All class previews are out and we pretty much know what to expect from each one. I know a lot of people are stuck converting their characters over from beta when this happens but for the rest of you, what class looks like the one you most want to start with?
Me? I know I'm going to be stuck DMing in order to fully get the group to switch over to Pathfinder. I'm the only one following it but I know it won't take much convincing once they actually play it. If I can play though, I'm seriously thinking of one of the following.
- Cleric: My first character I ever played (like a lot of people) was a Cleric but I enjoyed him a lot. My party members would hate me because the negative energy burst just looks way powerful from what I can tell so far. This would probably be my munchkin build.
- Barbarian: I was always bummed that the 3.x barbarian just seemed...lame. The new version sounds awesome and it would allow me to play a character that is pretty much the opposite of what I typically play (brash and impulsive).
What about you?
I have been stuck DM'ing for a long time, and probably still will be, but if...
If I can get one of my players to DM for a while I would like to update an old 5th level Paladin I made when 3rd first came out. I had a lot of fun with the character but he is currently covered in dust on my shelf. But if starting over at 1st level I would not mind making a wizard, as I usually play a close quarters character so the change could be interesting.
Either way, DM or Player, Pathfinder is going to be great.
What has impressed me most about the previews is there is not a single class I would be unwilling to play. That said I am currently playing a cleric and a rogue. So those will be the first for me to try out. In the future I would like to play the new bard and ranger.
I like the new barbarian (though I must admit I liked the beta version with rage points better). I like the idea of "trump card" abilities.
I also like the new rogue. But I'm playing a pathfinderized ninja now, so I doubt one of my next PCs will also be stealthy.
YES.
|
Wizard has always been my class of choice so naturally i'm looking forward to converting/upgrading my beta wizard over to the new core rules. The rogue being my number 2 choice will also see some play time in the near future!
Plus... i'm even liking the new bard so after 10 years with the game i'll have to finally give that a whirl! ;)
I'll be GMing, but one of my groups will have only three players. My opportunity for a DMPC. I'm thinking about a Cleric/Sorcerer multiclass, since my players won't run a lot of magic, so I need to fill both roles.
Druid.
Out of all the classes I have played so far, Druid is my favorite and my best. Druid, hedgewitch, forest mage, whatever you call them, they are cool(especially Ice Druids!).
All class previews are out and we pretty much know what to expect from each one. I know a lot of people are stuck converting their characters over from beta when this happens but for the rest of you, what class looks like the one you most want to start with?
Well, I rolled up a half-orc paladin for what I hoped would be a new phase of the campaign that recently went on hiatus, but the DM is planning to transition to 4E if we pick it back up again, I think. I'd still love a chance to play that character, though a lot of the in-game narrative reasons for wanting to do so got eliminated in the last session we played.
I also have a horse-archer ranger in my head that I think would be lots of fun to play under PFRPG rules. And the PFRPG bard looks like it would have fixed most of the frustrations I had with my last character, so I wouldn't mind giving that a shot at some point, too.
Sadly, I don't think I'll get a chance to play any of them.
Well, I rolled up a half-orc paladin for what I hoped would be a new phase of the campaign that recently went on hiatus, but the DM is planning to transition to 4E if we pick it back up again, I think.
I am so sorry.
None that I'm dying to play, but I'd be willing to play most of the classes. I'm more interested in playing a Monk or Bard than ever before.
Rogue/Wizard.
Used to hate Paladins, PF has changed that, now I'd like to play one!
Sorcerer... or rogue. I'm actually just starting to build a multiclass that I'm building into an Arcane Trickster. I'd love to see what Paizo did with AT for the final, Jason hinted that it might get some additional help during the beta. Either rogue talents or... ?? I'd love to see either way.
Ummm ... all of 'em :)
Well, I rolled up a half-orc paladin for what I hoped would be a new phase of the campaign that recently went on hiatus, but the DM is planning to transition to 4E if we pick it back up again, I think.
Well hey, maybe he'll let you play a monster!
I'd like to play a rogue, if I was giving the new Pathfinder classes a fresh try. They got boring in 3e.
Mostly I'll be converting a long-running wizard to PF and making up NPCs. The wizard started out as a 3.5 abjurer, ran in the Beta, and will eventually move into true Pathfinder. My first character to exist in three systems ;)
probably a conjurer wizard, always up there with my favorites and I haven't played a caster in a while. And i Really wanna try out crafting without XP penalties, and the arcane bond item gives a wizard a real reason again to carry the iconic staff, or magic ring. Its something i always felt was missing.
That said i have a strong desire to attempt (and probably fail) to make a melee sorc with the dragon bloodline. We will see where the book takes me when i finally have it in my hands. Untill then im not sure i can decide.
