Class options for my g / f


Advice

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

My girlfriend is less experienced tabletop player than I am and she's really unsure of what she wants to be. She usually plays a rogue in every 2nd ed dnd game we play and never seems to do very much, picks pockets here and there and is not very efficient in combat. I wanted to ask you experienced Pathfinder gamers about some class builds that would be easy, but fun for her to play. I was thinking Warrior at first but she said she doesn't want to be warrior. She wants to be viable in combat but doesn't want something complicated to play. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. We are starting Pathfinder society this Sunday.


Fighter and barbarians are fairly easy to play. If she doesn't like the flavor, I'd actually suggest an archer Ranger. Plus, she'd get a pretty cool animal companion which she might dig.


If she wants to be a rogue character again, she could try the ninja. You can refluff it so it's not too asian-based if thats a problem. (not sure you can do the refluff in PFS though. Or if its needed there)

Ninjas can be quite effective in combat with dual wield and sneak attack as long as they have someone to flank with, and she can do the pickpocketing and so too.

Or a bard can also be made like a rogue, and in combat she can do her bardic performance to give everyone a nice buff and then stab away herself.


Have her take a look through the archetypes of Rogue to see if there's something that suits her more than just the straight class?

Grand Lodge

Ninja or Ranger?


Isn't ninja illegal in Pathfinder society?

She seems to be interested in a straight archer ranger type of thing without a animal companion.

Contributor

Ludacrits wrote:
Isn't ninja illegal in Pathfinder society?

No.


"The playtest versions of the gunslinger, ninja, and samurai are no longer legal for play as of 8/4/11." What does playtest mean?

Sczarni

For simplicity of play, it's hard to beat a straight-up Fighter, and they don't sacrifice any of their effectiveness for their simplicity.

A paladin could also be a good choice. The high saves, full plate, and hefty hit die mean she'd have little worry about survivability and she still wouldn't have to do much more than swing her weapon and offer a Lay on Hands when needed. Pickpocketing would be out though, so it depends on how she feels about roleplaying as Sir Galahad.

EDIT: If archer Ranger sans animal companion is her thing, she could always just play a Fighter who focuses on a bow. She'd get just as many feats and be just as good with a bow without having to worry about the animal companion or the spells. An archer barbarian could work too-- it isn't done as often but she'd still have the flavor of a wild hunter without the pet.

And "playtest" means the version of those classes that they were using back when they were still deciding on the rules, before they published the books. As far as I know, the version of those classes you see in the book are the version that is legal to play.


Choosing hunting companions is a good option then, rather than the animal companion. If she's concerned about spells being too complicated, there are always the archetypes that give it up to look at.


The women I have gamed with usually like Clerics and are of a good alignment. Druid would also be a good choice to start out with as well.


Hmm Fighters, Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues, and Bards can all be played effectively as any combat role be it Melee, Ranged, or Switch Hitting. If available in your setting she might try a Gunslinger they make wonderful ranged-focused Switch Hitters.


So when my wife wanted to start playing in a campaign for which I wasn't the GM, I sat down with her and tried to deduce what she wanted to play. The difficulty with this is that not only was she a beginner to the game, she's also dyslexic and cannot read the rulebooks. Reading more than a few pages of straight text gets really difficult for her, and she's not a rules-driven person like many of us here on the forums are.

Her very first character was a sorc. Sorcs are fairly easy for a beginner, as they have a limited number of spells; granted, a fighter is much easier as there are fewer decisions, but I would rank a sorc as an easy class to play.

Anyways, here's the character sheet I designed for her. It's meant to reduce the occurrence of random numbers that might confuse a beginner while explaining the options available. There might be some errors on there (I later had to make some revisions, and I used a different computer to fix them). Some of the names of abilities were changes for roleplaying reasons, and one of the spells was changed by permission of the GM (grease to "slippery ice"). My wife is a snowboarder, so she wanted something linked to snow. We picked the boreal bloodline sorc.

Anyways, here they are:

Front Page

Back Page

Let's hope those links work.

(Her next character was a fighter, and I designed a similar character sheet for her; it was easier to design and my wife had fewer character options/actions to worry about).

Edit: I guess the purpose of this post was to show off a character sheet that might be easier for a beginner to read.

Sczarni

Inquisitor all the way.


bookrat wrote:


Let's hope those links work.

The links you shared are the edit links, which aren't enabled for viewing. I am interested in viewing them though, as we've had a number of attention span issue players in the past, and cleaning up character sheets was one of the methods we used too.


Your links require us to request access...

@ossian666: an Inquisitor can be difficult for new players with little experience in P&P RPGs.


