited and poorly implemented.

Samurais, Cavaliers and Ninjas. Ever wanted a Paladin without that pesky divine shebaz? Don't care about plot solving power? Then the Samurai might be for you. No really. Samurais are formidable duelists while Cavaliers make the best uberchargers around. It's basically ubercharger, the class. Whilst Ninjas are mystically inclined rogues. They cannot deal with magical traps (which is weird) but can become invisible (after 10th level as greater invis), they can jump up walls. They are basically toned down Anime Ninjas. Or Monk/Rogues.

[BWR]

I'm going to recommend the paladin. Yes yes, I know it existed in 3.5 but it is to my mind the best PF update of existing classes and best shows what PF tried to do with 3.5. It works great out of the box (and once you start adding the paladin-specific spells from source like APG, UM and UC it really shines). Try it and see the difference.

[Barstro]

Witch is a class that seems familiar, but plays quite differently than Wizard.

Alchemist is the most unique, IMO.

[dude123nice]

Commoner :smallbiggrin: . It's simple to use and doesn't require to much mechanical understanding of the system.

[Drelua]

I'm gonna second the suggestion of Paladin, among other things they took away any wisdom dependency so they're less MAD and made smite evil a set of bonuses you get against a single target for the rest of the day instead of a single strike. I've played a couple, they're a really fun class. I'd also suggest taking a look at Monk for the same reason, it still takes some work to make them good, but a well built Monk can be really fun. I played a DEX-based Hungry Ghost Monk with Snake Style up to level 15 in a home game, he had an AC in the 50s and never ran out of ki, thanks to a ring of ki mastery and his ability to replenish a ki point on a crit or a kill.

He was in a party with a Magus, a Wizard, and a Battle Oracle (another class that's worth a look), so he wasn't the most powerful character there, but he probably could have soloed a lot of the dangerous fights just because nothing could hit him, and when it missed he got to hit it. It just took him a lot longer to kill stuff than the Magus. He stood in front of 3 or 4 Zen Archers that we didn't want to fight for 3 rounds while they full attacked him and didn't get hit once, that was fun.

[Spore]

Monks can be fun but they are not powerful without heavy optimization.

[Arutema]

Monks can be fun but they are not powerful without heavy optimization.

It's my understanding that the Unchained Monk doesn't require much more optimization than Dragon Style. That would give you a chance to check out the monk changes in unchained, as well as the concept of Style Feats.

[Invader]

I see a lot of suggestions for alchemist and that's what drew my attention when I was first looking for something new so it's a pretty good contender.

Any race suggestions? This is more of a RP than combat game so I'm not really trying to min/max. I had an idea for a werebear alchemist that uses mutagens in and out of combat, kind of a Hank McCoy character but I'm not sure if the playing a werebear would set me back to far from the party (I'll be joining at 12th lvl). I'm not even entirely sure how many lvls a werebear woukd chew up yet. I know PF is a bit different than 3.5 when it comes to LA and ECL and whatnot.

[avr]

Try a skinwalker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/more-races/standard-races-1-10-rp/skinwalkers-10-rp) for an acceptable werebear without headache-inducing attempts to understand how monster characters work, specifically the Coldborn variant heritage. They're not exactly optimised for being alchemists but it should still work.

[Secret Wizard]

By the way, my personal assessment of the Alchemist is that it's Pathfinder's response to the Factotum. You can blast, you can melee, you can buff and you can use a variety of items... but with limited resources to do any of these.

I've abandoned progress on this guide but it's a pretty good look into Alchemists for a beginner: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vl4bIGVlALyM8zfbTQIgtPD5EoF2xTUoZQA5UhXkCvk/edit

[Psyren]

Fifthing/whatevering Alchemist as a good unique PF class. I don't know if I'd recommend it as a starting class necessarily as they have a lot going on (especially if you're entering the game at 12th level) but if you're okay managing that complexity you'll find something pretty unique.

Also, don't forget that Pathfinder has a plethora of Alchemical Items (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/goods-and-services/herbs-oils-other-substances) that you can craft, and your Swift Alchemy ability lets you churn them out.


