Roles arent quite so strictly defined in pathfinder. However given your party's makeup I think the alchemist would be a better choice. Your group is missing a skilled character and an arcane caster, and given the cleric is split with gunslinger, it can probably use some healing as well. Alchemist and Bard can both fit this bill fairly well.
The best thing you can do for your group to fill a role, is to look at every class, and decide which one you like best on it's own merits.
Once you have that decided, you play that class.
The point of the game is to have fun - if you have no healer, don't feel pressured into playing a Cleric. Play what you like, and forget the rest! It'll be a bother, but hey, as long as you're having fun.
If you insist on filling the role, I would go with Cleric again, just a different type of Cleric from your friend. Cleric is the only class you can have an entire party of and have the entire spectrum of necessary things (fighting, healing, rouge-ing, and wizard-ing) covered. As an example -
Dwarf Cleric - Strength and War domains.
Elf Cleric - Knowledge and Magic domains.
Human Cleric - Trickery and (insert rouge domain here).
(racial) Cleric - Healing and (personal choice).
I'm used to 3.5 and haven't looked over domains real hard yet, so I may be off a little on these. But you get the idea.
Really dude, play what you want to play, and ignore everyone else.
Really dude, play what you want to play, and ignore everyone else.
-1
While yes, you should be able to play whatever class you choose, ignoring the gaps in a party's lineup is not a great idea. This is a cooperative game, not a competition. In your case, I agree with Kolokotroni. An alchemist can contribute in all "roles" and can specialize reasonably well in any. I'd look to providing some of the needed buffs like Fly the party is going to want at moderate and high levels, and skill use because your party could end up stymied by a cunning trap or difficult Knowledge check.
Alternatively, wizard is never a bad choice.
|
With the group you presented, you may want to consider an Arcane Duelist bard, or possibly just a straight bard. Everyone in the group will benefit greatly from Inspire Courage, you fill the Arcane Spellcaster niche, and Bards can make good "controllers," if you build 'em a certain way.
Consider reading "Treantmonk's Guide to Bards" for more information. It's a great class summary.
...
On that note, class doesn't matter too much. I'm currently playing in a game with a Tiefling Rogue, Tiefling Alchemist, Kobold Barbarian, and Goblin Paladin, and we just hit level 4, and we've been fine so far with very sparse healing and Arcane magic. Any group can get through most any challenge as long as you work together and fight smart.
Edit: Two side-notes:
1) Monks aren't strikers. The player may be used to 4th edition, but if he's expecting big damage as a monk... well, he shouldn't be, so the striker position isn't really "filled" in your group.
2) @ TheRedArmy: Bards can do that really well, too.
Arcane Duelist
Magician
Sandman
Court Bard
The group is sitting at a pretty consistent: +X to Attack and damage, +X to caster level checks and spell attack & damage, pretty awesome spell defenses (Sandman is GREAT, and the Duelist gets Spellbreaker), with enemies at a -X to Attack and damage (not to mention Glorious epic as an option to grant the Sandman Sneak Attacks). That's AWESOME.
Oh, and they can all heal.
Really dude, play what you want to play, and ignore everyone else.-1
While yes, you should be able to play whatever class you choose, ignoring the gaps in a party's lineup is not a great idea. This is a cooperative game, not a competition. In your case, I agree with Kolokotroni. An alchemist can contribute in all "roles" and can specialize reasonably well in any. I'd look to providing some of the needed buffs like Fly the party is going to want at moderate and high levels, and skill use because your party could end up stymied by a cunning trap or difficult Knowledge check.
Alternatively, wizard is never a bad choice.
I partly agree with you. Filling a role is helpful, but rarely necessary (the only role I find is completely "necessary" is Cleric - YMMV), and playing something you enjoy is far more important than filling a role. We all play to have fun, but it's really hard to have fun playing a character you don't like.
So, I amend my statement - once your friend figures out what he wants to do, look at the classes that fill the role best. If none strike your fancy, continue on to others that stray farther from the role until you find one you like.
Wizard.
Wizard.
+1
|
|
I've decided that since I really like stabbing things, I'm probably going to play a rogue, ninja, or bard with UMD for spell support.
