you need to give us something to work with...class? race?
Better to approach by concept or "role". Basically.. what is the point of this character? What do you want him to be doing in the game?
From there, you can start putting together stuff.
You might want to list parameters too... is this 25 point buy? Using traits? Etc.
More then that:
And then ...
"The best character builds from first level" are those that you 1) personally understand, 2) love to play and 3) synergize well with your party. None of wich is dependent of class, race or equipment.
Now, if you want to maximize damage output at first level, and want that capability to stay through level 20, I'd say go for human fighter with greatsword, get a high STR score, and take weapon focus, power attack and cleave. While leveling up increase attack and damage via feats and equipment, and increase AC and saves by means of equipment only. You should do fine, won't have a problem with your character's complexity, and contribute quite nicely.
How hard can it be to build a first level character? Your limitations are rather extreme in how much you can differ from any other character of the same caste.
Half-Orc Paladin with a Falchion. Ok, go.
Yea i dont think there is such a thing as the 'best' first level character. Or even the 'best character'. We need more criteria then that. Most damage? Highest AC with typical starting cold? What are we talking about here? Best bluff check? Theres alot of definitions of 'best'.
Ok, if you are a new player and are asking for good 1st lvl character suggestions, I would go for Paladin, Ranger, or Barbarian. My reasons:I am still new to pathfinder and am trying to get my head around the best choices available.
Ranger but not Fighter? Fighter is a straight forward character and if you start moving into Ranger you start having to know alot about alot - like what you will be fighting, where you will be fighting, how you want to fight, etc in order to be useful for more than 5 minutes a campaign.
|
If you mean the best in combat then I'd go cleric of Gorum with a greatsword, probably human to get the extra combat feat. Although a half-orc with a greataxe is pretty sexy.
Healing means you can fight longer, in more fights and without it any class can only last a certain length of time. Fighters can out feat you but in the end they need healing from somewhere, a cleric is his own healer. Bards are the ultimate jack-of-all-trades but they fall down against undead. Not clerics they just zap them all with positive energy.
Use traits and the like to boost those other skills so that you can sense motive, diplome and the like.
Cheers
If you mean the best in combat then I'd go cleric of Gorum with a greatsword, probably human to get the extra combat feat. Although a half-orc with a greataxe is pretty sexy.
Healing means you can fight longer, in more fights and without it any class can only last a certain length of time. Fighters can out feat you but in the end they need healing from somewhere, a cleric is his own healer. Bards are the ultimate jack-of-all-trades but they fall down against undead. Not clerics they just zap them all with positive energy.
Use traits and the like to boost those other skills so that you can sense motive, diplome and the like.
Cheers
Actually I think a cleric isnt going to be a good level 1 combat choice, after all, his first level feats will be restricted because of hte +0 starting bab. Power attack, weapon focus, etc the cleric cant pick these up at level 1.
Fighters tend to require a lot of planning to be good over time.
And Rangers don't? The class whose defining class ability is based on guessing what monsters you have to fight and where? Never mind the expansions of what feats you get for each combat style from a specific one to picking from a selection.
And neither Great Fortitude nor Toughness are Fighter feats, so your objection is moot. As a matter of fact, that point is actually a point IN FAVOR OF the Fighter because they get a larger number of feats to choose from but limited to the useful combat feats so they are unlikely to be hindered by accidental bad choices like Great Fortitude or Toughness.
And let's not even get into the new Rage Powers debacle.
|
If you want to be an Arcane Caster that can take the occasional hit, there is this guy. I haven't played him yet, but the idea has been floating around in my mind for a while.
Languages: Common, Dwarven, Giant, Terran
HP: 1d6+1(Favored Class)+5(Con)+3(Toad Familiar)= 10~15
Str10 Dex14 Con20(18)
Int15 Wis10(8) Cha6(8)
Feats: Scribe Scroll(Wizard Bonus), Toughness
Skills
Appraise: 6=2+1+3
Knowledge(Arcana): 6=2+1+3
Knowledge(The Planes): 6=2+1+3
Spellcraft: 6=2+1+3
Class Features: Arcane Bond(Familiar, Toad), Cantrips, Arcane School(Abjuration)
Slow and Steady: Dwarves have a base speed of 20 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance.
Darkvision: Dwarves can see in the dark up to 60 feet.
For Defensive Training, Greed, Hatred, Hardy, Stability, Stonecunning, and Weapon Familiarity, see the Dwarf entry in your book or go to the PRD.