PALADIN. Can be played simple like a fighter and she'll ALSO be able to shine in the social aspect of the game (diplomacy, sense motive) -- throw some heal and spells later after she's gained a few levels. (you can argue paladins come with some fancy features, but the cool thing about them in this situation is that they are NOT introduced all at once!) -- she'll be 4th level before she gets any divine casting... and basically she just has to be aware of what she can do at first level, and every level after that she'll get another option or two more.

Fighter is a cop-out, this sort of stuff is not beyond a woman's comprehension -- AS LONG AS THE REST OF THE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE DON'T TRY TO TELL HER HOW TO CONDUCT HER PALADIN CODE... (the GM can help her adjudicate what might not be paladin-y enough, or anything too lawful anal or lawful stupid... I know that can be a tricky wicket, but as long as nobody steals her agency she'll have a character that helps drive the bus rather than rides in it, and can contribute to the talky parts AND the choppy parts.

Sczarni

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Your links require us to request access...

@ossian666: an Inquisitor can be difficult for new players with little experience in P&P RPGs.

Eh I don't think its that difficult...its no cleric...you are basically a ranger but more humanoid hunter.


Ludacrits wrote:
"The playtest versions of the gunslinger, ninja, and samurai are no longer legal for play as of 8/4/11." What does playtest mean?

Before they put out the Ultimate Combat book, they had a freely-downloadable 'playtest' packet that you could use to create and play those character classes. They did something similar for the classes in APG and UM, and they'll probably do something similar for the next Advanced/Ultimate book that'll inevitably be coming out.

As of August 4 2011, that playtest packet is no longer legal to play (in PFS) by the rules, so you if you want to keep playing the gunslinger, ninja or samurai that you created using the playtest packet, you need to go out and buy Ultimate Combat.

See, this way they get to put out the rules to get feedback on them, then when they've finalized the rules, then they get to sell books too. (And that's the name of the game for any publishing company -- selling books.)


Sorry folks. I went to the grocery store after I posted that. Just got back. The links should work now. I made them available to everyone.


Jaatu Bronzescale wrote:
bookrat wrote:


Let's hope those links work.

The links you shared are the edit links, which aren't enabled for viewing. I am interested in viewing them though, as we've had a number of attention span issue players in the past, and cleaning up character sheets was one of the methods we used too.

Making those sheets were time consuming and requires a person with fairly good knowledge of the game. They are not meant to be made by an inexperienced person.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Rogues are awful in Pathfinder society. If she wants to be useful in combat and still have a good compliment of skills to toss around, I recommend Ranger all the way!

Sczarni

Vicon wrote:

PALADIN. Can be played simple like a fighter and she'll ALSO be able to shine in the social aspect of the game (diplomacy, sense motive) -- throw some heal and spells later after she's gained a few levels. (you can argue paladins come with some fancy features, but the cool thing about them in this situation is that they are NOT introduced all at once!) -- she'll be 4th level before she gets any divine casting... and basically she just has to be aware of what she can do at first level, and every level after that she'll get another option or two more.

Fighter is a cop-out, this sort of stuff is not beyond a woman's comprehension -- AS LONG AS THE REST OF THE PEOPLE AT THE TABLE DON'T TRY TO TELL HER HOW TO CONDUCT HER PALADIN CODE... (the GM can help her adjudicate what might not be paladin-y enough, or anything too lawful anal or lawful stupid... I know that can be a tricky wicket, but as long as nobody steals her agency she'll have a character that helps drive the bus rather than rides in it, and can contribute to the talky parts AND the choppy parts.

I definitely second the paladin idea. If there is a class that can be said to be capable of practically everything, it's the paladin. She'll be good at combat, she'll have saves like you read about, and later she'll get to learn how spells work.

And you did say that she liked the idea of a Ranger but without the animal companion? Paladin fits that description pretty close...


Fatespinner wrote:
Rogues are awful in Pathfinder society. If she wants to be useful in combat and still have a good compliment of skills to toss around, I recommend Ranger all the way!

Really.

I guess there's no place in a party for Trapfinding, Disable Device, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, UMD...


I'd say Barbarian's the best class for a newbie, being simple, but with more cool class abilities (more that a newbie will notice anyways) than a Fighter).

If she doesn't want to play a warrior type however, I suggest a bombs & ranged weapon type of Alchemist. They're easy enough to turn into a jack-of-all-trades, being less complicated than bards (performance can confuse newbies) while not as hampered by limited spell slots in the early game as more classic casters.

If there were any classes I'd suggest avoiding they'd be Cleric and Druid (having a full spell list available to you can be overwhelming), the Wizard (powerful later, but kind of limited at low levels), and the Cavalier, Summoner, Monk, and Gunslinger (Too many things to manage for the average newbie).