I'm currently playing a Universalist wizard, and enjoying it a lot.
I really would like to play the Beta Barbarian, though in final if they take away the rage points I'm not sure I'll be as keen on it.
Also a straight rogue, maybe with a level wizard dip.
Human druid. Long time favorite class. After that I was thinking a wizard. He is going to be a transmuter.
That said i have a strong desire to attempt (and probably fail) to make a melee sorc with the dragon bloodline. We will see where the book takes me when i finally have it in my hands. Untill then im not sure i can decide.
I play with a dude who has a beta feral kobold battle sorcerer with the dragon bloodline, and he is a monster in melee!!! Claw/claw/bite/tail is especially vicious with Wraith Strike (Swift cast spell that makes attacks touch attacks for 1 round, I think from SC). He's a bit of a power gamer, but the rest of the party is my wannabe detective chaos gnome dragon shaman and a newbie catfolk ranger/swashbuckler, so we can use some kickassitude.
Sounds like the Fighter doesn't get any love here. I kind of understand though. They're the default fighting class and people will still play them just as much if not more than the other melee classes. There's just not anything terribly exciting about their update. They're still very straight forward (which isn't a bad thing at all).
I am the DM so I don't get to play (haven't played in 15 years *sigh*), but what I would really like to do is recreate my first DnD character,
Gnal dan Torcan - He was an Unearthed Arcana Ranger, sword and board, full plate mail.
With today's rules he would most likely end up being a fighter, perhaps with a level of ranger in there, but a woodsman mostly.
-- david
Papa.DRB
|
|
Actually as I play with various barbarian and ranger builds I keep falling back on a fighter multi-class and finally just switching to all fighter over and over again.
My 3 fav classes that I will try and play first will be (in order): (1) Wizard, (2) Fighter, (3) Rogue!
The Paladin class looks amazing so I might have to try that if no one else in our group makes one. Wizard has always been my favorite despite the new upgrades to the sorcerer, I just can't play one when I could have a wizard instead.
|
Mostly I'll be converting a long-running wizard to PF and making up NPCs. The wizard started out as a 3.5 abjurer, ran in the Beta, and will eventually move into true Pathfinder. My first character to exist in three systems ;)
I've not had a PC exist in three editions, but I have done that with NPCs, when I've revisited a scenario with a new group.
I ran U1-Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, in 1E, 2E and 3.5, and one of the wizard NPCs became more versatile, more powerful, and more of a complete scumbag every time.
Last seen being run down and killed with extreme prejudice, beheaded while wearing a frilly maid's outfit, and failing to sneak away with the PCs, in the guise of one of his own hostages.
You know when you've got a good villain, when the players insist on forming a circle and battering his corpse 'just to be sure', while the DM laughs himself sick.
Maybe I'll see what he ends up like in PFRPG? (Other than, in my players' words, 'a total c***')
Spoiler for Heathy:
(If you do bring him back, don't forget the maid's outfit! LOL)
Spoiler for my game:
|
|
On topic, I'll be working up a retrofit of the paladin PC in my AoW game.
The game is officially being run under 3.5 rules, but I just couldn't allow a player to cripple himself by using the 3.5 paladin class, so I asked him to test the Beta version.
It'll be nice to get a stable version of the class, so I'm not going to him every few weeks, and asking 'Do you want to try this option...?'.
There are some things that may be disappointing, like having the Channeling Pool come from the Lay on Hands pool, but then, the LoH now gives more healing than it did in Alpha/Beta, so there should be uses to spare.
Three of the PCs (paladin, cleric and fighter/cleric) have recently started using the PF channelling rules, which seem to have gone over well. It's harder for them to clear a room full of chaff 1-2 HD undead, but they no longer have to go chasing them all over, and they can now actually affect some creatures which would previously have been immune (such creatures having started appearing in chapter 2!).
Sounds like the Fighter doesn't get any love here. I kind of understand though. They're the default fighting class and people will still play them just as much if not more than the other melee classes. There's just not anything terribly exciting about their update. They're still very straight forward (which isn't a bad thing at all).
Oh don't get me wrong! The fighter is probably one of the best updates IMO, carefully balanced power creep. There's no doubt that the new fighter is more powerful and versatile than the new Barbarian or Paladin or even Ranger, but dang the Barbarian looks FUN! 2 rage points to bite your opponent in the face? Come on!
Oh don't get me wrong! The fighter is probably one of the best updates IMO, carefully balanced power creep. There's no doubt that the new fighter is more powerful and versatile than the new Barbarian or Paladin or even Ranger, but dang the Barbarian looks FUN! 2 rage points to bite your opponent in the face? Come on!
