Best Solo Class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I'm curious. It probably comes from playing KOTOR so much and wanting to build an optimal character... but I'm curious if anyone knows which class or combination is the meanest at the end.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Big Angry Nerd wrote:
I'm curious. It probably comes from playing KOTOR so much and wanting to build an optimal character... but I'm curious if anyone knows which class or combination is the meanest at the end.

Wizards


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Big Angry Nerd wrote:
I'm curious. It probably comes from playing KOTOR so much and wanting to build an optimal character... but I'm curious if anyone knows which class or combination is the meanest at the end.

You'll need to be able to handle large groups by yourself: Wiz/Sorc

You'll need to be able to handle a BBEG by yourself: Anything but rogue
You'll want to buff/debuff as needed: Spellcasters
You'll want high versatility: Wizard/Cleric, maybe Sorcerer
You'll definitely want to be able to retreat: Wiz/Sorc/Rogue/Monk
You'll want to handle non-combat situations: Spellcasters/rogue

So, yeah ... wizards might not be the BEST at any job, but they can do any of them better than most bards can with proper preparation. Sorcerer is a good runner up, though. In any event, you'd probably want to prestige into a gish. Eldrich Knight and Arcane Trickster can work, but I prefer Dragon Disciple.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd go with a Druid. Travelling alone, you need to be able to heal yourself and function in a fight where you may not be able to reliably cast spells (attacked by a swarm, for instance).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I think it's pretty hard to keep a solo wizard alive at low levels so I'd be loathe to recommend them. Healing is a big problem at level 1 and one or two lucky crossbow bolts can take you down since your hp and ac are both likely to be fairly below par.

I'd say that a druid was the best choice for this in 3.5 and it's still probably a pretty solid solo class. A cleric can wear decent armour and heal, so also makes a solid solo class and a paladin might work okay. The bard works out fairly well as well, with lots of skills to help out along with some healing ability to help get through the low levels.

If you're not starting at level 1 then wizard is probably a good choice still. The new classes for the Advanced Player's Guide will probably be quite good too. The summoner and alchemist especially both have pretty solid solo potential I think.

EDIT: Though I just noticed that you said 'meanest at the end'. So yeah, I'd probably go with wizards too. Though cleric and druid are both solid choices. And a bard would work well if you intend to hire a few flunkies. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:

I'd go with a Druid. Travelling alone, you need to be able to heal yourself and function in a fight where you may not be able to reliably cast spells (attacked by a swarm, for instance).

Of the core classes, Druid is absolutely the best choice. I state this from experience, having started a campaign playing a solo druid (the campaign eventually expanded to a 3 person party, but broke up shortly thereafter; I played the solo druid from level 1 to 3 or 4 IIRC and the campaign broke up around level 5 or 6). Druids are full spellcasters, so they have that going for them. They can heal, which is important. They have much better offensive spell choices than clerics, the other healing full spellcaster. They get an automatic second party member (animal companion). And, if push comes to shove and they're out of spells, they can wildshape and not be quite so sucky in melee as an arcane caster.

EDIT: Oh, also a decent amount of skill points and decent class skill selection (the best of the full casters, again).


druid would get my vote

Liberty's Edge

If we're talking about 13+, definately wizard, hands down.

If we're talking about 1-20, the Druid's survivability and flexibility at lower levels puts them in first place, assuming a spellcasting focus instead of shapeshifting focus.


I'd say druid or paladin. And if we are including new classes the summoner would be added to that list.


Even if it may sound surprising, i would say Rogue, for the versatility.
Or Bard, for the same reasons, plus crowd control, spells and heals.
Note that i am talking about heavy roleplaying games, not mere hack and slash, although both mentioned classes can do pretty well also if needed.


Summoner has great versatility, access to use magic device for healing past lvl 3, the strongest pet to boot, wich can do the guards while sleeping and its best at dungeons than the summoner.

Humbly,
Yawar


I'd say Druid or Bard, my favourite classes indeed.

