| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My initial thought was rogue, but it seems like there is a lot of rogue hate going on in this edition.
My advice: Bard. Unlike rogues, everybody loves bards.
Or a rogue. Rogues are awesome at tactical combat. Keep your Acrobatics high and be the paladin's flank buddy and all that sneak attack damage is just the cat's bananas.
But under no circumstances should you be a rogue. They suck in Pathfinder.
Bard or ranger or summoner. Take the archetypes that make you better than a rogue at his own job. Max out bluff and tell everyone that you are a rogue.
This party would benifit from someone filling the rogue role. Unfortunately the rogue is one of the worse options for doing this.
|
Character Picker says: That's a pretty well rounded party! I would suggest bard or rogue. Or, if you want ranged, urban barbarian wouldn't hurt.
Maybe they need a ranged damage dealer. The Zen Archer Monk could be wonderful.
Or, you could be a Ninja. They are slightly better than a plain rogue, it seems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sad that they're terrible.
They're really not.
So, since a rogue is not that strong, perhaps a Ranger? And attempt to find an archetype that makes them more rogue-like, put some points in stealth and disable device?
Trapper and freebooter or urban ranger.
|
Archivist Bard. Fill the trapfinding/lockpicking roll and still do most of the good bardic stuff. Try going with a few ranged feats and become a decent archer. Not great damage but consistent is fine. You will be helping with buffing, de-buffing and supporting the whole party so doing awesome damage isn't really important.
Bard was my first thought also, covers a lot of useful utility that may have gotten skipped over.
Same story for ranger, I prefer the urban variant myself, covers a lot of skill things like the rogue, but also gives you some damn effective combat prowess as well. In any case, make sure you can use a wand of CLW. Everybody loves someone who can heal.
I pulled the same thing, jumped into a campaign as a ranger, and I was the most useful member of the party.
The main reason why people hate on rogues is because these two classes exist and can do, plus some.
For core only, bard may be more effective.
So, since a rogue is not that strong, perhaps a Ranger? And attempt to find an archetype that makes them more rogue-like, put some points in stealth and disable device?
I'm a fan of the Urban Ranger for its ability to disable magical traps which in my opinion is the only reason to play a rogue.
Favored Community is kind of lame but can have situational benefits, but you still get Favored Enemy, which is your combat bread and butter.
I like to go switch hitter for good ranged ability but even better melee capabilities. With you and the paladin + yours and the druids animal companions, You should have melee pretty well covered.
The Trapper Ranger does the disable device shtick better, but I don't like giving up spell-casting, especially when Instant Enemy is so powerful.
If you decide to go with Urban Ranger, ask your GM what communities you can expect to be spending most your time in, and select those.
EDIT: Ahh. Core only? Then I guess it depends on how bad you need someone who can disable traps, i'd go with core Rogue for that, otherwise I still like the Switch Hitter Ranger for that group core or not.
I second Archaeologist Bard. Good spellcasting, better trapfinding than a rogue, and everyone loves the buffs. They make decent archers as well. Lots of skills.
Edit: If its core only, I still would go with bard. You lose some of the roguish goodness but become stronger in the other areas.
For core I would go Rogue or Monk. Archer rangers are neat but keeping track of arrows is a pain.
To the OP: If your edit window is still open maybe you should bold "Core Only" in your OP. Apparently the majority of replies missed it.
Then I would recommend bard or ranger. In home games a character with trap finding is more of an annoyance than anything. Neither me nor the DMs I play for will put in traps (that a skill check can solve) unless their is a rogue in the party.
There are not any archetypes in the core book. So I would think you are correct, no archetypes.
To the OP: If your edit window is still open maybe you should bold "Core Only" in your OP. Apparently the majority of replies missed it.Unfortunately it looks like I can't edit it anymore (not clear on the rules, this is my first posting).
Does core-only mean no archetypes? I've been reading the d20pfsrd site quite a bit and have figured that there are tons of races and classes that don't apply, but I've not figured out how archetypes fit into that mix. Thanks!
Yeah, no archetypes.. I believe that came in with the Advanced Players Guide.
A while ago I petitioned the people from d20pfsrd.com to create a global filter option so that one could filter out the content from books that are not allowed, but they basically said they couldn't do it. (I personally think that they can do it, and looking at their site setup, I really don't think it would even be that hard to do, but I digress)
From what you have said you already have 3 full casters, so you don't really need more. That said, with everyone having spells, it would be good for you to have some as well just so you aren't left out. You mention a Zen Archer Monk, but that's not core. For core only I would go with Ranger.
Focus on two-handed weapon fighting, but take the archery combat style to go switch hitter. It is a simple, but effective build. Gives you plenty of options out of combat and good abilities in combat. You already have a druid in the party, so you nature focus is not out-of-place.
Play a rogue, they only become outdated and underpowered when additional books granting other classes trap-finding.
No they are not as good in combat as about any other intermediate base attack class, but you know what, they are not supposed to be. Skills to find traps can save a parties life. High perception also is a boon to the party allowing to help in maybe alerting them to ambushes.
You could also do the social aspect, the face, you have the skill points for it.
|
That party needs a meat shield badly.Is the Paladin not a good enough meat shield? A lot of recommendations for the switch-hitter ranger build, which seems reasonable.
