Roles: what are they


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LilithsThrall wrote:
Adventuring groups aren't "a specialized paramilitary unit".

From the point of the players you are absolutely correct. From the viewpoint of the characters this is wrong. Dead wrong. You are highly trained people with superior equipment doing jobs that would be nigh impossible for the same number of people without that training or equipment to do. Your goal is to get in, get the job done, and get out alive. Each member is expected to bring their own unique set of skills to the group for the betterment and survival of the group as a whole. Filling in the roles, or considering how to work without one or more of them being filed, is part of this.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Um...my characters are just guys trying to survive....

Dark Archive

meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think roles play a part (if somewhat obvious) in actual play - at least when it comes to assembling a party. Our group is a long way from min-maxers yet we always discuss roles and factor them into our decisions when coming up with new characters.

If you specialize each character into a role and "factor them into [your] discussions when coming up with new characters", what do you do when a player can't make it to the game session and you've got noone filling his character's role? You feel the loss of the role, sometimes rather dearly.

If, instead, characters didn't focus on roles, but, rather, players played whatever they wanted to, you'd end up with redundancy in role coverage which would make the loss of a role for the game night less likely.
Actually, in my group, you'd end up with like 4 hulking barbarian brutes and a stealthy ranger. Period. Every game. Every adventure. Ever.
A competent GM can do quite a lot with 4 hulking barbarians and a ranger.
Yes, but it won't remotely resemble Pathfinder and will only last one session. No traps, no social encounters, and oh everyone dies after a sorta hard combat. Pretending that no one will ever need healing doesn't make damage go away.

Let's hope there are no flying enemies too.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Um...my characters are just guys trying to survive....

So when given the choice of not walking into suicidal odds by say, attacking a bunch of armed and bloodthirsty thieves you opt out? When the orcs come calling to demand tribute you skip town?

That you never take class levels? Or get wealth more than NPC's do?

I'm not saying that the concept of the guy over his head is nonexistent, only that it's somewhat , god what's the word, it's paradoxical. A guy who is just trying to survive probably wouldn't go to the lengths the typical adventurer would go through. And it's amusing to think that a guy whose backstory is "lived his life in peace and quiet" has the same relative power level as "been foitan 'an killan 'is entire loif" Concepts rarely fit that mold so easily. In the end all you can really do is make sure your character at least makes sense and comes out alive.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I was responding to the 'highly trained, superior equipment' comment.

My guys are just regular warriors who take what comes to them.

Most of them don't even get a magic item until 5-7th level.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I was responding to the 'highly trained, superior equipment' comment.

My guys are just regular warriors who take what comes to them.

Most of them don't even get a magic item until 5-7th level.

Which you can sell off and buy a tavern with. :P

Something that's always bothered a lot of people I've played with is why a lot of groups don't do this.

There is a point where you have to stop acting like regular joe barbarian. I think it's the point where you can sneeze in a peasants general direction and make them explode by the minimum damage alone.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Because running a tavern is boring?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Because running a tavern is boring?

You're right, we'll hire Targ, the Bloodgorger to bartend. He's got an int of like 4 which is the only way we got by him to rip his chieftains head off but his undying hatred for elves and halflings will make for some laughs.

Plus just imagine the ruinous amount of cash we can charge adventurers that always just appear there for no reason to get work. We'll make a killing.

Alternatively we could always hire AM BARBARIAN to play piano.

Scarab Sages

PALADIN AM NOT SURE WHERE ARGUMENT GOING. PALADIN HAVE SWORD AND ARMOR AND SMITING. NO SPECIAL TRAINING. PALADIN AM NOT HAVING INT FOR SPECIAL TRAINING. NEED TWO WEEKS TO LEARN WHICH END OF SWORD GOES IN ENEMY.


TarkXT wrote:


So when given the choice of not walking into suicidal odds by say, attacking a bunch of armed and bloodthirsty thieves you opt out? When the orcs come calling to demand tribute you skip town?

What are you talking about? Someone has to stop them, and it might as well be me. After all, no one misses a street rat if he gets himself killed...


Tch. I hardly need special training to kill orcs. They're hardly different from any other animal.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Hey, have you ever noticed how when TriOmegaZero goes away, AM PALADIN shows up?"

