Like I said in the other thread, it looks like I might be playing in a Pathfinder game soon. I should probably try it out sooner or later anyway.
I haven't had time to give the book a very close look just yet, but from what little I've seen I might be most interested in the Druid. It seems to strike a good balance between versatility and focus. It also seems to be the most interesting (though not most efficient) way to play the healer, and let's face it, I'm probably going to get stuck playing the healer. I do often enough that I need to have a plan for that.
One thing I will point out is that in pathfinder you dont need someone who explicately is the 'healer'. You need someone with access to heal and condition removal spells, but you should not spend most of your actions in encounters casting healing spells, only in emergencies. If you have to constantly heal in combat, something is off about the difficulty or the capabilities of the party.
Speaking of healers, does Pathfinder have anything like 4E's minor action heals? Such a simple idea, but it helped A LOT. Seriously when you've played healers in every edition since 2E you know how huge that was. There's a reason why the Warlord was the most fun healer ever- because you actually got to FIGHT. (as well as all the great tactical options)
No really, clerics channel and the witch's healing hex at least allow you not to spend resources (spells) on healing as much, but it will still cost actions. Hence why most dont recommend a dedicated healer. But if you are going to be one, druid may not be the best choice. It will cost you your precious spells and you will have to prepare those spells as heals. Kind of a poor use of the druids magical resources if you ask me. If you do end up as a druid I would talk to the dm about the availability of cure wands and potions so you dont get stuck burning all your spells every day as heals.
I like the feel and mechanics of the Druid from what I've seen so far- spell casting, wild shape, animal companion, etc but I'll need to study it more closely before I know for sure.
Druids are among the most powerful and versetile classes in the game. You can do just about anything with one, but be sure to prepare for it. Wild shape for instance isnt the one stop shop it used to be, its just a boost (a big boost mind you) if you are feeble with no combat abilities, wild shape wont fix that, but if you are already pretty good at combat as a normal druid, wild shape makes you badass (particularly with your animal companion buddy backing you up).
On the other hand, I might not want to jump right into a caster right off the bat. Maybe I should start with something simpler if I can. How's the Barbarian? Is the Fighter 2/Barbarian 18 build still strong? (no pun intended) Or is it no longer worth it? Is there any way to get all the benefits of the Barbarian plus plate mail? I could revamp one of my old characters, who was a lot of fun despite the way I built him all wrong. I could try it again only smarter.
Multiclassing is not as good in pathfinder as it was in 3.5. Every class has abilities that scale with class level, and there are favored class bonuses, so mixing classes really does give something up in pfrpg. That said, the barbarian is pretty aweseome all on his own. I dont think you need to mix in fighter to make it work anymore. The rage powers make them a force straight barbarian.
And as a barbarian you could theoretically use mithral full plate (which counts as medium armor) as long as you have the proficiency.
I kind of like Rogues, it's just that I've never played one without multiclassing and even then not much.
Rogues have some issues, they probably got the least attention of any class in the switchover to pathfinder. If you want a rogue, go ninja from ultimate combat. It is kind of what the rogue should have been, though without trapfinding.
If I am not shoehorned and can choose anything what should I go with? Ideally I want something that:
-Is complex enough to keep me from getting bored yet simple enough that I can play it even though I haven't touched 3.5 since 4E came out.
-Has at least decent versatility and isn't completely useless outside of its specialty. (Fighters still get 2 skill points? Really?) Can Barbarians track? Are they interesting even in combat?
-Is powerful enough to be effective but not so game breaking that I feel bad about playing it.
Barbarian might be a really good bet. They are fairly simple to pick up but their rage powers keep things interesting in time, and like you said they can track, with pretty descent outdoorsy skills.
Paladin is also in that category, but it depends on if you like that kind of theme or not.
|
To start, here are guides to all the classes and then some: Comprehensive Guide to the Guides Here are a variety of builds to cherrypick: Guide to the Builds
Regarding your specific questions:
The Druid is a great balanced class, but not the best healer. Clerics are great healers and somewhat balanced (though are often to busy to do anything but heal).
The Quicken metamagic feat will allow you to cast healing spells as a move action. The Quick Channel feat will allow you to channel (Cleric and Paladin's burst healing) as a move action. They aren't minor actions, but they do free up your major action for something else (even an additional heal if you like).
Casters and spells are completely different from how they operate in 4E. But if you have played 3.5, you likely understand that.
Barbarian is fun, and certainly more interesting than a fighter. It still might not have the complexity you are looking for though.
I love rogues, but some people on the boards think they are underpowered. To be honest, they might be right. Luckily the utility of so many skills and trapfinding makes up for the slight inefficiency in combat. If you want a straight up better rogue, try the Ninja. Virtually just a better rogue, I find the Ninja a very powerful class with awesome utility and flexibility. If you don't like the flavor, you and your GM can always look at it.