Try a skinwalker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/races/other-races/more-races/standard-races-1-10-rp/skinwalkers-10-rp) for an acceptable werebear without headache-inducing attempts to understand how monster characters work, specifically the Coldborn variant heritage. They're not exactly optimised for being alchemists but it should still work.

Alternatively, if the "were" is more important than the "bear", you can go with one of the variant skinwalker heritages on that page - Both Wererat-kin and Werebat-kin have great Alchemist stat bonuses.

[BWR]

Unless I'm forgetting something important, werebear will only set you back a single level. Monster ECL is equal to their CR, right? and the example in the Bestiary is CR 4, with 4 levels of ranger. Since a level 4 character is CR 3, that means the werebear LA is 1.

[Spore]

Unless I'm forgetting something important, werebear will only set you back a single level. Monster ECL is equal to their CR, right? and the example in the Bestiary is CR 4, with 4 levels of ranger. Since a level 4 character is CR 3, that means the werebear LA is 1.

Generally templates and monster races are not supposed to be for players (Also a character with 1 level in a PC class is supposed to be CR 2). I would make a judgment based on the synergy the class and race bring. Remember, higher HD often means higher ECL and CR adjustment. I would really suggest Skinwalker.


I see a lot of suggestions for alchemist and that's what drew my attention when I was first looking for something new so it's a pretty good contender.

Any race suggestions? This is more of a RP than combat game so I'm not really trying to min/max. I had an idea for a werebear alchemist that uses mutagens in and out of combat, kind of a Hank McCoy character but I'm not sure if the playing a werebear would set me back to far from the party (I'll be joining at 12th lvl). I'm not even entirely sure how many lvls a werebear woukd chew up yet. I know PF is a bit different than 3.5 when it comes to LA and ECL and whatnot.

I have played a very introverted Oni Spawn Tiefling Alchemist. With the rest of the party being either human or human with pointy ears (Half Elf) I had somewhat of a social stigma. This deepened when he chose to trust a Devil over the group's Paladin. And in the first half of the campaign he chose to invest more time into his alchemical studies than in his daughter, getting even more flak. This worsened as I had to spend time away from the group to create magical items and alchemical items. (You need Master Crafter for that btw since Alchemists do not have a spell list per se).

I don't know your group but this worked out in the start but after many moons of broken trust, child neglegience and general unaccepted plans for group actions (he was a good strategist but he ignored the leadership aspect - as was expected with Cha 6).

My honest idea would be an Alchemist who tries to distill the combat abilities of Werewolves into alchemical form. My idea:

Human Beastmorph Alchemist

Str > Int > Dex = Con > Wis > Cha

Feats:
Hu) Combat Reflexes
1) Fast Learner
2a) Feral Mutagen
3) Toughness
4a) Infusion
5) Master Craftsman (Alchemy)
6a) Enhance Potion (buy Potion of Greater Magic Fang and use it with Alchemical Allocation, a 2nd level extract, infinite GMF on caster level for a 2nd level extract)
7) Craft Wondrous Item
8a) Spontaneous Healing

There are better options out there but this is mainly for flavor. Spont. Healing to simulate limited regenerative abilities of werecreatures. Feral Mutagen for the natural attacks. Toughness and Fast Learner for the bonus HP - making you seem bulkier. This is by no means optimized.

If you dislike item creation (it costs only gold now, but you half your price on items and you can get them anywhere) I would suggest going for Iron Will (your Will save is terrible) and Improved Natural Attack (Claw). Stack size increases and strength increases.

[GreyBlack]

I really like the Skald and Investigator. They're both extremely mechanically flavorful while having a great crunch behind them.

[BWR]

Generally templates and monster races are not supposed to be for players


Generally not but there are still guidelines for how to do it if you wish, and the guidelines are as I stated.


(Also a character with 1 level in a PC class is supposed to be CR 2).


CR = Level -1, not +1. A 1st level character is not CR 2 but CR 1/2. Just look at the NPC codex entries. (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/npcCodex/core/bard.html)

[Arc_knight25]

If your not set on Alchemist yet. May I suggest the Magus. The gish 3.5 wished they had made.