Dark Archive

Druid and summoner; at high levels a wizard can do it well enough, but the other two aren't truly alone. They bring a tank and an army of minions at will, plus flexible spellcasting. Overall have to give Druid the nod for manueverability and AE tie-up

Dark Archive

I have successfully played solo characters that were pretty mean stuff with the following classes (builds):

Fighter (archer build)
Wizard (necromancer or illusionist)
Ranger (archer build)
*Rogue/Assassin (specialized game though)

Best I've seen from me/players in actual play through several sessions:

Paladin (even more so with new pathfinder build)
Ranger (archer build - me)
Wizard/Abjurant Champion/Eldrich Knight

Although the wiz/abj/eld above could easily be the most power among them, it requires the right spells, the right buffs, and ample time to perform said buffs; if this is not an issue than yes that combo is hands down the strongest I've ever seen. 17th level character who can get his AC to 51+ with only 2 or 3 spells, 2 feats, 17 dex, 2 magic items, and fighting defensively. Just sick.

I'm currently playing a ranger, i started at 6th lv, and the benefits of high skills, full bab, tons of feats, good stealth, healing plus healing skill, animal companion all combines to one sick solo class with no specialized build.

My vote

Ranger


At level 20 probably a Diviner Specialist Wizard. The ability to always go first is pretty huge and if you don't feel like you can handle a given situation you can teleport away and no one can stop you.


Zurai wrote:

Of the core classes, Druid is absolutely the best choice. I state this from experience, having started a campaign playing a solo druid (the campaign eventually expanded to a 3 person party, but broke up shortly thereafter; I played the solo druid from level 1 to 3 or 4 IIRC and the campaign broke up around level 5 or 6). Druids are full spellcasters, so they have that going for them. They can heal, which is important. They have much better offensive spell choices than clerics, the other healing full spellcaster. They get an automatic second party member (animal companion). And, if push comes to shove and they're out of spells, they can wildshape and not be quite so sucky in melee as an arcane caster.

EDIT: Oh, also a decent amount of skill points and decent class skill selection (the best of the full casters, again).

Hmm .. this has me interested in a druid now :)

I must confess I'm a DnD 1.0 convert, never played any other variations. So I'm probably stil biased towards the 1st ed. Druid. Neutral Tree Huggin' Hippy Guy :P

Demosthenes wrote:
At level 20 probably a Diviner Specialist Wizard. The ability to always go first is pretty huge and if you don't feel like you can handle a given situation you can teleport away and no one can stop you.

But he/she has to get to level 20 first ;)

-TDL

Dark Archive

TDLofCC wrote:
Zurai wrote:

Of the core classes, Druid is absolutely the best choice. I state this from experience, having started a campaign playing a solo druid (the campaign eventually expanded to a 3 person party, but broke up shortly thereafter; I played the solo druid from level 1 to 3 or 4 IIRC and the campaign broke up around level 5 or 6). Druids are full spellcasters, so they have that going for them. They can heal, which is important. They have much better offensive spell choices than clerics, the other healing full spellcaster. They get an automatic second party member (animal companion). And, if push comes to shove and they're out of spells, they can wildshape and not be quite so sucky in melee as an arcane caster.

EDIT: Oh, also a decent amount of skill points and decent class skill selection (the best of the full casters, again).

Hmm .. this has me interested in a druid now :)

I must confess I'm a DnD 1.0 convert, never played any other variations. So I'm probably stil biased towards the 1st ed. Druid. Neutral Tree Huggin' Hippy Guy :P

Demosthenes wrote:
At level 20 probably a Diviner Specialist Wizard. The ability to always go first is pretty huge and if you don't feel like you can handle a given situation you can teleport away and no one can stop you.
-TDL

i did forget to mention, the wizard/abjurant champion/eldrich knight is a diviner as well. That bonus at start is just so powerful.

But he/she has to get to level 20 first ;)


Well .. yes .. but EVERY character no matter which build you use .. will get hit .. at lower levels not getting smacked down is going to be difficult.

At least with a party, friendly party mostly, you will be taken along or healed by them.

Sure, ROLEPLAY wise, most characters can solo ... ROLLPLAY ... it a different question altogether.

Versatility is indeed the key, however ... when REALLY verstatile ... you're mostly not REALLY good at anything. In adventuring parties this usually doesn't matter. Alone it will ... I think ;)

Besides, I think that soloing an adventure was not the big idea behind DnD, in the spirit of the game and all :)

-TDL

PS: Perhaps there are solo adventures, but those are geared towards Solo Play ofcourse ;)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd probably recommend Druid for the animal companion, ability to spontaneously cast summon nature's ally, spell versatility, healing access and shapeshifting. Versatility is the solo character's most important trait, and Druid has it all. I'd probably put the summoner as a close second, and the bard third. A wizard who thinks he can get by without a meatshield is kidding himself, especially with pathfinder's focus on melee. (Exception made for necromancer with skeleton minion from unearthed arcana).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I don't think there's a best solo class. They all have their strengths, they all have their weaknesses.