From what I read, it may be a good idea to tell your girlfriend that even if she plays a rogue, she will in most cases not be able to keep the things she pick pockets in PFS. That said, if there's something else about the rogue she likes to play, then try finding out what that is and suggesting to her classes that achieve that more efficiently. Or build the character with her and try to suggest ways in which she can be made more effectively.

If all else fails, there's always one for a good man to do. Take a hit for your girl. And by that I mean making yourself a support character, or at least a character that can support her in combat or whatever else she does (buffing-focused wizard, cleric or bard for example, or even a trip/grapple-focused monk so she's always got someone flanking for her and making her targets easier to hit). Do what it takes to make sure she has fun when she's playing with you and she will want to do it more often. Also, when she realises that you're taking a back seat so she can have more fun at the table and you made your character with her specifically in mind, it will do wonders for your relationship.

One thing to always keep in mind: real life relationships are always more important than a game. Hope you two have fun gaming together! =)


ossian666 wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Your links require us to request access...

@ossian666: an Inquisitor can be difficult for new players with little experience in P&P RPGs.

Eh I don't think its that difficult...its no cleric...you are basically a ranger but more humanoid hunter.

The problem most players have is the Inquisitor has so many small bonuses and fiddly abilities when it comes to a new player.

@Vicon: how in through name of Vecna is a Fighter a cop out? we aren't saying they are beyond her comprehension we are just listing possibilities.


FiddlersGreen wrote:

From what I read, it may be a good idea to tell your girlfriend that even if she plays a rogue, she will in most cases not be able to keep the things she pick pockets in PFS. That said, if there's something else about the rogue she likes to play, then try finding out what that is and suggesting to her classes that achieve that more efficiently. Or build the character with her and try to suggest ways in which she can be made more effectively.

If all else fails, there's always one for a good man to do. Take a hit for your girl. And by that I mean making yourself a support character, or at least a character that can support her in combat or whatever else she does (buffing-focused wizard, cleric or bard for example, or even a trip/grapple-focused monk so she's always got someone flanking for her and making her targets easier to hit). Do what it takes to make sure she has fun when she's playing with you and she will want to do it more often. Also, when she realises that you're taking a back seat so she can have more fun at the table and you made your character with her specifically in mind, it will do wonders for your relationship.

One thing to always keep in mind: real life relationships are always more important than a game. Hope you two have fun gaming together! =)

I second this.


bookrat wrote:
Jaatu Bronzescale wrote:
bookrat wrote:


Let's hope those links work.

The links you shared are the edit links, which aren't enabled for viewing. I am interested in viewing them though, as we've had a number of attention span issue players in the past, and cleaning up character sheets was one of the methods we used too.
Making those sheets were time consuming and requires a person with fairly good knowledge of the game. They are not meant to be made by an inexperienced person.

Those sheets seem a lot like the D&D for kids character sheets...

P.S. sorry for the string of posts it isn't letting me Edit my previous posts.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Jaatu Bronzescale wrote:
bookrat wrote:


Let's hope those links work.

The links you shared are the edit links, which aren't enabled for viewing. I am interested in viewing them though, as we've had a number of attention span issue players in the past, and cleaning up character sheets was one of the methods we used too.
Making those sheets were time consuming and requires a person with fairly good knowledge of the game. They are not meant to be made by an inexperienced person.
Those sheets seem a lot like the D&D for kids character sheets...

That's actually where I got the idea. Color coded areas, labelling which dice are used, and explaining what the abilities do on the sheet so you don't have to look them up.

My wife loves them, and my gaming group wanted to use them for themselves, even though the rest of them are experienced players.


I can see it working well if they could easily be made... what program was used?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
John-Andre wrote:

Really.

I guess there's no place in a party for Trapfinding, Disable Device, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, UMD...

A Bard can get all that and more while being Cha-based.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
I can see it working well if they could easily be made... what program was used?

Believe it or not, Word.

I'm using my phone right now; give me a bit and I'll load up the word documents so you can modify it. Speaking of which, why didn't I do that to begin with?


So I tried to load up the word docs onto google docs, and it was a miserable failure. None of the formatting kept. I can always email the word doc to anyone who wants it; just send me a pm.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

John-Andre wrote:
I guess there's no place in a party for Trapfinding, Disable Device, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, UMD...

Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, and UMD will almost certainly be covered by a Bard, Sorcerer, Summoner, or even a Cleric or Oracle. These classes all heavily favor CHA whereas it usually tends to be a dump stat (or at least no better than a 12) on rogues.

As for trapfinding and disable device, out of over 50 scenarios I have played or run in Pathfinder Society, I can count ON ONE HAND the number of traps I've encountered.


bookrat wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
I can see it working well if they could easily be made... what program was used?

Believe it or not, Word.

I'm using my phone right now; give me a bit and I'll load up the word documents so you can modify it. Speaking of which, why didn't I do that to begin with?