Hey, I never said it was perfect. And I DID suggest asking the DM for suggestions on FE; FT follows the same principle. But choosing 1 feat from a small set (TWF chain vs Archery chain) is easier than choosing 1 feat from a very large set (all feats), and you need to choose less often.
Every class gets to choose a feat from the set of all feats. Fighters get, as a class ability, the ability to choose a feat from a subset of all feats containing feats specifically listed for the Fighter. Generally, Combat Feats. All of which are useful for *drumroll* combat. Hell, you could use the Ranger as a good in order to pick out feats for the Fighter and not have to deal with Spells, Animal Companions, Favored Enemy, Favored Environment etc. Paladin is just as bad. Barbarian has been made worse but is still pretty simple. The best place to start would be a Fighter.
Besides, the ides that a lack of FE and FT bonuses render you useless is just silly.
They are entirely useless in the sense that you get no benefit from them if not fighting those monsters or in that terrain. Which is rather likely in most campaigns.
It's like saying the Pally while not smiting is useless.
No, it's like saying the Rogue is useless against constructs and incorporeal creatures. Which it pretty much is because its defining passive ability is neutralized.
Yes, I can build the best first level character. I just don't feel like it right now.
I consider the Fighter a very POOR choice for an inexperienced player.
I gathered. And inherently disagree on the grounds that while you can make poor choices, you are limited in what you can pick and have large number of times to choose.
After all, it's not just choosing the right feats, but understanding WHY those are mechanically superior choices. It's that "why" that makes the fighter a poor choice.
And the Ranger requires knowing what spells are useful, what enemy type is most likely to be encountered, what terrain type combat is most likely to occur on, and what combat style choice would best benefit the player. And now, they have to pick feats within the combat style and up comes your contention against Fighters. Never mind the fact that terrain and enemies arn't even a constant and thus require foreknowledge of where you are going and what you are doing.
Let's not even get into the Paladin with their spells, mount/bonded item, lay on hands, code of conduct, and whatever else.If your counter argument is the player can get "help from the DM," why does this help only apply to Rangers? Does the DM not like Fighters? Is it against the rule for Fighter players to ask for advice?
No, because they can hit just about anything anyway.
So can any other class, but the Ranger's power booster is Favored Enemy, except it is more situational than any other and thus requires babysitting.
So much like 10 choices over 20 levels starting at level 1 among 100+ different combat feats to choose from,
Yeah, no.
Which is different from other combat feats and abilities how? Nothing is useful 100% of the time besides...
Of course not, because you can't control what happens. But Ranger situational abilities are far more situational than any other because you can't control them at all as a PC.
Even if they screw things up, it will likely not kill them, and they can probably recover somewhat over time.
Fighter is still the most obvious choice due to it being the simplest class. It's main class abilities are feats from a specific subset of feats (which get even narrower given prerequisites and weapon choice), weapon specialization, armor specialization, and bravery. The only choice the class has to deal with at all is picking a Combat Feat every two levels which will be limited further by primary weapon and feat prerequisite.
Everyone should just be a Pig Farmer.
And what exactly does the Ranger do out of combat? None of its class abilities are geared towards non-combat, and outside favored enemies, it is behind the curve in combat. Or the Barbarian?
And what exactly does the Ranger do out of combat? None of its class abilities are geared towards non-combat, and outside favored enemies, it is behind the curve in combat. Or the Barbarian?
Track, stealth, survival, knowledges, Handle Animal. Theres a lot you can do with a better skill list and 6 skill points.
And what exactly does the Ranger do out of combat? None of its class abilities are geared towards non-combat, and outside favored enemies, it is behind the curve in combat. Or the Barbarian?Track, stealth, survival, knowledges, Handle Animal. Theres a lot you can do with a better skill list and 6 skill points.
A Fighter can track (which IS survival by the way), Handle Animal, and Knowledges. The Ranger just gets more skill points.
You realize Trap Sense is just the ability to hopefully not die as hard to explody or attacky traps, right?
Generally, I agree that the Ranger is a solid choice if the DM can give a suggestion on valid FE's. Probably I'd even think that it is the best choice, as you get to test all parts of the game - combat, skills, and magic, while still being tough enough to survive a slap or two.
However, I don't think the fighter is as bad as you make him out to be MM. First of, much like FE, the DM can give hints about what feats are decent and what feats aren't. And toughness isn't that bad for a beginner - he'll likely get himself hurt anyway, since he lacks the skills to evaluate a combat situation properly. Secondly, the fighter can now retrain feats, much like how a sorcerer can retrain spells. This is huge, and makes "failing the fighter" far harder.
But even then, if you build a fighter that's good for combat - it's still the only thing you can do very well. You can't use skills decently and you suck at magic.