Melee spell caster. Can swing a weapon and cast spells as part of a full round attack. Good utility along with incredible burst damage. The Arcana's are good for augmenting your melee ability and spell casting depending on how you want to build it.

With a high Int and a headband of Intellect you can boost the parties knowledges.

As for Race, I recommend sticking with the core races and checking the PFSRD to see what racial traits you can trade away, to give your character a more flavourful background. If your new to a system (even if it is almost a mirror) I would keep it simple for races till you have a greater understanding of the system your using, but that is just me. Once you get a campaign under your belt or at least a few sessions then go for a more advanced character.

[Psyren]

Generally not but there are still guidelines for how to do it if you wish, and the guidelines are as I stated.

You're still asking to be a monster, which requires more explicit permission/approval than playing a PC race. If your GM is fine with this, go for it, but don't be shocked if they're not either. Even if you get it approved, you then have to ask your GM not to make you an afflicted lycanthrope, which will give them a chance to make you an NPC at various intervals and do things with your character without your say-so.

Skinwalkers are also PFS-legal (if you have a Chronicle for it) while lycanthropes are not.

[Invader]

Unless I'm forgetting something important, werebear will only set you back a single level. Monster ECL is equal to their CR, right? and the example in the Bestiary is CR 4, with 4 levels of ranger. Since a level 4 character is CR 3, that means the werebear LA is 1.

I was under the impression that was an error because it also says if the base animal is higher than the base creature use the higher of the two +1.

[CharonsHelper]

I'll just pop in and say to check out archetypes. They are basically Pathfinder's replacement for prestige classes & multi-classing in that they customize characters, but you don't have to wait until level 6+.

Also - avoid prestige classes. Most are pretty weak mechanically.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Going to toss out my opinions, mostly b/c it's near the end of my work day and I've wrapped up my current project =).

Alchemist - Pretty unique compared to classes from 3.0/3.5. This is probably the most versatile class and can be built to fill pretty much any party role you're looking at. You can be a big hulking monster attacking with natural attacks. You can be a mad bomber, using explosions to combine strong single target and decent AOE damage. You can build a Rogue with magical self-buffing. This is a great class for combat and dungeon diving.

Investigator - This is a combination of the Rogue and the Alchemist, only the end result is quite unique. You gain bonus dice that can be rolled on skill or ability checks, eventually using those dice on attack rolls and saving throws if you like. You also gain a unique combat mechanic which depends on studying a target in order to gain large attack and damage roll bonuses versus that character. This is a great class if you're going to be in a RP heavy game.

Vigilante - This is also a pretty unique class. You're basically any type of hero that has a secret identity, but you have mechanical benefits from maintaining two separate personas. The various archetypes really change up how this class plays, giving you casing, gish and purely mundane options. This would also be a good option for a RP heavy game.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm going to second the Magus, I love that class. There's a guidebook in my signature if you're interested. It's basically a gish that comes online at level one (as in, it can cast and attack in the same round, right from the start); 3.5 doesn't really have an equivalent.

[digiman619]

If you don't mind 3PP, there's a Soulknife (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/soulknife) that doesn't suck. Shocking, I know.

[Drelua]

I gotta say, I find it kinda funny that people seem to talk about the Magus as if it's a class that's really unique to Pathfinder when it's basically just PF's updated to the duskblade. The both gain the ability to cast spells in heavier armour as they level (Duskblades don't get heavy armour, but that just means mithral full-plate), and the DB's Arcane Channeling is pretty much exactly the same as the Magus' Spellstrike. The big differences are that Magi get one more spell level but a lot less spells per day and the Duskblade gets full BAB. Of course, the Magus gets a bunch of extra cool stuff, but so does pretty much every class that gets ported to PF.

I mean, it's quite likely I've missed it, but I've just never seen anyone mention the Duskblade while discussing the Magus, which seems a bit odd. Honestly, the more you know about 3.5 the more 'new' Pathfinder content looks familiar. I haven't even played 3.5 in about 5 years and I still recognize stuff all the time.

Edit: Oh yeah, the Soulknife, I love that class! I wanted to love it in 3.5, but it was thoroughly unlovable. I've played a couple, they're a lot of fun and have some great options in their blade skills and archetypes.