"Woah. TriOmegaZero must hate that guy!"


meatrace wrote:


Yes, but it won't remotely resemble Pathfinder and will only last one session. No traps, no social encounters, and oh everyone dies after a sorta hard combat. Pretending that no one will ever need healing doesn't make damage go away.

A Barbarian can handle social encounters (the lack of social skills as class skills doesn't mean that a character can't engage in social encounters), healing (taking UMD as a cross class skill), and traps (Find Traps on a scroll using the aforementioned UMD or just blasting his way through them using his hit points).


The common footsoldier thanks you three for your heroic efforts, superior pay, better ability scores and ability to not get murdered by beggars.

Scarab Sages

Mergy wrote:

"Hey, have you ever noticed how when TriOmegaZero goes away, AM PALADIN shows up?"

"Woah. TriOmegaZero must hate that guy!"

Nah, he just can't handle being in the presence of a REAL man.


TarkXT wrote:
There is a point where you have to stop acting like regular joe barbarian. I think it's the point where you can sneeze in a peasants general direction and make them explode by the minimum damage alone.

This has been a point of contention with a few groups I've played with. It can be a question of rules transparency and logical consistency. PCs achieve superheroic powers that put them miles ahead of the rest of the world. Even a few levels move you out "basic warrior-type" territory into god of the battlefield if we're comparing your potency to that of a standard person, and then somehow track down enough enough wealth to buy small moons.

There seems to be the one camp that wants to recognize the rules work that way and to some degree shape the world around the fact, while the other would rather put up a narrative screen and pretend the characters are unique forces.


TarkXT wrote:
The common footsoldier thanks you three for your heroic efforts, superior pay, better ability scores and ability to not get murdered by beggars.

Yeah, just evil druids, winter wolves, and jackass backwoods rangers!

Wait, people get PAID to do that?


Auris Vector wrote:

Yeah, just evil druids, winter wolves, and jackass backwoods rangers!

What?!


Not you, the drunk with the crossbow!


Oh. Well, don't forget the pissed off fey and lumberjacks.

Scarab Sages

I never get to go out and have any fun.

Scarab Sages

Mergy wrote:
Castilliano wrote:

Re: 3 PCs, 6 roles

With 3 PCs Will Saves become more important so I vote Paladin (Face/Control).
I think Wizard h.p. are too low with so few blockers and Summon takes a full round to pull off, so instead of Conjurer I vote Summoner (or Druid), (Knowledge/Support)
& lastly Inquisitor archer (Scout-Skills/Damage) (Or Alchemist)

I think they overlap into each others' roles a tad.
Which is fine. With only three, they need to.
They're a little light on area effects, but all can wear armor to weather the onslaught of peons.

Summoner doesn't quite get knowledge like Wizard does, unfortunately. Summoner could work, but I'd put them in the face role.

My vote:

Alchemist
Ranger
Bard

Really, any of the 3 can fill any given "role" at almost any given time. They can ALL grant some sort of support as needed, they can all do pretty decent damage (especially so for the ranger), and both the Alchemist and Bard have the tools to control the battlefield REALLy well (though, again, a ranger could do it, too).


LilithsThrall wrote:
meatrace wrote:


Yes, but it won't remotely resemble Pathfinder and will only last one session. No traps, no social encounters, and oh everyone dies after a sorta hard combat. Pretending that no one will ever need healing doesn't make damage go away.
A Barbarian can handle social encounters (the lack of social skills as class skills doesn't mean that a character can't engage in social encounters), healing (taking UMD as a cross class skill), and traps (Find Traps on a scroll using the aforementioned UMD or just blasting his way through them using his hit points).

Okay. Okay. So a barbarian doesn't tank his Charisma. I can dig it. He can do social encounters and has an 18 charisma. Well with point buy he's no longer as good as the other barbarians at combat, but be that as it may. He takes max ranks (1) in UMD and Skill Focus (UMD) at first level. He has a +8 UMD at first level. Pretty impressive. Well too bad first level characters can't really afford wands, so he spends ALL his starting money and buys 4 scrolls of Cure Light Wounds.

And that's supposed to last his whole party how long? Until they get enough cash to buy a wand of cure light? By the way he has a 35% chance of getting the scrolls to work and 30% chance of getting a wand of CLW to work. Failed attempts use charges/scrolls.