I get the sense that Fighters and possible Barbarians may be too boring for you. ChainsawSam has a good idea with the Inquisitor, which is basically a very complex martial guy who dips into everything. If you like the Rogue, the Ninja is a great bet. Druid is complex, but its hard to go wrong with so many options.
But check out the guides and builds to get a better sense of what you want.
PS: I made the switch, and I've never gone back.
EDIT: Paladin actually could be great for you. Healing, not to complicated, interesting, with swift action self healing and resource management. If you like the flavor, that could be great.
Don't discount the Alchemist!
Wacky buff spells, AOE bombs galore, creepy mutagens, and lots of fun all around, even if you don't go with the OP archetypes.
Human is always a good choice, no matter the class, mainly because of the extra feat at 1st lv.
I haven't had time to give the book a very close look just yet, but from what little I've seen I might be most interested in the Druid. It seems to strike a good balance between versatility and focus.
Druids are very good, but they are also the most complicated character. As long as you realize that the [polymorph] tag on Wild Shape has rules effects, and that your Animal Companion has nothing to do with anything from the Bestiaries, you should be good to go.
It also seems to be the most interesting (though not most efficient) way to play the healer, and let's face it, I'm probably going to get stuck playing the healer. I do often enough that I need to have a plan for that.Speaking of healers, does Pathfinder have anything like 4E's minor action heals? Such a simple idea, but it helped A LOT. Seriously when you've played healers in every edition since 2E you know how huge that was. There's a reason why the Warlord was the most fun healer ever- because you actually got to FIGHT. (as well as all the great tactical options)
In this edition, you heal between the fights, and the bulk of the healing comes from cheap wands.
On the other hand, I might not want to jump right into a caster right off the bat. Maybe I should start with something simpler if I can. How's the Barbarian?
I kind of like Rogues, it's just that I've never played one without multiclassing and even then not much.
-Is complex enough to keep me from getting bored yet simple enough that I can play it even though I haven't touched 3.5 since 4E came out.-Has at least decent versatility and isn't completely useless outside of its specialty.
The Barbarian is fine. He kills things and gets somewhat relevant abilities at higher levels. There's a lot of utterly b@%%+*$* trap options (seriously, a lot). There's these things called "totems", groups of rage powers; you can only have one, and it's called Beast Totem. Getting plate mail is easy.
The Rogue still sucks. There's a slightly less sucky Rogue called the Ninja, and a far, far better one called the Vivisectionist Alchemist.
Magus, Alchemist and Inquisitor are 3 new half-fighting, half-casting classes that IMO are right in the sweet spot.
Barbarian could work. I don't mind playing melee characters at all, in fact that can be fun. The toughness can be really nice too. What I don't like is doing the same thing all the time and having no real tactical options or out of combat utility. Or being too easy to completely stymie. I could revamp an old character who was a LOT of fun though. If I can plot every decision ever on a simple flow chart (In melee? Yes- full attack, No- charge, DONE) then that is less interesting.
With the variety of rage powers there is SOME variety in what you will be doing when you get to mid levels, but as a frontliner, most of the time, your actions will be full attack.
Druid would be better in a lot of ways. I suppose I could turn into a bear and fight in melee if need be. Not as effectively, but it's an option. What's better, elf or gnome? Or human for that matter...
I'd say human, elf and gnome dont do a huge amount for a wildshaping druid.
- Witch. I'm playing a Warlock already in a 4E Dark Sun game- this might be a bit redundant.
Witches arent damage dealers though. The warlock is a striker. Witches are debuffing and control. The theme is sort of similar, but in terms of what you will actually be doing they are very different.
- Summoner. Something about being a one trick pony (Celestial Dire Wolf- I choose you!) doesn't seem appealing, especially if it's known as a power gaming thing. That and micromanaging templates etc.
The summoner is about as far from being a one trick pony as you can be. Sure you have your ultra powerful eidlon smasher. But you also have summoner monster as spell like ability which you could use instead, you have a solid spell selection, and you have evolution surge and transmogriphy spells to adjust your eidolons abilities on the fly. You also dont have to build your eidolon to smash things if you dont want to. It can do pretty much anything you want it to.
- Inquisitor. Tempting. I'll have to consider it. How much does choice of deity really matter for divine classes? Still, I've played so many Clerics...
Choice of diety matters in so much as you are not a priecher, you are that deities enforcer. From a roleplay perspective its really important. From a mechanical perspective it determines your available domains/inquisitions.
- Paladin. So Paladin is strong? That's good. I've only played one once (in 3.5) and that was very briefly. My whole character concept was "Can I be Not Nice and still be LG and a team player?" so that didn't give me much to go on. How's the greatsword route? My favorite WOW character by far was a Paladin tank though FWIW.