[Spore]

I gotta say, I find it kinda funny that people seem to talk about the Magus as if it's a class that's really unique to Pathfinder when it's basically just PF's updated to the duskblade.

I haven't mentioned it but I know almost nothing about 3.5 except core and Eberron. Then again the concept of a gish is not new at all, and all the Magus does is allow you to go to almost comical (read: anime-esque) nova potential. And that is why the class is so incredibly boring to me. It can provide a little utility and do damage. But an Alchemist is a lot more varied.

And I prefer the Pathfinder Bard (specifically the Arcane Duelist) to any Magus that is not a variation of the standard kit. I would play a Hexcrafter because the Hexes spice up the gameplay. I would play a Blackblade because while being cliché a sentient blade offers much more story possibilities. But a vanilla Magus? Naaaah. A vanilla Bard? Nope. A vanilla Alchemist. Yes, please.

[Anlashok]

I gotta say, I find it kinda funny that people seem to talk about the Magus as if it's a class that's really unique to Pathfinder when it's basically just PF's updated to the duskblade.

When did anyone say the magus was unique?


(read: anime-esque)
Dealing damage is anime now?


And that is why the class is so incredibly boring to me.
Have you tried building a magus that did anything different then? I may be reading you wrong but I sort of get the impression that you're playing one specific build of magus and then pretending that's the only magus, when that's more your build choice than anything else.

[Kurald Galain]

I gotta say, I find it kinda funny that people seem to talk about the Magus as if it's a class that's really unique to Pathfinder when it's basically just PF's updated to the duskblade.

Well, the big difference is that the Magus can cast a spell and attack in the same turn all the time, and dusky can do that only once per day. That alone makes them very different in gameplay. Aside from that, the Magus's spell list is simply much more versatile.

[Spore]

Have you tried building a magus that did anything different then? I may be reading you wrong but I sort of get the impression that you're playing one specific build of magus and then pretending that's the only magus, when that's more your build choice than anything else.

I do realize that. But that is their strong point. That is what they excel at.

Bards can buff and enchant. Surely they can do other stuff too but that is their strong suit. Alchemists have insane utility and can react in short time (1 min to prepare an extract) and Magi can do the most damage in the shortest period of time.

Sure all classes can do other things. A Magus can buff with Haste. A Bard can provide utility with Fly. And an Alchemist can enchant (well, throw a Madness Bomb). But they all have different niches.

[CharonsHelper]

A Bard can provide utility with Fly.

Nope. Bards don't get Fly. The closest they have is Gaseous Form. (I have a bard right now who wishes that he had the Fly spell. :P)

[Drelua]

Well, the big difference is that the Magus can cast a spell and attack in the same turn all the time, and dusky can do that only once per day. That alone makes them very different in gameplay. Aside from that, the Magus's spell list is simply much more versatile.

That's not how the ability reads to me. Arcane Channeling doesn't mention any limitation on how often it can be used, it just says they can cast a touch spell and deliver it through a melee attack as a standard action, and at level 13 they can cast and full attack. The big difference is that the magus gets to make an attack whenever they cast a touch spell, even if that spell is swift action, which lets them nova more. The only abilities with a per-day limitation are their bonus cantrips and their ability to quicken one spell per day per 5 levels. One advantage to the Duskblade is that they can channel any touch spell, which sounds to me like they can use ranged touch spells too.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people are doing anything wrong by not mentioning the Duskblade, I'm just saying it's a little surprising that I haven't seen anyone mention it, considering that a lot of Pathfinder players used to play 3.5. I'm not saying Paizo didn't do a good job updating the class either, they definitely did.

[Kurald Galain]

That's not how the ability reads to me. Arcane Channeling doesn't mention any limitation

I'm talking about Spell Combat (i.e. the ability to make a full attack AND cast a spell in the same round), not on the ability to change touch attack spells into sword attack spells.

