|
As the title asks/ I'm going to be playing in a core only game soon where the rest of the party is a fighter, monk and sorcerer, and I have three character ideas and am not sure which to go with. I've listed them below...
A)Support Cleric- Since they don't have any divine casting or UMDers, I was thinking of making a support-type cleric. Domains would be nobility and either law or travel, they would channel positive and focus their spellcasting primarily on buffs, healing and utility rather then offensive casting, which would allow me to keep my starting wis at 16 post-racial and have a more well-rounded stat set-up.(Unlike most clerics I'll actually be able to squeeze a 14 in cha.)
In combat, this guy would be focused on buffing and at lower levels would actually be a viable secondary melee character. At higher levels he becomes a viable secondary offensive caster, with access to powerful no-save spells like Holy Word and the ability to use things like Planar Ally and summon spells to field powerful allies. Outside of combat, this guy would be fairly versatile, and would be both the healer, secondary face(or primary face if the sorc didn't bother taking any social skills), a bit of a utility caster and also the party taxi if I take the travel domain. If you want an idea of what this build would be like, see Tak's cleric handbook entry for the support cleric.
B)Arcane Trickster- The Arcane trickster fills three roles that the current party lacks: the smart guy, the skill monkey and the prepared caster, and all three are things they could use. Since we have a fullcasting arcanist already, this guy would be less about being the "caster" and more about being 'MacGuiver with spells." Being part wizard, part rogue, he'd have the skills and/or spells to handle pretty much everything the party can't deal with(which is quite a few things with it's current layout) and outside of combat would most definitely be the party's MVP. Inside of combat, he'd be versatile enough, and while he'd primarily be a "caster' if need be he could flank and not suck at mundane combat, at least at lower levels.
He'd be less of a combatant overall, but would seriously pick up the slack when it comes to the party's weakest areas..versatility and out of combat effectiveness. He'd be the party taxi, the spy, the scout and so many other things rolled into one. The downside of this build though, and it's a BIG one, is that since it's core only there is no traits, which means no magical knack. However, the party is all new players, and fairly nu-optimized ones at that, so the benefits of this build may outweigh that con? Another benefit of this guy would be that the party has no high-int characters, and since this guy would be int-focused he'd give the party some real brains.
C)Bardic Archer- The mid-point between A) and B) without truly being both, this character mixes skills with support, and actually can be pretty effective in combat, too! While he will be a worse healer then the cleric, he will be able to match him at buffing. While he will be worse with skills then the arcane trickster, he will have some good ones and with bardic knowledge can still be the "smart guy" without actually being all that smart. Combat-wise, he's better off then the arcane trickster in what he does; staying at range, buffing and deal respectable damage with his arrows.
Versatility-wise, he's less versatile then the arcane trickster by far, since he can't deal with a lot of the situations he can, but is still versatile enough. He can't really be the scout or spy, but he's an awesome face and as stated before, bardic knowledge allows him to fake being the smart guy who makes knowledge checks. This build would be a nice balance between the first 2, but really replaces neither. He can't res dead party members or bring as much healing to the table as the cleric nor does he have the versatility of the trickster when it comes to out of combat situations, but he brings some parts of first two to the table while also having combat viability.
So, which build out of these three would you go with?
I also vote for the bard archer. Yeah, you might be a little short on heals, but I find it's more fun to play without a safety net. A cleric might be a better choice mechanically, but I'd still go bard.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
It sounds like your are considering the cleric just to fill a gap in the party. I would reject that option if you're not truly interested in doing that. You don't want to get in a long term game with a character you resent even slightly.
There would be a lot of overlap between the AT and the sorcerer. I'm not saying that's bad and I love playing ATs but it's something to be aware of.
Honestly I think you'd be happiest and most distinct with the bard option, based on the summary you've given.
Honestly it's too bad there isn't a divine version of AT - some sort of "divine rogue" is a niche that is mostly unexplored, at least in Pathfinder.
Personally, I would play Bard, because I have had a LOT of fun playing the party Bard. With wands of Cure Light, you can easily be the party healer. The buffs are great for everyone. Bardic Knowledge is awesome if you need to make knowledge checks.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
Yeah, the main reason I considered cleric was precisely because these are new players, and more likely to need the safety net then most, so you are right on that. I don't mind clerics, but usually prefer the -necromantic- version of the class to the traditional healer one. However, at the same time, I like the idea of a bard mainly because they really lack anybody with knowledge skills and I'm not exactly sure whether or not the sorc took some face skills, which means that having somebody else to do some talking would be useful. As it stands, I'm starting at level 2, since that's they level they are at as I'm replacing a dropped party member, so I'll already have at least 1 versatile performance active and can thus start being the face right away. Also, I'll be taking UMD even if the sorc did too, so at higher levels I'll technically be able to "cheat" and use resurrection scrolls if it becomes a necessity.