For one, any class can use the Leadership feat.
Second, most spellcaster classes have summon spells.
Third, many spellcaster classes have many charm spells.

The classes that don't have magic, or don't have summon/charm spells wear plate or have a lot of hit points. The problem is they don't have any way to heal themselves (without a ridiculous amount of potions.)

In my opinion, the best solo class is strictly based on your DM. If the DM understands your character's strengths and weaknesses, you'll have a good campaign with any class. If your DM doesn't and decides to put a rogue up against 3 CR 1/3 at level 1.. well then good luck with that.

If you were to ask me to go pure statics I'd go with a Cleric, Druid, and a Paladin.


TDLofCC wrote:


But he/she has to get to level 20 first ;)

-TDL

True..... but the OP said best class in the end. By that I'm guessing he's referring to level 20 ;)

As far as a build you actually have to get to 20 yourself I'd go with a Druid, Ranger, or a Rogue/Bard with dip into Shadowdancer for HiPs.


Berik wrote:

Personally I think it's pretty hard to keep a solo wizard alive at low levels so I'd be loathe to recommend them. Healing is a big problem at level 1 and one or two lucky crossbow bolts can take you down since your hp and ac are both likely to be fairly below par.

Not every encounter is combat oriented. At low levels a Wizard fights at about the same as a Fighter, the major difference usually being STR(strong wizards can happen) and melee weapons that do more than a d8 damage.

----------------------------------
As for the original topic...
I think it all depends on your character's build and gear honestly. A Wizard looks good on paper, but you're not guaranteed to always have the answer, or even the ability to cast said answer. I think a Druid not spec'd for physical stats(wildshape) will suffer when it comes time to fight a BBEG. A Rogue who attempts to fight toe-to-toe with anything will not last long even with high damage. A Fighter with Whirlwind Attack and a reach weapon can easily handle a mob and has the HP/AC to do so for quite awhile. As someone else mentioned, a Bard would likely want some flunkies, probably even a co-hort. A Paladin is capable, but it will be a long, drawn-out fight as they rely on durability and endurance, not high damage(consistantly) and possibly on mobility via a mount.

Shadow Lodge

I'm a bit biased, but Halfling Druids. With the ability to turn into a tiny bat or t-rex(or into an earth elemental after flying above someone), he can sneak past or rip through opponents. He can summon reinforcements, heal himself, and firestorm can just remove small armies that threaten your forest. Thousand faces let's you look like someone else, woodland stride gets you through the most tangled non-magical vegetation, and you can have entire forests of animals at your beck and call.


TDLofCC wrote:
I must confess I'm a DnD 1.0 convert, never played any other variations. So I'm probably stil biased towards the 1st ed. Druid. Neutral Tree Huggin' Hippy Guy

yeah, the druid has come a looooonnnnnggggg way from 1E


TDLofCC wrote:

Besides, I think that soloing an adventure was not the big idea behind DnD, in the spirit of the game and all :)

-TDL

Umm... somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I've read and been told, OD&D, especially at Gygax's table itself was loaded with solo adventures.

Heck I've read more than one recount from the G-Man himself in the "On a Soapboax" part of the print version of Dragon Magazine of him running solo adventures for his players.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but from everything I can gather D&D started out as a roleplaying tactical game, with plenty of opportunity for characters to adventure on their own and no requirement to join a party. The parties that formed were to take on the extra tough dungeons, or because a group of friends wanted to work together, not because it was generally necessary.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but from everything I can gather D&D started out as a roleplaying tactical game, with plenty of opportunity for characters to adventure on their own and no requirement to join a party. The parties that formed were to take on the extra tough dungeons, or because a group of friends wanted to work together, not because it was generally necessary.

Yes and no. What you're missing here is that the game they were playing, the player controlled MULTIPLE characters. So there was a party, being controlled by one person.

What they were playing is more akin today's Warhammer or D&D Minis, but on a much more rudimentary scale.

Dungeons & Dragons in all printed forms has always been 1 player, 1 character (though there's nothing stopping you from playing more then 1 character.. the DM has to do it.)