[Drelua]

I don't see why being able to do the two separately is so valuable, I'd take Spellstrike over Spell Combat. Sure, it's nice to be able to hit with the spell as a touch attack, but the ability to deliver a spell+attack as a standard action is well worth it I'd say. Plus, Spellstrike works any time you cast an applicable spell, including when that spell's quickened and arguably if it's coming from a spell storing weapon (though I'm not sure I agree with my old group for allowing that), so it gets a lot better at higher levels. I've seen a Bladebound Myrmidarch Magus that could destroy pretty much anything with a standard and a swift.

[GreyBlack]

I don't see why being able to do the two separately is so valuable, I'd take Spellstrike over Spell Combat. Sure, it's nice to be able to hit with the spell as a touch attack, but the ability to deliver a spell+attack as a standard action is well worth it I'd say. Plus, Spellstrike works any time you cast an applicable spell, including when that spell's quickened and arguably if it's coming from a spell storing weapon (though I'm not sure I agree with my old group for allowing that), so it gets a lot better at higher levels. I've seen a Bladebound Myrmidarch Magus that could destroy pretty much anything with a standard and a swift.

The two abilities provide completely different benefits.

SpellStrike is entirely for combat purposes, allowing for your nova abilities to go off far more consistently and with increased power.

Spell combat, however, allows for utility and combat control which cannot be used through spell strike. For example, spell combat allows the player to use Dimensional agility to blink in and out of combat, or casting Haste before launching into a full attack.

The two can be combined, though, but they do have significantly different uses. Unlike the Duskblade, who is geared far more towards offensive combat than the varied tactics of the Magus.

[Drelua]

I honestly had not thought of that, Spell Combat's a lot better than I thought.

Still though, my original point stands; Magus is the PF Duskblade. Turns out, they did an even better job of updating it than I thought.

[GreyBlack]

I honestly had not thought of that, Spell Combat's a lot better than I thought.

Still though, my original point stands; Magus is the PF Duskblade. Turns out, they did an even better job of updating it than I thought.

Well, yes and no? The ability to enhance your weapon on the fly and inability to make a full channel attack do change the magus, and the inability to TWF with the magus is a difference (oneof my favorite characters ever was a dual wielding duskblade), but the two are similar insofar as they're both magical fighters.

[Drelua]

Well, yes and no? The ability to enhance your weapon on the fly and inability to make a full channel attack do change the magus, and the inability to TWF with the magus is a difference (oneof my favorite characters ever was a dual wielding duskblade), but the two are similar insofar as they're both magical fighters.

Arcane Channelling is too similar to Spellstrike, and Armored Mage too similar to the Magus' armour abilities, for me to believe for a second that the Magus was made without direct influence from the Duskblade. Feel free to disagree, but I've heard someone describe a new feat or ability for Pathfinder and immediately been reminded of something from 3.5 that does almost exactly the same thing quite a few times, and I have no reason to believe this isn't that.

Also, don't you need a free hand to cast spells, making a TWF Duskblade impossible? I don't play a lot of casters, so I'm not 100% on that, but I don't think it would work. Unless you used armor spikes or unarmed strikes or something, I guess that would do it.

[GreyBlack]

Arcane Channelling is too similar to Spellstrike, and Armored Mage too similar to the Magus' armour abilities, for me to believe for a second that the Magus was made without direct influence from the Duskblade. Feel free to disagree, but I've heard someone describe a new feat or ability for Pathfinder and immediately been reminded of something from 3.5 that does almost exactly the same thing quite a few times, and I have no reason to believe this isn't that.

Also, don't you need a free hand to cast spells, making a TWF Duskblade impossible? I don't play a lot of casters, so I'm not 100% on that, but I don't think it would work. Unless you used armor spikes or unarmed strikes or something, I guess that would do it.

Somatic Weaponry feat. Also, my signature spell was Dimension Hop which IIRC was verbal only.

As to your point of there being no overlap? Eh, won't deny it. Just saying they're dissimilar enough that you could have both in 3.P and have them operate significantly differently. Really, the Duskblade was always very much a heavily armored magic knight, both in mechanics and feel. Their mechanics heavily incentivize a strength based build while wielding a 2 handed weapon.

By comparison, the Magus heavily incentivizes a lighter armor build, fighting with a critical hit weapon in one hand and a far heavier emphasis on mobility and dexterity. If anything, I'd call the two cousins more than brothers; they share DNA, but not parents.