Mr. Hyde Alchemist is also in the running. As well as a halfling cavalier who rides a fierce wardog, if the tank has to leave...which he might. Of course, I know from experience that a small alchemist with Dex mutagens can Dex tank all day.
I really tried to like my dedicated caster builds, but the inability to reliably stab things really puts me off.
If you're more interested in something like that, why not try Inquisitor, Magus, or the Fighter/Wizard Eldritch Knight? Or, for more variety, the Barbarian/Sorcerer Dragon Disciple?... or, of course, Master Chymist.
|
Inquisitor...hmmm...I kinda just wrote them off as fluffy RP classes. I've never seen one in play, are they good?
Their Judgments are very good, the solo teamwork feats are really nice (since they can switch them to whichever is best), and as of 5th level they can put Bane on their weapon for whatever they happen to be fighting. All that plus nice skill bonuses, an initiative boost and, at higher level, the equivalent of Evasion for Fortitude and Will.
They're very good.
|
|
*flips through APG*I think you just made my mind up. Looks like a great class. Thanks!
You're not going to be a Controller as an Inquisitor, they're more Striker with a dash of Healer/Leader (if you pick some healing spells to go that route).
But as long as you're cool with that, it should be fun. You can definitely provide a significant combat boost (particularly going ranged) to the party along with being more of a skills character than any of those listed, so you'll certainly be useful, but not in a battlefield control sense. Or not to any great extent anyway.
If you are joining a group I would go wizard or Bard. Having another spell caster is always welcome and having a buffer is never a bad thing.
But honestly, Pathfinder is wonderful in that parties can get by with out all the "roles" needing to be filled. Play what you feel is going to be the funnest.
|
My advice is to pick a class you WANT to role-play as.
If you make a character that is mechanically sound, but you can't/don't/hate role-playing him/her/it, then it kinda defeats the purpose of a roleplaying game like Pathfinder.
Your party on its own seems balanced. So do yourself a favor and pick what YOU want to play. The best characters are the ones that their players love playing as.
|
|
Inquisitor...hmmm...I kinda just wrote them off as fluffy RP classes. I've never seen one in play, are they good?Their Judgments are very good, the solo teamwork feats are really nice (since they can switch them to whichever is best), and as of 5th level they can put Bane on their weapon for whatever they happen to be fighting. All that plus nice skill bonuses, an initiative boost and, at higher level, the equivalent of Evasion for Fortitude and Will.
They're very good.
*flips through APG*
I think you just made my mind up. Looks like a great class. Thanks!
Glad you're satisfied. And yes, you will put out LOTS of damage as an Inquisitor. Just don't forget to not be selfish with the class. Solo tactical feats, judgments, and bane all help you a lot, but don't forget to use buffs on your party members. Plus, you can use healing wands and spells, so those might be a worthwhile backup for the group.
Mostly, remember that the bonus from Judgments stacks with spells like Divine Favor and Righteous Might (I don't remember if Inquisitors get the second one...), so against single targets you'll be looking at pretty high static bonuses. I suggest making "buff cards" and "judgment cards" to keep track of what bonuses you have at any given time. At low levels it won't matter so much, but at about level 10-12+ you'll be running with so many stacking buffs you'll appreciate the help.
|
|
I would go with a bard, since it appears they're also missing a "face", a buffer, and a skill-monkey. They're also a highly customizable class.
A bard covers all the bases, and arguably keeps the group more roleplay-focused than combat-oriented (which is a problem when the group is so small that fighting capacity drastically diminishes if one PC is taken out of action even temporarily).
I love the idea of the dapper half-orc that "orcs out" when in battle. Maybe you can keep that character concept, and "orc out" when using Judgements? Or maybe there is a Domain you can select that "orcs out" as its domain power.
And a half-orc inquisitor has quite a selection of weapons to choose from: all Simple, longbows and short bows, the favored weapon of your deity, and the falchion and greataxe.
They get 6 skill points a level, so they're decent skill monkeys, and can choose skills to be the face. Are traits allowed? You can get some nifty extra class skills that way if you need to be the Knowledge guy or Diplomacy guy or whatever.