SirUrza wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Maybe I'm mistaken, but from everything I can gather D&D started out as a roleplaying tactical game, with plenty of opportunity for characters to adventure on their own and no requirement to join a party. The parties that formed were to take on the extra tough dungeons, or because a group of friends wanted to work together, not because it was generally necessary.

Yes and no. What you're missing here is that the game they were playing, the player controlled MULTIPLE characters. So there was a party, being controlled by one person.

What they were playing is more akin today's Warhammer or D&D Minis, but on a much more rudimentary scale.

Dungeons & Dragons in all printed forms has always been 1 player, 1 character (though there's nothing stopping you from playing more then 1 character.. the DM has to do it.)

Actually, that's not true based on what I've read.

The adventures into castle greyhawk and the various dungeons Gygax designed, heck I read about a solo adventure when Gygax ran for his son and his Elf who lost his precious robe or whatnot.

Infact, if I remember right castle greyhawk was first completed by Robilar all on his own (except some no level hirelings of course)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Actually, that's not true based on what I've read.

The adventures into castle greyhawk and the various dungeons Gygax designed, heck I read about a solo adventure when Gygax ran for his son and his Elf who lost his precious robe or whatnot.

Infact, if I remember right castle greyhawk was first completed by Robilar all on his own (except some no level hirelings of course)

Then you're not reading everything my friend. oD&D did not come first. Chainmail came first. It was the first game Gygax created before moving to an even smaller game, the original D&D.

They found micro management of a single character much more intriguing then a squadron army game and that's how D&D was born.


SirUrza wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Actually, that's not true based on what I've read.

The adventures into castle greyhawk and the various dungeons Gygax designed, heck I read about a solo adventure when Gygax ran for his son and his Elf who lost his precious robe or whatnot.

Infact, if I remember right castle greyhawk was first completed by Robilar all on his own (except some no level hirelings of course)

Then you're not reading everything my friend. oD&D did not come first. Chainmail came first. It was the first game Gygax created before moving to an even smaller game, the original D&D.

They found micro management of a single character much more intriguing then a squadron army game and that's how D&D was born.

I'm not reading about Chainmail. I'm reading about OD&D's play-testing and subsequent in-house play.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I'm not reading about Chainmail. I'm reading about OD&D's beta-testing and subsequent in-house play.

I never much paid attention to the "beta" testing to be honest, I didn't even know any of those notes were available, but I'm not surprised. All I know is where D&D started and it was from a miniature war game he created and published before D&D. It was called chainmail. They liked how each guy was it's own guy. Gygax decided to narrow it down even further and created a game for a group of people to play together instead of against eachother.

Maybe he started with 1 person, maybe he didn't. What ultimately matters is the final printed version has party all of it, the encounters are even designed for parties.


SirUrza wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I'm not reading about Chainmail. I'm reading about OD&D's beta-testing and subsequent in-house play.

I never much paid attention to the "beta" testing to be honest, I didn't even know any of those notes were available, but I'm not surprised. All I know is where D&D started and it was from a miniature war game he created and published before D&D. It was called chainmail. They liked how each guy was it's own guy. Gygax decided to narrow it down even further and created a game for a group of people to play together instead of against eachother.

Maybe he started with 1 person, maybe he didn't. I don't care. The final printed version has party all of it, the encounters are even designed for parties.

"GaryGygax wrote:

Dragon Magazine Issue # 311- Up on a Soapbox What's In a Magic Item?" 1st sentence, 3nd paragraph.

As was usual, I accomodated solo adventuring whenever I had free time to DM and a player wishing to do so.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
"GaryGygax wrote:

Dragon Magazine Issue # 311- Up on a Soapbox What's In a Magic Item?" 1st sentence, 2nd paragraph.

As was usual, I accomodated solo adventuring whenever I had free time to DM and a player wishing to do so.

And you said, "everything I can gather D&D started out as a roleplaying tactical game, with plenty of opportunity for characters to adventure on their own and no requirement to join a party"

Nothing in that quote from Dragon magazine implies that's how the game "started... with plenty of opportunity for characters to adventure on their own."

As a matter of fact, all that proves is Gary had a group and didn't confine his roleplaying to regular nights when a player was itching do something and a whole group wasn't available. :)


It proves my point that there was plenty of opportunity for solo adventures and that a player didn't need a party ^^

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
It proves my point that there was plenty of opportunity for solo adventures and that a player didn't need a party ^^

"Maybe I'm mistaken, but from everything I can gather D&D started out as a roleplaying tactical game"

You're mistaken and I'm correcting you. Yes Gary ran solo adventures, but solo adventuring has nothing to do with how the game "started."

