|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another secret project of mine, but one that I've wanted to make for a while now, I feel like this is really something I've needed to make for a while, since I haven't really seen a lot of guides like this. The guide itself isn't a lot like my other guides, as there's more snark and no overarching theme to this one, but it still holds a place in my heart for something that will hopefully help people learn how to build characters. It's not written for powergaming or optimization, just pure character building.
Nice guide, good read. I particularly liked that you mentioned a few places to pay attention to the type of game you're playing in - it seems some new player understand this intrinsically while others miss it by a mile... Ugh is it frustrating when that happens.
Idea: Would it hurt to put links to one of each core class character builds in the bottom of the guide? Might require a bit of work to find/make appropriate characters for new players, but it would be good for anyone who reads the guide and still gets stuck on spells or equipment for a particular class to be able to pull up an example. Just a thought.
Again, good work.
Typo: "Charisma 14 (+1)"
"Warrior" and "Expert" are names of NPC classes and IMO shouldn't be used as classes sections' headings.
As optimization guides writer, don't you think something like "how not to fall from ivory tower" would be more useful for new players?
|
|
Nice guide, good read. I particularly liked that you mentioned a few places to pay attention to the type of game you're playing in - it seems some new player understand this intrinsically while others miss it by a mile... Ugh is it frustrating when that happens.
Idea: Would it hurt to put links to one of each core class character builds in the bottom of the guide? Might require a bit of work to find/make appropriate characters for new players, but it would be good for anyone who reads the guide and still gets stuck on spells or equipment for a particular class to be able to pull up an example. Just a thought.
Again, good work.
Yeah, new players...they aren't great at reading the mood sometimes...Glad to hear you enjoyed reading it at least, I tried to be a bit more playful in this since it's more casual in tone instead of my other works.
And doing sample builds for every Core class? Maybe I'll ask others if they want to submit builds, since I have no desire to do that. I hate doing sample builds, and I probably always will. Seems like the kind of thing I might end up doing if I get bored before my next project, which is slated for whenever.
It's a good way to get started.
Are you talking about doing sample builds?
Typo: "Charisma 14 (+1)"
"Warrior" and "Expert" are names of NPC classes and IMO shouldn't be used as classes sections' headings.As optimization guides writer, don't you think something like "how not to fall from ivory tower" would be more useful for new players?
Fixed the typo, thanks for the catch.
As for Warrior and Expert, there's not a lot else I can think to call them, but if you have names that would fit better, I'm open to suggestion.
Not really sure what you mean by your second comment though, could you elaborate on that?
|
Its half past 1 in the morning so I'll read this tommorow. However I'm curious especially if this is not just character building 101 but has general advice in there like "not everyone is a long lost prince in disguise as a common farmboy somtimes a pig herder is just a pig herder" in developing the character and backstory of characters?
Find out what the party is playing
-Add a line between the heading and the previous paragraph.
-Change "Rarely is two 2 handed Fighters" to "Rarely are two 2 handed Fighters".
Ability Scores
-Change "Determining your stats" to "Determining you ability scores". Sorry, huge pet peeve of mine.
Classes
-You're going to want to work on differenciating some of your headings, perhaps by changing font sizes, or experimenting with underline, italices, and boldface. The specific reason I bring this up is that "Warrior" (and the other headings that follow) should look like a heading above the warrior-type classes, instead of looking like the name of another character class.
-In the paragraph that talks about choosing a favored class, mention that it only pertains to characters who multiclass, and that it makes no difference if you plan on being only one class. Then (very briefly) in a new paragraph describe what multiclassing is.
As for Warrior and Expert, there's not a lot else I can think to call them, but if you have names that would fit better, I'm open to suggestion.
"Fighting Man" for Warrior? That's pretty minor issue though.
Not really sure what you mean by your second comment though, could you elaborate on that?
http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/ page.cgi?mc_los_142
For a new player guide, it can be something as simple as "Not all classes are made equal. Don't let class names dictate your character concept. Want to swing a sword? Consider Paladin or Barbarian (or Warpriest) over fighter. Want to be sneaky skillguy? Consider Investigator or Alchemist or Bard over Rogue."
Do you intend to expand your description of classes and races to those available in other books than the core book?
|
@N Jolly: more like, it's good for a beginner indeed. Builds aren't necessary, as I imagine a lot of builds stuffs are going to be covered in the strategy guide coming out next year. Still tho, it might be worth mentioning That summoner and Oracle, while being advanced classes are very easy to play.
Good stuff dude.
|
Another secret project of mine, but one that I've wanted to make for a while now, I feel like this is really something I've needed to make for a while, since I haven't really seen a lot of guides like this. The guide itself isn't a lot like my other guides, as there's more snark and no overarching theme to this one, but it still holds a place in my heart for something that will hopefully help people learn how to build characters. It's not written for powergaming or optimization, just pure character building.
I didn't see it...but for PFS, every character starts with 150gp.