As for arcane trickster, yeah...if there was a divine version that would be perfect for what I was going for. I'd love to play a sneaky devotee of the trickster god....but sadly nothing like that exists in PF core...so yeah. Arcane Trickster would be my -ideal- build honestly, but what is scaring me away is the lack of magical knack. Can I survive without it if I went that route? Or is it that important that not having it makes the class worthless? The reason I prefer arcane trickster to bard is -mostly- fluff. I find music in combat to be fairly....lame...fluff-wise. However, Perform oratory(Rousing speeches, mystical chants, villain monolouges if evil etc...), perform act(a general manipulator skill, kinda a different flavor of disguise) and perform comedy(don't need to explain why, here) are all things that don't require my character to be a musician of any kind, so I actually enjoy the bard class in that respect; not every bard has to be a musician, they can easily be anything from an inspiring general to a ham-y evil mastermind to a fun guy who just likes to crack jokes(comedy) and tell stories(oratory). However, the arcane trickster makes a much better serious evil sociopath(When the bard does it he usually is the ham-y, vaudevillian-esc overlord type alla beast wars megatron(Which IMO is very fun to play. Yessssss). When the arcane trickster does it he's the truely nasty, dark character that just oozes bad***ery.), which is why I enjoy it so much.
Cleric for effectiveness, but the bard might be more fun.
How about an Archery Cleric (Play an Elf to get the proficiency bonus)?
Other than that, Bards rock the world.
|
|
Never thought of an archer cleric. That, IMO, would be quite fun to try. The only issue I'd have is that my channeling would be crap due to needing to dump charisma entirely to get the stats to work. However, as a plus that means I could, if I really wanted to, play an -evil- cleric and have nobody care that I can't channel well because I'd be channeling negative anyway....and I do like evil clerics....
Quick question, would it be possible to get away with less then 14 strength? Such as, say 12 or heck, even 10 strength or something like that? That way I'd have more to play with and unlike the bard as a cleric I could boost strength easily if I really wanted to...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian. Wait that wasn't a choice? Barbarian. No, now I've just confused myself.
Yeah, the main reason I considered cleric was precisely because these are new players, and more likely to need the safety net then most, so you are right on that. I don't mind clerics, but usually prefer the -necromantic- version of the class to the traditional healer one. However, at the same time, I like the idea of a bard mainly because they really lack anybody with knowledge skills and I'm not exactly sure whether or not the sorc took some face skills, which means that having somebody else to do some talking would be useful. As it stands, I'm starting at level 2, since that's they level they are at as I'm replacing a dropped party member, so I'll already have at least 1 versatile performance active and can thus start being the face right away. Also, I'll be taking UMD even if the sorc did too, so at higher levels I'll technically be able to "cheat" and use resurrection scrolls if it becomes a necessity.
As for arcane trickster, yeah...if there was a divine version that would be perfect for what I was going for. I'd love to play a sneaky devotee of the trickster god....but sadly nothing like that exists in PF core...so yeah. Arcane Trickster would be my -ideal- build honestly, but what is scaring me away is the lack of magical knack. Can I survive without it if I went that route? Or is it that important that not having it makes the class worthless?
I know this isn't helpful here, since you are using only core, but...
There's nothing in the Arcane Trickster entry on "Spells per Day" that says you have to increase the casting of an arcane spell-casting class, which means, if you're willing to dip three levels of wizard or use an aasimar or tiefling for the SLA to get a 2nd-level arcane spell (better), you can take a level in cleric and advance as an arcane trickster, bumping your cleric spell casting, making a "sneaky devotee of the trickster god". You would need access to mage hand which you can get with the Minor Magic Rogue talent.
A tiefing rogue 3/cleric 1/arcane trickster 10 would cast as an 11th level cleric (does mass inflict moderate wounds seem any nicer with an extra 7d6 sneak attack damage tacked on?...slay living for ??) Hmmm...can you "sneak attack" your allies when they aren't looking with a surprise spell mass cure moderate wounds?
It's not likely to be as optimal as a blaster wizard/sorcerer/arcane trickster (if that's even something considered optimal), but looks fun.
Here's how you make an Archery Cleric:
Human cleric of Erastil
STR 14, DEX 14, CON 12, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 13+2
You can swap a 14 CHA and a 13+2 WIS or DEX if you like; it's all about which of those you want to see get a +3 bonus at 4th level first, and there's really no wrong choice.