And what exactly does the Ranger do out of combat? None of its class abilities are geared towards non-combat, and outside favored enemies, it is behind the curve in combat. Or the Barbarian?
With 6 skill points per level, he can put points into a lot of movement skills and perception easily, especially since they're class skills. He won't be AS good as the rogue, but he can make the rogue company when scouting. And with all those skill points, he could easily afford to max a non-class skill or two - I'd suggest either furthening his rogue-like skills (disable device and nethack might be good ideas) if the party lacks a rogue, or maybe some social skills (bluff seems appropriate for the often chaotic and freedom loving ranger). He could also heal, since he has no problem using wands of CLW and IIRC has heal as a class skill.
So the fighter has 2+bonus skill points per level, bad class skill list, and no class feature bonuses.
The ranger has 6+bonus skill points per level, good class skill list, and circumstantial class feature bonuses from FT (and to some extent FE).
A Fighter can track (which IS survival by the way), Handle Animal, and Knowledges. The Ranger just gets more skill points.
To max those, he'd need to be human and have 12 int, or non-human and have a 14 int. Supposing maxing two knowledges.
To max those, a ranger needs 6 int. Or be a human with 4 int. Oh, and due to wild empathy, he'll be better than the ranger at it.
Really beside the point. The point was, he can do those things if it was determined that the Fighter should put points into those skills and needed to use them. Sure, the Ranger can do it better, but you arn't proving the argument that the Ranger can do stuff out of combat that the Fighter can't.
Really beside the point. The point was, he can do those things if it was determined that the Fighter should put points into those skills and needed to use them. Sure, the Ranger can do it better, but you arn't proving the argument that the Ranger can do stuff out of combat that the Fighter can't.
No, the fighter can do those things too. But new players are unlikely to put skills into things not on their class list. They look at the class list and say "oh, this is what I should be good at." The ranger is set up to do a handful of obvious things revolving arround stealth, scouting, and tracking. The fighter doesn't get the skill points to put into nearly as many class skills, so he has to choose from a non-obvious selection. This is harder for a new player.
And how many combat feats are there to choose from if we remove any with a pre-req that obviously can't be met at first level and then split it into "ranged only" and "melee only"?
I mean, you can't get much worse than the Iconic, right? :P
Just on a side note, Harsk is really the coolest of the iconics in respect to looks. Yes, he may be stupid enough to use a crossbow, but damn does it suit his image.
No, the fighter can do those things too. But new players are unlikely to put skills into things not on their class list.
You mean like the Survival, Knowledge (dungeoneering), and Handle Animal that are on the Fighter skill list? In fact, that kind of tilts the board the Fighter's way if you look at it using that argument because the fighter does NOT have some of the major skills on their list: Perception, Search, or Spot that would siphon skill points from the Ranger.
You mean like the Survival, Knowledge (dungeoneering), and Handle Animal that are on the Fighter skill list? In fact, that kind of tilts the board the Fighter's way if you look at it using that argument because the fighter does NOT have some of the major skills on their list: Perception, Search, or Spot that would siphon skill points from the Ranger.
No, the fighter can do those things too. But new players are unlikely to put skills into things not on their class list.
And yet perception is one of the most important skills to take, allong with accrobatics. Neither of which are on the Fighter's skill list, so they take skills like handle animal that will be much less useful. And since they have so few skill points, they are less likely to look at the large list of skills.
You mean like the Survival, Knowledge (dungeoneering), and Handle Animal that are on the Fighter skill list? In fact, that kind of tilts the board the Fighter's way if you look at it using that argument because the fighter does NOT have some of the major skills on their list: Perception, Search, or Spot that would siphon skill points from the Ranger.
No, the fighter can do those things too. But new players are unlikely to put skills into things not on their class list.
Perception that is, since search and spot are now part of perception. And perception is a great skill to have, and synergizes very well with survival for tracking (IIRC, perception is used for detecting traps and survival for following them). Add to that stealth and climb, and you have an exellent scout - that still has a skill point left compared to a fighter, after having taken the same skills as him.
And how many combat feats are there to choose from if we remove any with a pre-req that obviously can't be met at first level and then split it into "ranged only" and "melee only"?
Part of the problem is that you need to look at the prereqs more for feats that you want. You need to know where you are going with your feats as a fighter, otherwise, as MM said, you will be wanting to go for whirlwind attack with a 12 int and having taken TWF at first lvl. The Ranger doesn't have this problem because he is shoehorned into picking from a select list of feats that work well together and all he really needs to know is which style he wants.