Can someone explain what the bard is actually good for? A lot of those buffs just seem pretty meh at best, at least in the lower levels. I don't know what level I'll be rolling at yet, but the low level bard seems fairly underwhelming.
Bards are great as support characters...you might be surprised...but that said...see all the responses that say rogue? They are nowhere near as bad as their reputation. I'm not saying 'Play a rogue'...but you asked what would compliment the group...and you seem to have an interest in rogues. What I'm really getting it is...play a rogue if you want to. All the nonsense about them being horrible is precisely that...nonsense. Rogues STILL fulfill their niche like no other class does.
|
|
For what it's worth, here are my thoughts.
You can find the core rulebook here on the Paizo site. Under the grey "LINKS" heading, you want "PRD".
I often read on these posts that some of the archetypes and alternate classes are "better rogues than rogues", but I have no direct experience with them, so I cannot say.
My first PFS character is a clone of the pregen Merisiel. While I am not the best at anything, I am competent at almost everything. The character's flexibility means that she can almost always contribute something useful in any situation. BUT that is PFS, where the party makeup changes at each session.
Having played alongside bards, I will tell you that they are fantastic damage multipliers. They make everyone more likely to hit in combat. The rogue's sneak attack is also useful in combat.
If traps are a significant factor, for crb only, go rogue.
The prd includes ultimate magic and ultimate combat, so be careful.
Despite the fact that no one talks about it, tracking is always useful
Bards get versatile performance which is great for skills.
If you need someone with disable device, and you need it to be crb only, rogue is the only option.
If the campaign is highly combat oriented, having a high Stealth skilled PC two move actions (60' or thereabouts) ahead of the party scouting out the next encounter can be a huge boon. That meatface paladin in a noisy tin-can suit can't do that for you at all.
Granted, you can do that as a switch-hitter ranger. You could do worse than either the ranger or the rogue, honestly. The rogue is going to edge out the switch-hitter in close-quarters combat (sneak attack is really quite good, in that respect) plus can disarm magical traps, pop locks, and the like.
If your decision comes down to either class, be assured that they both provide combat viability and flexibility, just in different areas and in different methods.
Well you can definitely talk to your GM. It's always a good idea.
You mentioned a combat heavy game, so I suggested Ranger. In a more balanced game, then Rogue is fine. I know they do fine in my games.
As for a Bard, I actually think they would be less useful in this group. You really only have one melee to buff, plus maybe the Druid's animal companion, and you already have three full casters that have it covered. I know people love Bards, but it would seem redundant and less effective in this particular group.
|
|
You mentioned a combat heavy game, so I suggested Ranger. In a more balanced game, then Rogue is fine. I know they do fine in my games.
I like your suggestion. Switch hitter gives me both ranged and melee capability. As a ranger, I can still sneak to scout, just lose being the face (which is minimal utility in this game) and lose trap disarming (which is probably also of minimal utility). But I gain versatility in combat, which since its combat oriented is probably key.
I mostly just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something that I was overlooking majorly, and it doesn't really appear to be so. Thanks for the advice!
Rangers can definitely be excellent scouts...usually better outside, but competent in a dungeon, too. If that's what you want...play the ranger.
|
You mentioned a combat heavy game, so I suggested Ranger. In a more balanced game, then Rogue is fine. I know they do fine in my games.
I like your suggestion. Switch hitter gives me both ranged and melee capability. As a ranger, I can still sneak to scout, just lose being the face (which is minimal utility in this game) and lose trap disarming (which is probably also of minimal utility). But I gain versatility in combat, which since its combat oriented is probably key.
I mostly just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something that I was overlooking majorly, and it doesn't really appear to be so. Thanks for the advice!
One thing I would like to encourage you to remember, along with getting along with the group, you have to get along with your character.
If you're looking at multiple options, err in favor of what you'll enjoy more. It'll help your team mates too, because you'll enjoy yourself more and be more involved in the game. :)
I would go with a archer bard/ arcane archer.
Personally I always want to be useful, which is the point of optimization in the first place.
Rogues are only variably useful, I've found that rangers are pretty much always useful.
Switch hitting is the ideal way to play for the multitude of options (and lack of ability to fly without multi-classing). But depending on stat allotment it may not be ideal, what are the parameters for character creation? That is also a significant factor in how much you can do with certain character concepts.
|
|
Personally I always want to be useful, which is the point of optimization in the first place.
Rogues are only variably useful, I've found that rangers are pretty much always useful.Switch hitting is the ideal way to play for the multitude of options (and lack of ability to fly without multi-classing). But depending on stat allotment it may not be ideal, what are the parameters for character creation? That is also a significant factor in how much you can do with certain character concepts.
I can always manage to be useful with a rogue. YMMV.
I can always manage to be useful with a rogue. YMMV.Personally I always want to be useful, which is the point of optimization in the first place.
Rogues are only variably useful, I've found that rangers are pretty much always useful.Switch hitting is the ideal way to play for the multitude of options (and lack of ability to fly without multi-classing). But depending on stat allotment it may not be ideal, what are the parameters for character creation? That is also a significant factor in how much you can do with certain character concepts.
When I compare the main abilities of tracking vs trapfinding at least. I should have clarified my statement.