Human Feat: Point Blank Shot
General Feat: Selective Channel or Precise Shot
3rd level feat: Selective Channel or Precise Shot (the one you didn't get last time.)
Your spells are going to focus on ones that DON'T have saving throws for the most part.
You are not the party skill monkey. :)
===
Elven Cleric of Anyone You Like
STR 14, DEX 14+2, CON 12-2, INT 10+2, WIS 14, CHA 13+2
(Same stat array)
Feat: Point Blank Shot
It will take you until 5th level to get both Precise Shot and Selective Channel. This is less effective than the Human build initially, but gets more weapon proficiencies, plus low light vision.
|
If you can accept that you will be virtually useless in combat, I would go with the Arcane Trickster. Either of your other builds will be stronger and more effective, but if you are open to the idea of arcane trickster and clearly understand that in any other aspect other than the 'MacGuiver with spells' as you described.
Speaking from experience, this build also requires a commanding presence. You must be the group leader. Caution and problem solving is your forte and if the barbarian* wants to just charge in haphazardly or actively doesn't give a shit about letting you do your think you will be completely useless.
Sell yourself as the party rogue. Claim no combat prowess and full utility and find a way to use your skills at every opportunity you can. You need to make sure your party understands what role you fill and that it is not combat.
That being said, you can end encounters without drawing a weapon. Specialize in divination and use primarily those and illusion spells. This is where your barbar* needs to slow his roll. If he won't wait for you to sneak or come up with a good illusion or even let you cast clairvoyance you will be useless.
Choose the bonded object as your arcane bond as well (for the free spontaneous spell). You won't focus on offensive spells at all.
Outside of combat spells you should rely on scrolls. For that you should keep spell slots empty that you can use to prepare spells and then make your scrolls. This is also why your barbar* needs to chill the f*#% out. If you need a spell you don't have a scroll for you will need to prepare the spell and the barbar* may not want to wait for you.
When you actually do have to fight, I recommend using chill touch or a wand of shocking grasp (remember it gets a +3 to hit on virtually all humanoid enemies or anything else that may have ANYTHING metal). You BAB will be terribly low but you will be targeting touch AC. Don't waste your time with weapons unless your enemy has no armor. Consider weapon finesse for your melee touch attacks but really no other combat feats (perhaps take it as your 1 rogue talent).
*By barbar I don't just mean the barbarian class, but any balls-to-the-wall player in general.
|
I would go with either a Reach cleric or an Archery Cleric myself. They are both very decent builds with CRB only, and will fill the support hole in you party with good multi-person buffs and healing. I would take reach cleric above the archery cleric, as it will allow you to cast on your turn while still being able to get melee attacks from AoOs.
Play the character you want to play! You can make a very intriguing non-standard cleric with just the core rules, if you don't fancy playing the heal-bot. OTPH, bards certainly fill many roles at once: they're the most versitile class in the game, in my opinion.
If you want to go into a sort-of "divine trickster" route, you could use bard to fulfill the arcane spellcaster requirement. If you're playing in Golarion, in canon, bards commonly serve as priests of several deities, including Desna, Shelyn, and Calistria.
You'd have to wait until you were 7th level to enter the prestige class. On the plus side, the rogue/bard combination seems quite complimentary to me.
But, my general advice is that you should play the character you want to play!
|
Any thoughts from your group? I always encourage my players to draw up a party as a collective, and no one should feel pressured to play something they aren't somewhat enthused about. Also, stepping outside your comfort zone and trying a new character isn't a bad idea, and there's nothing to stop you from retiring a character later if it isn't working out. There's 33 core domains and maybe you can randomly select the first domain, try something outside a guidebook or what others say you "should" do.
With that said, imo the cleric fits your group best (brings healing), the bard next (wand use), and the trickster next (skill monkey).
Your party doesn't have a skill monkey.
It doesn't have a great party face (the sorceror doesn't have a lot of skill points to spare).
All this would lead to a bard.
I also usually recommend a bard anytime anyone is debating what character to play because its one of the most versatile classes to play.
Also the bard can heal, and UMD quite well, so wands are easy to use for healing.
And the buffing will certainly help the monk.
|
|
I actually considered a Druid, for a bit, but am very unfamiliar with that class. Right now, I have narrowed it down to the bard or an archery cleric. Both, IMO, would be useful to have. The bard would be doing better on skills, but the cleric would be doing better on spellcasting, support ect... I have played a many a bard in my time, but I've rarely played clerics outside of the few times I've built them as necromancers. Thus, I am actually leaning more towards cleric right now simply to try something a bit out of my comfort zone, however I am still considering the bard.