Paladins with 2handed weapons work very very well. And they make great frontliners. Among the best since they can swift action heal themselves with lay on hands, and smite now gives a defensive as well as offensive buff. If you are smiting, you are the best in the business in my view.
|
|
Feel free to house rule away Detect Alignment or get it replaced in an archetype. I always do. One aspect of a system that is easily house-ruled to fit your needs should not determine how you like the system as a whole.
Keep in mind that as a Human paladin with 10 Int taking the skilled favored class bonus, you get 4 skill points a level. If you really want to dump int down to 7, you still get 3 skill points a level. With a few traits and well rounded ability scores to evenly boost your skills, its not so bad. Anyway, you've got low level spells for utility. Obviously its no rogue or bard, but you'll still be able to do things out of combat.
Anyway, that's the price Paladin's pay - if you want a class with lots of skills, look elsewhere or boost int.
I've looked a little at the Inquisitor and Paladin. They do look good overall, though the Paladin has only 2 skill points, again with a class that has Int as a dump. Ugh, just... ugh.
My main problem with both classes though is that they have such a game-breaking spell as an at will ability. I really don't feel good about that. Detect Alignment absolutely should have been removed. I wish Paizo had felt more free to change a lot of things TBH. (Confirming crits? Really?)
I dont think the detect x was something they wanted to remove. Particularly for paladins. Its kind of critical for them. I dont feel its as gamebreaking as you think unless the world is completely black and white, and/or no one of importance takes precaution. Non-detections exists just as detect x does. If a dm has an inquisitor or a paladin in the party, he should be concious of using the tools in the system to keep important npcs hidden if their alignment is an issue.
4E did away with Detect Alignment (even for Paladins) and I never heard even one person say they missed it. It's a PALADIN. His worldview IS black and white, even in a setting like Eberron. He has a mandate to destroy evil and he can detect it at will and basically without fail, unless every goblin has some kind of counter magic. What do you think he's going to do? Even a die hard roleplayer will see that the character would of course use the resources he has and act upon the information he has.
If someone indescrimenantly kills everything that 'pings' evil, they dont get to play paladins at my table. Actually one of hte cool things paizo has done is actually release paladin codes in faiths of purity. So no, paladins dont always destroy everything they can kill. There is actually room in the default paladin code to work with evil if its necessary. And some of the codes include a mandate to attempt to reform or redeem evil.
So every even remotely subtle villain has to have some kind of magic to obscure his alignment and how does that work? Does the Paladin get static? That's not suspicious...
Detect X is a yes or no question. Hide alignment spell up, detect x doesnt show you as x. You sort of detect as true neutral to an inquisitor, nothing pings.
So the DM can't actually use any evil NPCs? They all have to hide in a hole somewhere? Otherwise "It pings, I kill it." It's some politically powerful person? Fine, he goes to the church and they kill it. Whole plots go down the drain just because the party has the ability to instantly discern opposition without even a skill check.
Aside from whats mentioend above, for paladins at least there is a very simple fix for this. Custom and ettiquette could make the casting of a spell on someone for no apparent reason in bad taste or even illegal. A serious hamper for the Lawful types. If a paladin is just pinging everyone he meats, again thats like hooking a lie detector or taking a dna swab from everyone you meet. Its not acceptable for a number of reasons.
The first villain I ever wrote up for 4E was a middling noble and FIGHTER who just happened to be a skilled politician. I did that just because I finally could. The best villain so far in the current game was another fighter and leader of a rival party who weren't obviously evil at first. Neither would have lasted one session in a 5E or 3E game.
They would last just fine if they have access to a relatively minor magical item, or a spell cast once a day on them by a cleric or bard.
4E did away with Detect Alignment (even for Paladins) and I never heard even one person say they missed it. It's a PALADIN. His worldview IS black and white, even in a setting like Eberron. He has a mandate to destroy evil and he can detect it at will and basically without fail, unless every goblin has some kind of counter magic. What do you think he's going to do? Even a die hard roleplayer will see that the character would of course use the resources he has and act upon the information he has.
Please read the spell description. Basically, unless a cleric/paladin (or other class with the Aura feature), outsider, or undead, any creature with 4 HD or less gives "no result" on detect (chaos/evil/good/law). At higher levels, there's also misdirection.
As others have stated, a paladin who goes around using detect evil on every NPC and attacking anyone who "pings" is going to fall, and fall hard. An evil alignment does not necessarily mean "menace to society" or "psychopath who sacrifices small children for giggles" stereotypes; it could be a greedy merchant (NE expert 5) who doesn't care about his employees or customers (pays as low a wage as he can and will sell shoddy goods if someone will pay for it; caveat emptor), but (other than possibly some minor black market trading and/or smuggling) hasn't actually broken any laws or directly harmed anyone. A paladin who kills the merchant "because he's evil" should not only lose all paladin abilities, but should be tried and convicted for murder. Paladin =/= Lawful Stupid.