You still think this is remotely feasible?


Auris Vector wrote:
TarkXT wrote:


So when given the choice of not walking into suicidal odds by say, attacking a bunch of armed and bloodthirsty thieves you opt out? When the orcs come calling to demand tribute you skip town?
What are you talking about? Someone has to stop them, and it might as well be me. After all, no one misses a street rat if he gets himself killed...

But then you're no longer "just trying to survive" are you?

Also...seriously a puppet show? I expected more from you, TOZ.

Dark Archive

meatrace wrote:
Auris Vector wrote:
TarkXT wrote:


So when given the choice of not walking into suicidal odds by say, attacking a bunch of armed and bloodthirsty thieves you opt out? When the orcs come calling to demand tribute you skip town?
What are you talking about? Someone has to stop them, and it might as well be me. After all, no one misses a street rat if he gets himself killed...

But then you're no longer "just trying to survive" are you?

Also...seriously a puppet show? I expected more from you, TOZ.

Don't tell him you expect more, I bet he's got at least another dozen characters to bring out.


"I'm just a normal Joe trying to survive" doesn't really work once you hit one or two levels because by like level 4 you're basically hitting superhuman (and you were already better then average to begin with).

I get the love for farmboy to hero but D&D has never started you off at farmboy. OD&D the level 1 fighter was "Veteran." The idea was clear - adventurers aren't normal people, they're better then average, that's why they go into dungeons to loot them.

And even if you do start off as "farmboy," you're gaining levels. You aren't staying at farmboy for long unless you're playing some kind of E1 game.


meatrace wrote:

Okay. Okay. So a barbarian doesn't tank his Charisma. I can dig it. He can do social encounters and has an 18 charisma. Well with point buy he's no longer as good as the other barbarians at combat, but be that as it may. He takes max ranks (1) in UMD and Skill Focus (UMD) at first level. He has a +8 UMD at first level. Pretty impressive. Well too bad first level characters can't really afford wands, so he spends ALL his starting money and buys 4 scrolls of Cure Light Wounds.

And that's supposed to last his whole party how long? Until they get enough cash to buy a wand of cure light? By the way he has a 35% chance of getting the scrolls to work and 30% chance of getting a wand of CLW to work. Failed attempts use charges/scrolls.

You still think this is remotely feasible?

Yes, I do. There's no rule in the book that says that the party isn't allowed to rest between encounters and, playing smart, they can do a great deal of damage from surprise with strength bows from concealment before the enemy can do damage to them.

When the enemy does manage to get the upper hand, the party can take the time to heal naturally afterwards (4 hit points per day with the Healing skill). At first level, that's only a few days.


LilithsThrall wrote:
nonsense

Like I said. Your solution is no longer Pathfinder. Pathfinder is balanced around 4 encounters a day which that party would be utterly incapable of managing. 2-3 days between fights is pretty unreasonable and I'm sure I'm not alone in that thinking. Not to mention things like a timeframe, wandering monsters, etc.

All this proves is the outrageous things that you will claim just to be right. I seem to remember your claim that Conan was in fact a spellcaster.


meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
nonsense

Like I said. Your solution is no longer Pathfinder. Pathfinder is balanced around 4 encounters a day which that party would be utterly incapable of managing. 2-3 days between fights is pretty unreasonable and I'm sure I'm not alone in that thinking. Not to mention things like a timeframe, wandering monsters, etc.

All this proves is the outrageous things that you will claim just to be right. I seem to remember your claim that Conan was in fact a spellcaster.

I do assume that the players aren't idiots - that is to say that, with some strategy, they are going to get first attack in most encounters. At first level, that will substantially reduce the damage they receive.


I always figured there were five combat roles in 3e.

* Archer - Ranged characters that tend to rely on lots of precise attacks.
* Blaster - Squishy ranged characters that use magic to nuke enemy clumps or screws over individuals.
* Healer - Characters that can use magic to restore HP, buff allies, or attempt to fill in for any other role.
* Tank - Melee characters that tend to rely on heavy-damage attacks, high AC & lots of HP.
* Pippin - Characters who haven't been built with combat in mind, or just don't know what they're doing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Also...seriously a puppet show? I expected more from you, TOZ.

Your expectations have never meant anything to me.