Hmm I can believe it as word... Word 2010 added a LOT of capability to word. And that would be much appreciated as it can help me with making a Spell book ;P

@TriOmegaZero: the Bard can get those but iirc they can't disarm magical traps.


Fatespinner wrote:
John-Andre wrote:
I guess there's no place in a party for Trapfinding, Disable Device, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, UMD...

Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, and UMD will almost certainly be covered by a Bard, Sorcerer, Summoner, or even a Cleric or Oracle. These classes all heavily favor CHA whereas it usually tends to be a dump stat (or at least no better than a 12) on rogues.

As for trapfinding and disable device, out of over 50 scenarios I have played or run in Pathfinder Society, I can count ON ONE HAND the number of traps I've encountered.

Seriously... I almost feel bad for my maze of traps room in my recent dungeon...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
@TriOmegaZero: the Bard can get those but iirc they can't disarm magical traps.

Archaeologists can at 10th, but you're mostly right.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Seriously... I almost feel bad for my maze of traps room in my recent dungeon...

Rogues definitely have their place in a normal game. I said that in Society play, they are a horrible choice. Despite all their skill points, their skills usually consist of something that either:

A.) Someone else in the party is going to be considerably better at than them, or;
B.) Something that will maybe get used once every 10-12 modules.


Fatespinner wrote:
As for trapfinding and disable device, out of over 50 scenarios I have played or run in Pathfinder Society, I can count ON ONE HAND the number of traps I've encountered.

Ditto, although I've only played 20 scenarios. However, on two occasions, not finding the trap meant the difference between life-or-death (or rather, winning-or-losing) for the party.

The first was an explosive runes that nailed the healer in the group (the only one who could use the Wand of Cure Light Wounds), and we couldn't wait around for him to heal up naturally, so we failed the mission.

The second was an elaborate trap that got both the bard and the druid, and again without healing, led to the TPK of the party.


Fatespinner wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Seriously... I almost feel bad for my maze of traps room in my recent dungeon...

Rogues definitely have their place in a normal game. I said that in Society play, they are a horrible choice. Despite all their skill points, their skills usually consist of something that either:

A.) Someone else in the party is going to be considerably better at than them, or;
B.) Something that will maybe get used once every 10-12 modules.

I still feel bad...

@TriOmegaZero: huh, I never realized an archaeologist could do that... great... now I am thinking about making Indiana Jones...

Why is it Bards can easily replicate most Hollywood Heroes?

Grand Lodge

Bards rock.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

John-Andre wrote:

The first was an explosive runes that nailed the healer in the group (the only one who could use the Wand of Cure Light Wounds), and we couldn't wait around for him to heal up naturally, so we failed the mission.

The second was an elaborate trap that got both the bard and the druid, and again without healing, led to the TPK of the party.

It sounds like the traps weren't your problem. The lack of healing was. Everyone, EVERYONE should have 2 potions of cure light wounds on them going into a module.

We're getting off-topic, though. To re-iterate my point to the OP:

She should play something other than a rogue. Preferably something with a full BAB. Ranger and Paladin are both good recommendations, and relatively light on bookkeeping. Gunslinger is also fun, but requires a bit more system mastery.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I suggest a bard. Rookie players do well as a bard. "what is that? Oh...bardic knowledge!". Give her a bow and a shinny dancing dress. Inspiration spells are win.


A Paladin can Also heal themselves.


There's nothing really wrong with a rogue, although they may not play the way you would hope in PFS. Stealth and pickpocketing are pretty useless, and trapfinding and disable device are not required. Basically you get a highly skilled, moderately combat capable character.

If she is leaning toward an archer character, there are lots of options. Including an archer rogue. More challenging to get sneak attacks, but not impossible. You could do like another poster suggested and roll a g/f support character--something that would allow her more sneak attacks for instance. Illusionist wizard, fighter with imp. feint, that sort of thing.

Or if she likes rangers as a class choice, she is not required to have an animal companion, and I think there is an archetype that swaps out spells for something else.

Most importantly, you get to redo your character before level 2 if you don't like it.


I really need to read through the PFS rules again... can you take archetypes in PFS... cause I have heard you no longer could...

Grand Lodge

Some archetypes are banned, but not all.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Azaelas Fayth wrote:
I really need to read through the PFS rules again... can you take archetypes in PFS... cause I have heard you no longer could...

The vast majority of archetypes are still legal for play. Most of the Summoner archetypes got the hammer recently, though, along with the Undead Lord cleric and a few others.

Pretty much anything involving guns that isn't a Gunslinger is banned.

Grand Lodge

If a Gunslinger gives a gun to a non-gunslinger in PFS, can he keep it?

Can you be a worshiper of any god in PFS?

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Class options for my g / f All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.