hello all. once more im in need of the benefit of experience that I lack. im about to turn level 2 in pathfinder society and thus will not be able to make changes in less than a weeks time. so I need to get the perspective of those who have played more than I.
my problem is that my preferred character type is the face but my experience in society seems to indicate that most modules don't need a face. so far every problem can be solved with a big axe and indeed most of the time its the only way to do it. a "face" can have a moment or two but he is not the same as he might be in a traditional campaign. Anyone disagree?
Any way as a result I wish to make a build that incorporates more combat into the build. after some consideration I have decided that I will play a monk or a melee based inquisitor. So which is more effective between the two?
my opinion is that the monk is better for killing spellcasters and the inquisitor is safer for the rest but im not sure. if it matters im favoring the ki mystic/four winds/quingon monk the most because for its diversity and support but I cant get that inquisitor out of my head.
Related note: Is there a faction other than cheliax that would favor a rock star's lifestyle of rocking, rolling, dancing, romancing, but cultured and not filled with brutes?
thx for reading
Inquisitor.
Add the Conversion Inquisition, and be a face as well.
blackbloodtroll wrote: Inquisitor.
Add the Conversion Inquisition, and be a face as well.
Agreed.
Hell, be an Inquisitor of Irori, and you've got face skills, unarmed strikes, and spells.
The monk isn't really any better at killing spellcasters than any other melee class. Inquisitor of Caidan Caylean sounds like what you want for the rock & roll lifestyle. He's then tailor made for Andoran faction. Ale and freedom!
I haven't played PFS myself, but from what I hear diplomacy is often very important, so there should definitely be a place for a face in any group, although it probably depends on who you're playing with. If you play with people who just want to smash things all the time, you'll just have to try to convince them to go for non-combat solutions once in a while.
As to monk vs inquisitor: play whichever you prefer. A monk is a bit harder to get right, as it's easy to end up with a monk that cannot really contribute in combat that well, but now that you've found your way to these forums you can just ask for advice on archetype, feat and ability score choices here if you're unsure.
Inquisitors are a bit easier to get right in combat (high strength, two handed weapon, power attack, done). Also, their bonus to intimidate and sense motive do make an inquisitor slightly better at being the face, and a lot better if you take the conversion inquisition (which I would personally never take, because there are too many cool domains I could take instead).
That said, pretty much anyone can be the face, just get your diplomacy as high as possible. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you need high charisma though: it only gives a minor bonus to face skills and as a monk or inquisitor your cha really shouldn't be above 10-12, as you want decent to good str, dex, con and wis.
Monk takes some serious system mastery to keep up.
Inquisitor takes less, and is more versatile.
Inquisitor. They're better than monks at everything!
There are some other 'face' boosts for Inquisitors besides Conversion Inquisition, that leave you a free Domain choice:
Heretic gains +WIS to Bluff and Stealth (on top of CHA/DEX), Infiltrator does the same with Bluff and Diplomacy.
Yeah. You can be a face, and sneaky, with 7 charisma, and a 10 dex.
Monk and face is bad idea. Monk needs to dumb cha.
If face and melee combat, paladin, inquisitor (with conversion inquisition) or oracle are way to go.
I was talking about the Inquisitor.
Mycomment was about the initial post, its just strange to consider face and monk.
Quandary wrote: Flurry of Face? ;-) An unarmed strike could be you hitting someone with your face. :)
I've just reached level 13/2 on my PFS character and i play an Inquisitor. i wont give you any specifics/spoilers on upper level play, but i will say that while early level scenarios (for the most part) are about hacking and slashing, at upper levels things become less "go kill this and take that" and more "find out who is causing this disturbance and bring them to me, be careful and should they die... you will be speaking to them and reporting to me from beyond the grave." in fact, sometimes its even tougher to find out what you need to know than it would have been to simply kill said person. one time my inquisitor rolled a 17 with a +24 sense motive and was STILL bluffed and death-striked by an assassin. i rolled a 41 on my best skill and got 1-shot by an assassin, and that was OUT of combat.
EDIT: my profile picture, TOTALLY my face when the GM said "ok so Zee stops talking mid-sentence and drops face-first to the carpet, what do you do?" to the Paladin.