You did say to correct you in the very beginning of your post. :)


SirUrza wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
It proves my point that there was plenty of opportunity for solo adventures and that a player didn't need a party ^^

"Maybe I'm mistaken, but from everything I can gather D&D started out as a roleplaying tactical game"

You're mistaken and I'm correcting you. Yes Gary ran solo adventures, but solo adventuring has nothing to do with how the game "started."

You did say to correct you in the very beginning of your post. :)

Thanks, hit me on a technicality lol.

Oh well, your point is taken, well made Sir Urza, this day is yours, I shall return to my lands now, good day.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Thanks, hit me on a technicality lol.

Someone has to. ;)

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Oh well, your point is taken, well made Sir Urza, this day is yours, I shall return to my lands now, good day.

Muahah! Never! I shall follow thee to thy lands and encroach upon them as well! No one is safe! :)


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
MerrikCale wrote:
TDLofCC wrote:
I must confess I'm a DnD 1.0 convert, never played any other variations. So I'm probably stil biased towards the 1st ed. Druid. Neutral Tree Huggin' Hippy Guy
yeah, the druid has come a looooonnnnnggggg way from 1E

Actually, 1st Ed AD&D druids were pretty nasty, too. They could start with 2 cheap (25 gp each) guard dogs purchased with starting money for meat-shields and combat utility (and animal friendship as a 1st level spell), entangle (another 1st level spell) could shut down most encounters in outdoor conditions, faerie fire in underground/dimly lit conditions gave a +2 bonus to attack rolls vs. affected creatures. The 1st Ed druid had the fastest level advancement rate of any spellcaster from around 4th-12th level (and kept gaining 1d8 HD until 15th level), a good mix of combat and support spells, and the 1st Ed version of animal growth was just sick (especially applied to a lion or tiger, which was a pretty common "pet" when it became available).

For PF RPG, the "best" solo class would probably be a combat-focused cleric or a druid. Those two probably have the most ability to handle the majority of encounters at all levels. As stated, the summoner would be a good choice, as well. A bard 7+/fighter 1/eldritch knight can probably do fairly well, also (half-elf, take Skill Focus (Disable Device) with Adaptability and take max. ranks in Disable Device and Perception to deal with locks/traps), especially if Arcane Strike is taken at 1st level and the Magical Knack (Bard) trait is used to keep CL up; I'd probably alternate eldritch knight and bard levels until bard 9/fighter 1/eldritch knight 2, or hold off eldritch knight until bard 9/fighter 1, to pick up Inspire Greatness (more useful at 10th-12th level, IMO, than the Spell Critical capstone at 18th-20th level).

For the "best" solo character in high-level play, I'd probably say a cleric 3/wizard 3+/mystic theurge with Magical Knack (Wizard) for the sheer versatility of the spell selection. With Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery, they can wear a mithral breastplate and use a mithral heavy shield for protection and still cast arcane spells without a chance of failure; heroism (+2 morale) and greater heroism (+4) keep the attack bonus at a reasonable level to apply divine favor (+1/3 CL luck, max. +3) or divine power (+1/3 CL, max. +6) for combat. At 16th level (cleric 3/wizard 3/mystic theurge 10) and up, the Spell Synthesis capstone ability allows the mystic theurge to, in effect, spontaneously cast any two prepared spells as if one were Quickened (as long as they are prepared as different class slots, which Combined Spell can provide a work-around for); a huge advantage.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
MerrikCale wrote:
TDLofCC wrote:
I must confess I'm a DnD 1.0 convert, never played any other variations. So I'm probably stil biased towards the 1st ed. Druid. Neutral Tree Huggin' Hippy Guy
yeah, the druid has come a looooonnnnnggggg way from 1E
Actually, 1st Ed AD&D druids were pretty nasty, too. They could start with 2 cheap (25 gp each) guard dogs purchased with starting money for meat-shields and combat utility (and animal friendship as a 1st level spell), entangle (another 1st level spell) could shut down most encounters in outdoor conditions, faerie fire in underground/dimly lit conditions gave a +2 bonus to attack rolls vs. affected creatures. The 1st Ed druid had the fastest level advancement rate of any spellcaster from around 4th-12th level (and kept gaining 1d8 HD until 15th level), a good mix of combat and support spells, and the 1st Ed version of animal growth was just sick (especially applied to a lion or tiger, which was a pretty common "pet" when it became available).