EDIT: leaning back towards bard now, simply due to the ability to be the face and make knowledge checks. The cleric has FAR less skill points to play with.... I do however, still like the cleric's superior casting...so it's a toss-up
The support cleric can be dull to play, if you want a cleric consider a dwarf or a half orc and get a decent weapon prof for free make str your number one stat and make a combat cleric. You will be rigth there with the figther and the monk in battle and the spell casting will be there even if you spend your feats on weapon focus, power attack, step up and all that jazz. Just make sure you have a two handed weapon and a good str and the rest will be legend. I promise...
|
|
The combat Cleric is alright, but I prefer the imagery of the pretty, agile elven archer cleric reining death from afar to the massive, hulking, ugly brute with a greataxe and 7 cha. The archer cleric is just much more appealing to me RP-wise right now, so if I do go the cleric route I'll almost certainly be making an archer or, if the group is ok with it, a necromancer-type. I am VERY familiar with the way necromancy works, so making a necro cleric would be very easy for me to do. The only "issue" with that is I'll be channeling negative, which would mean less healing for the party BUT since I've already decided I'd be ok with a bard, who will have less healing then even a necro cleric, that's not really a big issue. As stated, the necro cleric can use a wand of cure light wounds, just like a bard can....and the Necromancer just so happens to be my favorite character archtype in the game.
*warning sarcasm*
Why not play a halfling rogue?
*Hides from board Backlash*
*end sarcasm*
I'm fond of an alchemist myself.
*warning sarcasm*
Why not play a halfling rogue?
*Hides from board Backlash*
*end sarcasm*
I'm fond of an alchemist myself.
I Think core only meens just the first book in this thread.
And on the necro/archer it is gonna hurt in the feat departement if you want both, i think.|
|
@ Cap. Darling: I'd not both, that's just dumb. I'd do either archery or necromancy, not both. The archer would be dex-focused mostly, with decent strength just enough wisdom and charisma to get by.(Focusing on spells with no save.) The necromancer, meanwhile, would have minimal dex and instead have high wis, with cha as their secondary stat and more of a focus on con then dex. Two totally different characters ideas, not the same one.
|
|
I know you're asking for advice, but you seem to really be attracted to the idea of Arcane Trickster. I say go for it. You don't see enough tricksters around nowadays. Also, don't forget that you can get sneak attack damage on touch attacks, which means that spells like scorching ray can actually contribute a fair bit of damage as well.
With new players--go with support cleric.
Pump WIS> CHA> STR
Cast command approach and give the new bees free AoOs. Have your own spear too.
Start with selective channel.
It is all about making the newbies happy! We need more players.
Travel domain rocks!
With the builds listed, I would personally go with the archery bard, followed closely by the support cleric.
Personal preference? I'd start as a half-elven cleric, grab a reach weapon, and dip bard at level 2. Everyone likes the charismatic preacher. Especially the charismatic preacher that provides a flanking bonus.
|
|
Dipping bard is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea for a cleric, and you do know that, right? Unless a bard/cleric theurge class was made, there is absolutely no point to doing that. You get a bunch of abilities from bard that will NEVER advance, and you lose out on a CL for it. You either go straight bard or straight cleric, and the only reason you'd even mix the two would be if you where going for something like mystic theurge and even then, there are better ways to enter mystic theurge.(Wizard 3/cleric 1 or sorcerer 4/cleric 1 come to mind) However, that does remind me, do you all think a mystic theurge would be a good character to have around in this group? The trickery domain is, after all, part of core, so I could easily go Cleric 1/Wizard(or sorcerer) 3(or 4 if sorc)/Mystic Theurge 10/Wiz(or sorc) X and get up to 6th level cleric spells(level 11 cleric, essentially) and 9th level wiz/sorc spells. I do very much enjoy the mystic theurge conceptually as well, and it would make for a fun character, to say the least....
|
|
Yeah, for a single caster level loss(cleric with the trickery domain, which IMO is core, allows me to get in with cleric 1/wizard 3) you get a LOT in return, and while some of the school and domain powers are nice, the extra versatility from having 11 levels of cleric casting to go along with my 19 levels of wizard casting are very nice. Sorcerer is also a viable entry, but since the party already has a sorc I figured wizard for the extra versatility would be better. However, the only downside to wizard is that I'd have to spend gold to get all my spells while leveling in MT, which can be a pain. So sorc is still somewhat viable in that respect, but I would still lean towards wizard. What do you all think would be a better theurge entry for this game...cleric 1/wizard 3, wizard 3/cleric 1, cleric 1/sorcerer 4 or sorcerer 4/cleric 1?
When you say core game only do you mean Core Rule book only or core game which is all the Paizo books for the Pathfinder Role playing Game. So would include any settings books?