I prefer inquisitors to monks. Hereitics/inquisitors and/or conversion inquisition are pretty nifty for making them into faces, if you don't mind losing the domain for an inquisition or trading out monster lore.
Unrelated, if you know an assassin is an assassin, they can't death strike you. I don't know what that has to do with monk vs. inquisitor though. I think inquisitor deals with investigation and the like better than the monk, and that the inquisitor's magic is much more fun and good for versatility. If that matters.
MrSin wrote: I prefer inquisitors to monks. Hereitics/inquisitors and/or conversion inquisition are pretty nifty for making them into faces, if you don't mind losing the domain for an inquisition or trading out monster lore.
Unrelated, if you know an assassin is an assassin, they can't death strike you. I don't know what that has to do with monk vs. inquisitor though. I think inquisitor deals with investigation and the like better than the monk, and that the inquisitor's magic is much more fun and good for versatility. If that matters.
my point with that is that in upper level society play having a face who is specifically geared and specialized to be a face (BARD/ROGUE) is just as important as having a Tank, or a super-dps. my character was a DPS/Face and he died out of combat because the party relied on him to be a face and he wasnt able to do it.
EDIT the question of the OP i was answering was this Renegadeshepherd wrote: my problem is that my preferred character type is the face but my experience in society seems to indicate that most modules don't need a face. so far every problem can be solved with a big axe and indeed most of the time its the only way to do it. a "face" can have a moment or two but he is not the same as he might be in a traditional campaign. Anyone disagree? so more to the point, I DISAGREE, i have played SEVERAL scenarios where a huge Diplomacy or Bluff would have saved us alot of trouble and/or gold.
mostly I think the inquisitor is "better" and was an inquisitor at level one but the GM hates the double wisdom dip for the face AND like I said society so far has not needed a face in my first 3 sessions. its just smash and grab. Soul says I should be patient so ill try.
a monk being a face isn't that much of a stretch actually, though I doubt I will do it. be an aasimar with a dip of lore oracle and u can have a character based entirely on strength, wisdom, and charisma for almost every aspect of a character except dex based skills. all u would need is noble scion feat for ur initiative and extra revelation feat for charisma to replace intel for knowledge skills/DX. wisdom and charisma would replace a sizeable chunk of ur stats. And people gripe about synthesist? (ok I do too but just because of the HP increase).
Point about monk is:
he needs str to dam and hit
he needs dx for ac
he needs con to avoid being paper
he needs int to learn the face skills
he needs wis for ac and special stuff
he needs cha for being face
If you go monk and face, pick human and use racial option to get a skill focus dipl at lev 1 and skill focus bluff at lev 8 and dumb cha.
carn wrote: Point about monk is:
he needs str to dam and hit
he needs dx for ac
he needs con to avoid being paper
he needs int to learn the face skills
he needs wis for ac and special stuff
he needs cha for being face
If you go monk and face, pick human and use racial option to get a skill focus dipl at lev 1 and skill focus bluff at lev 8 and dumb cha.
traditional thinking yes, but like I said a dip in oracle makes dex the dump stat. id do a build like this...
st 14
dx 7
con 12
int 12
wis 14 (16)
CHA 16 (18)
1st feat noble scion
3rd extra revelation for DX conversion.
or even forget noble scion and bump initiative another way and go power attack for 3rd level feat. dealers choice.
ur set on face skills and knowledge skills but that's it. ki mystic makes knowledge even better, what ones u can get that is. lv 2 get 19 AC, reflex and will are great saves at about +6-7 but fort needs a little help with traits.
sry, I didn't mean to get into a monk debate. just meant to say with a dip most any type of character can be another type (if only the backup) until u get fairly deep into levels.
which revelation is that dx conversion?
sidestep secret: converts charisma instead of dex for the purposes of AC and reflex saves.
Lore keeper: charisma instead of intel for knowledge skill checks.
why not go oracle instead of monk?
carn wrote: why not go oracle instead of monk? don't like the rest of lore or oracle. but I like monk and inquisitor. just needed counsel on which was better for fighting.
if you have to multiclass in case of monk, which reduces bab, inquisitor.
|