Saiman
Really helpful! I'm going to use this to help my junior high gaming club kids.
This is great! Very conversational introductions to the various classes, with good attention to explaining strengths and weaknesses of different types of characters in an understandable way.
Outstanding! I will link people to this in the future when they evince some interest in Pathfinder.
EDIT: I do think it would be valuable to include the advanced classes, even if there are a decent amount of them to present all at once. I think it's worth noting to a new player up-front that Investigator is going to give them much more of what they're looking for then Rogue, for example. (Not to pick on rogue unduly, but it's the clearest example of a class superseding another in that "Expert" category.)
|
|
Not bad for someone totally new to things. Part of me wishes you had added the other classes from the core books, but I completely understand the reason not to.
I would also mention the Club as a good weapon for everyone to have, since damage types matter. With just the dagger and the club, you've covered all damage resistance types people are likely to encounter in their very early career.
Minor Error(s):
Daggers only cost 2 Gold.
Quickdraw requires a BaB of +1.
Adding more classes seems to be on everyone's list at this point. Personally I felt like Core was enough, but I suppose if more people are asking for it, I could add them.
Added club, good call there. I wrote this at 5 in the morning, so there's bound to be some mistakes; corrected the errors, and now the example character took improved initiative.
Its half past 1 in the morning so I'll read this tomorrow. However I'm curious especially if this is not just character building 101 but has general advice in there like "not everyone is a long lost prince in disguise as a common farmboy sometimes a pig herder is just a pig herder" in developing the character and backstory of characters?
Yeah, there's stuff that dissuades from that, but also stuff that embraces that, since it's all about having fun.
*Edits Made*
-You're going to want to work on differentiating some of your headings, perhaps by changing font sizes, or experimenting with underline, italics, and boldface. The specific reason I bring this up is that "Warrior" (and the other headings that follow) should look like a heading above the warrior-type classes, instead of looking like the name of another character class.
-In the paragraph that talks about choosing a favored class, mention that it only pertains to characters who multiclass, and that it makes no difference if you plan on being only one class. Then (very briefly) in a new paragraph describe what multiclassing is.
Decided to just bullet point the class descriptions to make them stand out, that's what I've been doing so far.
Maybe I'll add a multiclass section to the leveling up section, seems I'm gonna need to reformat some stuff anyways with the new inclusions.
"Fighting Man" for Warrior? That's pretty minor issue though.
I'm trying not to use gendered terminology for this guide, and you're looking through things in the perspective of a longer time player (trust me, I do it too). Someone new to the game doesn't know NPC classes, they just want a basic name. Trust me, I searched synonyms, and none of them do as good a job as Warrior.
For a new player guide, it can be something as simple as "Not all classes are made equal. Don't let class names dictate your character concept. Want to swing a sword? Consider Paladin or Barbarian (or Warpriest) over fighter. Want to be sneaky skillguy? Consider Investigator or Alchemist or Bard over Rogue."
I actually put that in the guide, although now seeing what you mean, it also comes from the perspective of a longer time player. From the guide:
Now that we’ve gotten the basics down, you have a clear basis to choose from. But don’t think these are mutually exclusive, as you could easily play a Warrior with an Expert like approach to things, or a Divine Caster who plays more like a Warrior, or even an Arcane Caster who’s as much a trickster as the best rogues alive.
Aside from spending a while describing how the Rogue isn't great, I feel that statement above conveys what you're trying to say here. I'm not going to 'rate' classes in this guide, because this is for someone with very little knowledge, and I want them to come into the game and play their way, rather than instantly going into a 'tier' system frame of mind. Stating things like the Ivory Tower design mechanic isn't going to encourage people to play, it's going to scare them away by making them think they can make a bad character, and that's not the design goal I have in mind.
I didn't see it...but for PFS, every character starts with 150gp.
Saiman
This guide isn't exactly made with PFS in mind, but that begs the question, do you think there should be a PFS section in the guide?
Feats section, "create wondrous item" should be "craft wondrous item", and can't be taken until 3rd level anyways.
Yeah, got that changed, and I figured Natural Spell at 5th level would be more of an issue than CWI at 3rd. They're just suggestions, not all intended for 1st level.
Thanks to anyone else who enjoys this (I can't keep quoting people, this post is getting huge), please share this guide with whomever you can who needs some help getting into the game.
From what I'm getting here, people would like more classes included? If so, which books should they be from? Should I stick with APG (the gold standard of additional classes?), or just throw them all in?
PFS should probably be its own guide, which could reference this guide.
Why is Fighter a prefered class for Elves? They suffer a penalty to Con, get a bonus to Int... Their racial abilities include a bonus to identifying spells,a bonus to bypassing SR and proficiency with weapons that the Fighter class is already proficient with... (In fact, Elves are a bit too limited in Pathfinder, IMO)
I'd say their best classes are Wizard, Sorcerer and (archer) Bard (and maybe Rogue)...