Unfortunately ... my DM at the 1st ed. games had strict rules about the druid ... TRUE NEUTRAL alignment ... with severe penalties if you did not play accordingly. Losing all abilities etc ...

Combat wise it may have been good, but because of this restriction I've never looked into it any further :(

Playing a Paladin now at his table (level 10 now) ... same "problem" here. Lawful Stupid is a MUST with his rules. Has gotten me into quite some problems (in and out of combat ;))

Sorry for the thread-jack here btw :P

-TDL


Hunter


LordGriffin wrote:


You'll need to be able to handle large groups by yourself: Wiz/Sorc
You'll need to be able to handle a BBEG by yourself: Anything but rogue
You'll want to buff/debuff as needed: Spellcasters
You'll want high versatility: Wizard/Cleric, maybe Sorcerer
You'll definitely want to be able to retreat: Wiz/Sorc/Rogue/Monk
You'll want to handle non-combat situations: Spellcasters/rogue

You'll need to be able to handle enemies when they reach you: anything with armor

You'll need to cover the fact that enemies WILL hit you: access to consistent healing (Cleric/Druid/Bard/Paladin)

As said before in this very thread, the druid may be the best in versatility and survivability. Even more so in a natural setting. In a civilized setting, I'd vote for the paladin.


Dragonchess Player wrote:

Actually, 1st Ed AD&D druids were pretty nasty, too.

Agreed. But I meant from more of a flavor prespective. They are no longer pigeon holed into a True Neutral tree hugger deal

But wildshape has gotten more powerful IMHO

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

OGL: Psion
WotC: Erudite
Pathfinder: Bard.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
TDLofCC wrote:

Unfortunately ... my DM at the 1st ed. games had strict rules about the druid ... TRUE NEUTRAL alignment ... with severe penalties if you did not play accordingly. Losing all abilities etc ...

Combat wise it may have been good, but because of this restriction I've never looked into it any further :(

Playing a Paladin now at his table (level 10 now) ... same "problem" here. Lawful Stupid is a MUST with his rules. Has gotten me into quite some problems (in and out of combat ;))

Ah, one of those...

You have my sympathy.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
TDLofCC wrote:

Unfortunately ... my DM at the 1st ed. games had strict rules about the druid ... TRUE NEUTRAL alignment ... with severe penalties if you did not play accordingly. Losing all abilities etc ...

Combat wise it may have been good, but because of this restriction I've never looked into it any further :(

Playing a Paladin now at his table (level 10 now) ... same "problem" here. Lawful Stupid is a MUST with his rules. Has gotten me into quite some problems (in and out of combat ;))

Ah, one of those...

You have my sympathy.

Hehehe .. well it's not so bad as it looks ;)

I only started to notice the difference when someone else took over DM-ing. And was bit more liberal with alignments.

Looking at the new druid .. I might someday play one. But first I have to play some more with my Ranger, then try a Barbarian, an Arcane Archer and then perhaps a Druid ;)

Too bad we only play once a week :P

-TDL


One of the major reasons Druid keeps coming up over Cleric is the animal companion. Clerics are incredibly viable solo class, so long as they are evil/neutral and able to create undead. Aside from their lack of an animal companion they are just as durable as a druid, if not more so (No armor restriction). While they lack the control abilities of a wizard, they are much more competent in combat, and have access to healing. Clerics are probably the most viable solo class.


Wow, threadomancy.

Going to go with master summoner on this one.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Inquisitor

Scarab Sages

YawarFiesta wrote:

Summoner has great versatility, access to use magic device for healing past lvl 3, the strongest pet to boot, wich can do the guards while sleeping and its best at dungeons than the summoner.

Humbly,
Yawar

Eidolons go away when the summoner goes to sleep.

Druid is the best solo class if combat heavy. Bards are the best if the solo campaign involves a fair amount of social interaction, investigation, knowledge checks in addition to combat.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Bards are the best if the solo campaign involves a fair amount of social interaction, investigation, knowledge checks in addition to combat.

By this logic, Investigator is probably just as good, maybe better. And Inquisitor almost as much so.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Best Solo Class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.