Liberty's Edge

While it's the role 'system' from late Spycraft 2.0 and Fantasy Craft, it always made more sense to me then 4e's system or even those listed here, largely because they're too combat focused.

Backer: Improves the party's performance.
Combatant: Good at fighting.
Specialist: Master of one or more skills.
Solver: Excels at plot advancement and information gathering.
Talker: Great with NPCs and social situations.
Wildcards: Can fill in for two or more roles depending on how they're developed.

As an example, the base classes from Fantasy Craft are listed as:

Assassin: Talker/Combatant
Burglar: Specialist/Combatant
Captain: Backer/Combatant
Conjurer: Backer
Courtier: Talker/Backer
Emissary: Solver/Backer
Explorer: Solver
Keeper: Specialist
Lancer: Combatant/Talker
Mage: Wildcard
Martial Artist: Combatant
Priest: Wildcard/Backer
Reaper: Specialist
Sage: Backer/Wildcard
Scout: Combatant/Solver
Soldier: Combatant

Now, those classes can all cover the other roles to some degree, but a Soldier, for instance, will never be as strong in a social situation as an Assassin, Courtier, or even a Lancer. A Talker class gains abilities related to that role, where another class has to use their non-class options to fill in those gaps. It's doable and no class is worthless in the other roles areas, but they won't even shine as bright as a class focused on those areas.

Similarly, I'd classify the Pathfinder classes as:

Alchemist: Combatant/Backer
Barbarian: Combatant
Bard: Talker/Backer/Solver
Cavalier: Combatant/Backer
Cleric: Backer/Wildcard
Druid: Wildcard
Fighter: Combatant
Gunslinger: Combatant
Inquisitor: Combatant/Solver/Talker
Magus: Combatant
Monk: Combatant
Oracle: Wildcard
Paladin: Combatant/Backer
Ranger: Combatant/Solver
Rogue: Specialist/Solver
Summoner: Wildcard/Combatant
Sorcerer: Wildcard
Witch: Wildcard
Wizard: Wildcard


meatrace wrote:
But then you're no longer "just trying to survive" are you?

Who said anything about survival? You gotta take things as they come. If it's an orc warparty, well, what can you do?


Auris Vector wrote:
meatrace wrote:
But then you're no longer "just trying to survive" are you?
Who said anything about survival? You gotta take things as they come. If it's an orc warparty, well, what can you do?

Run. Hide. Get a bigger war party. Preferably one with adventurers.


Well, we ARE pretty good at the running part.

So, where do you find these adventurers?


Krensky wrote:

(Stuff)

Backer: Improves the party's performance.
Combatant: Good at fighting.
Specialist: Master of one or more skills.
Solver: Excels at plot advancement and information gathering.
Talker: Great with NPCs and social situations.
Wildcards: Can fill in for two or more roles depending on how they're developed.

(Stuff)

Pathfinder classes as:

Alchemist: Combatant/Backer
Barbarian: Combatant
Bard: Talker/Backer/Solver
Cavalier: Combatant/Backer
Cleric: Backer/Wildcard
Druid: Wildcard
Fighter: Combatant
Gunslinger: Combatant
Inquisitor: Combatant/Solver/Talker
Magus: Combatant
Monk: Combatant
Oracle: Wildcard
Paladin: Combatant/Backer
Ranger: Combatant/Solver
Rogue: Specialist/Solver
Summoner: Wildcard/Combatant
Sorcerer: Wildcard
Witch: Wildcard
Wizard: Wildcard

Nice system, very applicable to well-rounded games.

The PF designations seem to fall short though with most of the spellcasters being tagged 'wildcard' (only) when some lean strongly toward some roles (though yes, they could be built for most any role). Might I suggest a subset of roles tagged on that suggest the sub-roles a wildcard would have a predilection toward?
Such as:
Cleric: Backer/Wildcard (Talker/Combatant/Solver)
Druid: Wildcard (Combatant/Backer)
Oracle: Wildcard (Backer/any)
Sorceror: Wildcard (Combatant/Backer/Talker)
Wizard: Wildcard (Combatant/Backer/Solver)
Witch: Wildcard (Backer/Combatant)
(Unsure I even agree with myself on those, but it's a start.)