I know. I expect the Fighter to still get a lot of love when the games begin. There just isn't anything there that makes you go, "I've got to try that out". It's still the Fighter that everyone knows and loves (i.e. lots o' feats).
It was the only class not mentioned until I said something though. :)
I'm kinda liking the idea of playing a Wizard specializing in White Necromancy.
|
Monk.
But I've been wanting to play one for a long time anyway.
I just want to punch some evil in the face, repeatedly.
Paladin
Now that they've got their groove back, especially. The word on the code-as-written being loosened up to be more reasonably interpreted helps a lot too.
And this is coming from someone who leans towards chaotic characters!
A Paladin of Erastil seems interesting to me
|
I would have to say all of them. Before with 3.5 rules I pretty much had almost no interest in playing barbarians, bards, or paladins. Now that PF is available I hope to give them all a try at some point.
Of course if I have to pick a favorite to try first, it would be a tie between Cleric or Wizard.
|
|
Rogue/Cleric of Cayden Cailean. Pathfinder will finally make this combination viable. I'm going to be so naughty!Nice. Storywise, I always thought a crook who had a brush with death but was saved to become a divine agent would be fun.
Who said anything about a near-death conversion? Cayden Cailean is basically the frat-boy god. No repentance is required. Brew Potion has a double meaning for this fellow! Sacramental wine? Bring it on!
Basically, he got so drunk one night that he doesn't actually remember taking any vows, but when he woke up three days later, all his casual oaths carried mild magical effects, and he had a new tattoo of Cayden's holy symbol on his chest.
Can't wait to let loose with this fellow!
Cheers!
Steven
Rogue/Cleric of Cayden Cailean. Pathfinder will finally make this combination viable. I'm going to be so naughty!Nice. Storywise, I always thought a crook who had a brush with death but was saved to become a divine agent would be fun.Who said anything about a near-death conversion? Cayden Cailean is basically the frat-boy god. No repentance is required. Brew Potion has a double meaning for this fellow! Sacramental wine? Bring it on!
Basically, he got so drunk one night that he doesn't actually remember taking any vows, but when he woke up three days later, all his casual oaths carried mild magical effects, and he had a new tattoo of Cayden's holy symbol on his chest.
Can't wait to let loose with this fellow!
Cheers!
Steven
The first character I ever played in D&D eventually became a god. The god of insanity and inebriation. His temples had a two drink minimum. Their holy water was whisky.
Amen!
Well, I rolled up a half-orc paladin for what I hoped would be a new phase of the campaign that recently went on hiatus, but the DM is planning to transition to 4E if we pick it back up again, I think.I am so sorry.
Eh. Thanks, but I'm not heartbroken over it. Getting into high level 3.5-- even heavily houseruled 3.5 using many of the Beta rules from Pathfinder-- was kind of a drag for us, in terms of system complexity. After a while, it seemed like the mechanics were getting in the way of the story. (We wrapped up just into 14th level, and just keeping track of all the details during a battle was so cumbersome that we spent more time on that than we did on roleplay, which none of us really like.)
4E has plenty of redeeming qualities, when it comes to mechanical simplicity, so I think we'll all do just fine with it. I do not, however, like the 4E paladin at all, so if we pick up the same story in 4E, I'll have to figure something else out. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Sorcerer, Sorcerer, Sorcerer, Sorcerer and Sorcerer.
Both the Sorcerer Bloodlines and the Skill Point/Skill Selection changes have been my most favourite revamps to come about so far.
I have heaps of Sorcere ideas floating around and once I get my current PbP ones swapped over I can start to envision new ones. :)
Rogue.
Because it has always been my favorite class, along the editions.
Many of my characters are rogues, or roguish, even if they are multiclassed, it is often something/rogue (fighter/rogue, rogue/mage, priest/rogue).
The class appeals me for it vast potential, his multiple options and his versatility, being able to survive a fight or to win it with wits, or better to avoid it and still win the day.
No flashy magic, just skills and talent.
The new version of the class with all these talents seem interesting and i will gladly play it.
Rogues for the win B)
4E has plenty of redeeming qualities, when it comes to mechanical simplicity, so I think we'll all do just fine with it. I do not, however, like the 4E paladin at all, so if we pick up the same story in 4E, I'll have to figure something else out. :)
I'll second this, especially for DM prep (aahh the monster builder!) it just lacks a bit of variation and depth... 2 sides of a coin I guess. Hard to get 3E's depth and variation at the same time as 4E's balance and 'streamlineness' (TM). It is nice to alternate campaigns, which is our plan. [/threadjack before it turns into edition war, sorry for bringing it up ;-)]
as to characters, I'd love to play a monk or bard (always liked but never played due to innate crapness of them!) or my normal universalist Wiz. I'll be DMing as always though :(