Thoughts?
JMK

Edit: By 'combatant' for the unarmored casters, I'm suggesting blasters/SoD 'specialists' (rather than standard combat contributors), not casters entering melee, assuming that's okay.

Liberty's Edge

Castilliano wrote:
Krensky wrote:

(Stuff)

Backer: Improves the party's performance.
Combatant: Good at fighting.
Specialist: Master of one or more skills.
Solver: Excels at plot advancement and information gathering.
Talker: Great with NPCs and social situations.
Wildcard: Can fill in for two or more roles depending on how they're developed.

Nice system, very applicable to well-rounded games.

The PF designations seem to fall short though with most of the spellcasters being tagged 'wildcard' (only) when some lean strongly toward some roles (though yes, they could be built for most any role). Might I suggest a subset of roles tagged on that suggest the sub-roles a wildcard would have a predilection toward?
Such as:
Cleric: Backer/Wildcard (Talker/Combatant/Solver)
Druid: Wildcard (Combatant/Backer)
Oracle: Wildcard (Backer/any)
Sorceror: Wildcard (Combatant/Backer/Talker)
Wizard: Wildcard (Combatant/Backer/Solver)
Witch: Wildcard (Backer/Combatant)
(Unsure I even agree with myself on those, but it's a start.)

Thoughts?
JMK

Edit: By 'combatant' for the unarmored casters, I'm suggesting blasters/SoD 'specialists' (rather than standard combat contributors), not casters entering melee, assuming that's okay.

There's not precise rules, it's just a system for describing the type of things a class is designed to excel at. In the book it's also accompanied by a short, fluffy, blurb describing how the class fulfills that role.

As for caster as a Combatant, the Spycraft 2.0 (and presumably Fantasy Craft) Channeler (think Evoker) is a straight combatant. Now, admittedly it's a full BAB class and there's nothing in the system that prevents any caster from wearing armor and wielding mêlée weapons, but the precident's there.


meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think roles play a part (if somewhat obvious) in actual play - at least when it comes to assembling a party. Our group is a long way from min-maxers yet we always discuss roles and factor them into our decisions when coming up with new characters.

If you specialize each character into a role and "factor them into [your] discussions when coming up with new characters", what do you do when a player can't make it to the game session and you've got noone filling his character's role? You feel the loss of the role, sometimes rather dearly.

If, instead, characters didn't focus on roles, but, rather, players played whatever they wanted to, you'd end up with redundancy in role coverage which would make the loss of a role for the game night less likely.
Actually, in my group, you'd end up with like 4 hulking barbarian brutes and a stealthy ranger. Period. Every game. Every adventure. Ever.
A competent GM can do quite a lot with 4 hulking barbarians and a ranger.
Yes, but it won't remotely resemble Pathfinder and will only last one session. No traps, no social encounters, and oh everyone dies after a sorta hard combat. Pretending that no one will ever need healing doesn't make damage go away.

Dude Rangers can get Trapfinding with an archetype at 1st. And can use CLw wands (pool money together so by 2nd level you have one).

Yes, at level 1 you play like 1st edition clerics (no cure spells) and are just melee/ranged warriors.
4 hulking barbarians: specialize, 1 is face, one is tactics, 1 is brute strength, and 1 is tank.

Basically, the A-team.

Dark Archive

Starbuck_II wrote:
meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
meatrace wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think roles play a part (if somewhat obvious) in actual play - at least when it comes to assembling a party. Our group is a long way from min-maxers yet we always discuss roles and factor them into our decisions when coming up with new characters.

If you specialize each character into a role and "factor them into [your] discussions when coming up with new characters", what do you do when a player can't make it to the game session and you've got noone filling his character's role? You feel the loss of the role, sometimes rather dearly.

If, instead, characters didn't focus on roles, but, rather, players played whatever they wanted to, you'd end up with redundancy in role coverage which would make the loss of a role for the game night less likely.
Actually, in my group, you'd end up with like 4 hulking barbarian brutes and a stealthy ranger. Period. Every game. Every adventure. Ever.
A competent GM can do quite a lot with 4 hulking barbarians and a ranger.
Yes, but it won't remotely resemble Pathfinder and will only last one session. No traps, no social encounters, and oh everyone dies after a sorta hard combat. Pretending that no one will ever need healing doesn't make damage go away.

Dude Rangers can get Trapfinding with an archetype at 1st. And can use CLw wands (pool money together so by 2nd level you have one).

Yes, at level 1 you play like 1st edition clerics (no cure spells) and are just melee/ranged warriors.
4 hulking barbarians: specialize, 1 is face, one is tactics, 1 is brute strength, and 1 is tank.

Basically, the A-team.

Technically, a ranger doesn't have a caster level until 4, but other than that, it could work.


Here are the roles I see

The butcher
Every game, we have a goon. Someone who racks up kills, squeezes all he can out of power attack (or similar abilities), and relishes in his body count.
We've had games with more than one of these. My fave was my Gish, who regularly did crazy damage with his True Strike + full-point PA via glaive (good positioning and Combat Reflexes FTW).
Current (3.5) game: Human Cleric/Loremaster, Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter, Asaamar Ranger, Human Barbarian (sort of; see below)

Healing wand monkey
At least one party member gets the job of post combat clean up. Often this comes in the form of wands of cure light wounds, until the later game when more options fall into our lap.
Current (3.5) game: Human Cleric/Loremaster, with backup of Asaamar Ranger

Mage-lomaniac
The spell jockey, who tries to create the perfect spell combos for uber dispensation of death, mayhem, and total confusion among the enemy. Battlefield control and blasting.
Current (3.5) game: Human Wizard/MasterTransmuter/UnseenHand, Human Cleric/Loremaster

Bigmouth
The character(s) who step up and flaps their gums. They mean well, and get the plot moving, but also tend to get us in more trouble than everyone (DM included) expects.
Current (3.5) game: Human Wizard/MasterTransmuter/UnseenHand, Human Cleric/Loremaster

Taskmaster
Searches rooms, makes survival checks to secure the room before we cast Rope Trick, makes knowledge checks, keeps us from getting lost, sneaks around, and spots enemies. This is the skill monkey who the party tends to rely on to help round us out and cover our butts and guide us down the right path.
Current (3.5) game: Human Wizard/MasterTransmuter/UnseenHand, Asaamar Ranger, Human Barbarian

Power, up! Power, up!
The enabler who turns the party from goons into gods. Every game, we have one or more buff-monkeys, and they are both treasured ad neglected.
Current (3.5) game: Human Wizard/MasterTransmuter/UnseenHand, Human Cleric/Loremaster

The failed concept
It seems the every game we have someone who looks okay in theory, but just can't execute. I guess every group needs a sidekick :P
Current (3.5) game: Human Barbarian


Mergy wrote:

Technically, a ranger doesn't have a caster level until 4, but other than that, it could work.

You don't need a caster to use a wand just have a class spell list with CLW on it. Rangers have one. As do Paladins.


Starbuck_II wrote:


Dude Rangers can get Trapfinding with an archetype at 1st. And can use CLw wands (pool money together so by 2nd level you have one).
Yes, at level 1 you play like 1st edition clerics (no cure spells) and are just melee/ranged warriors.
4 hulking barbarians: specialize, 1 is face, one is tactics, 1 is brute strength, and 1 is tank.

Basically, the A-team.

Funnily enough the system I proposed still manages to cover this. Even funnier is that you probably won't end up taking any crossclass skills to make it happen. In fact you can still do all those roles with three characters rather than 4. Traits make this possible.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Mergy wrote:

Technically, a ranger doesn't have a caster level until 4, but other than that, it could work.

You don't need a caster to use a wand just have a class spell list with CLW on it. Rangers have one. As do Paladins.

That's one way to read it, but uncommon, in my region at least. Everyone I've met except one has read it as you not having that spell list until you are a spellcaster at 4th. It could also be read as a 'caster' with it on their spell list, in which you are not a caster.

I'd be interested in what a PFS DM (or better yet, a Paizo person) has to say about it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Here.

Quote:
Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level Paladin.


Thanks, TOZ.

Edit: I think my 3.x days are interfering.

Shadow Lodge

De nada.

Actually, pretty sure it was the same in 3rd.

Edit: Yup.


TOZ, you've done something with your hair.
And, oops. (Shrug. I don't 'think' anybody died over it.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

*puts the hood down* What, it's dramatic!

Dark Archive

Whoops, I suppose I learned something new today.

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Roles: what are they All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.