Also, Int really isn't all that important for Rogues, it's a secondary stat at best.
|
|
Why is Fighter a prefered class for Elves? They suffer a penalty to Con, get a bonus to Int... Their racial abilities include a bonus to identifying spells and proficiency with weapons that the Fighter class is already proficient with... (In fact, Elves are a bit too limited in Pathfinder, IMO)
I'd say their best classes are Wizard, Sorcerer and (archer) Bard (and maybe Rogue)...
Also, Int really isn't all that important for Rogues, it's a secondary stat at best.
That's probably a typo, changed it to Bard, but Elves as you stated aren't really good at everything.
As for Int, it's really only good for casters, but everytime I go to a rogue thread, it's always "Gotsta have tonz of skillzorz", and I needed a second entry for Intelligence.
As for Int, it's really only good for casters, but everytime I go to a rogue thread, it's always "Gotsta have tonz of skillzorz", and I needed a second entry for Intelligence.
Hmmm... You could make a small spoiler for each class with their best attributes... Specifically to warn new players about common "attribute traps", like having a Rogue with high Int/Cha and low Con/Wis... Or a Barbarian who invested too much into Con and forgot that they don't really need high Con to survive (d12 HD + Bonus from Rage + DR will likely keep them alive anyway), or more commonly... The Monk with high Dex/Wis and low/mediocre Str/Con who can't deal any damage. :P
Also, Half-Elves and Half-Orc as almost as versatile as humans (In fact, I consider them a mechanically superior choice more often than not). Their "favored class" should be "Any".
|
|
Hmmm... You could make a small spoiler for each class with their best attributes... Specifically to warn new players about common "attribute traps", like having a Rogue with high Int/Cha and low Con/Wis... Or a Barbarian who invested too much into Con and forgot that they don't really need high Con to survive (d12 HD + Bonus from Rage + DR will likely keep them alive anyway), or more commonly... The Monk with high Dex/Wis and low/mediocre Str/Con who can't deal any damage. :P
Also, Half-Elves and Half-Orc as almost as versatile as humans (In fact, I consider them a mechanically superior choice more often than not). Their "favored class" should be "Any".
Maybe I'll give each character class a list of stat importance, like for Fighters it'd be 1: Strength 2: Con 3: Dex, etc.
As for half elf/orc, I almost feel bad listing 3 races as "any" since it makes the class choice feel less significant. I want to make humans seem even more 'blank' so having almost half the classes be "any" almost depreciates the value of the human in the eyes of a new player. I guess I'm still trying to make half elf/orc seem flavorful since the human's specialty is being unflavorful.
Edit: Blarg, if I'm not going to try and shoehorn Ranger into 'Expert', I shouldn't pretend like the half humans aren't good at anything, classes are changed to 'any'.
Has this been suggested to be included into the guide for class guides? Seems like the ideal place for this resource.
As for Warrior and Expert, there's not a lot else I can think to call them, but if you have names that would fit better, I'm open to suggestion.
Quick suggestion in regards to this;
Warrior -> Combatant
Expert -> Specialist/Utility/Ace (Hopefully one of these will work)
?
I'm not sure how I feel about listing each race's "preferred classes". While I understand that it is simpler for the race to be a mechanically stronger character of that class, I suppose I would prefer a new player begin by pursuing a character concept rather than mechanically superior choices. On the other hand, having a chump character the first time you play doesn't encourage continuing to play. I dunno, maybe it's just the word preferred that I don't like.
Edit: Blarg, if I'm not going to try and shoehorn Ranger into 'Expert', I shouldn't pretend like the half humans aren't good at anything, classes are changed to 'any'.
Cool! Though you might want to warn new players that in many settings, orcs and half-orcs are seen with mistrust or hatred, so that weigh heavily for the character, even though it's not about mechanics.
|
|
Has this been suggested to be included into the guide for class guides? Seems like the ideal place for this resource.
I'll see about putting it in later, I'm in no hurry.
I like it. I'd probably warn about Rogue and Fighter's down sides slightly more strongly, but I definitely like it.
In terms of issues:
You have Con listed before Dex. That's weird and possibly confusing.
In the Fighter description you have 'though' redundantly a couple of times in one sentence.
For some reason I always forget the order of con and dex.
I felt like I did talk down the Rogue a decent amount, the original heading for it was Do you want to suck at everything?
Though has been reduced.
Quick suggestion in regards to this;
Warrior -> Combatant
Expert -> Specialist/Utility/Ace (Hopefully one of these will work
Maybe I'll replace these, but I stand by that new players don't know NPC classes, and if they say "Oh, I want to play a warrior kind of character" to their GM, their GM will set them straight. I mostly chose those titles since that's what they were listed as in the 3.5 Player's Handbook 2.
The section on attack bonuses could be clearer (you don't directly say "melee weapons use Str, ranged weapons use Dex"), and personally I don't think I'd use Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat in your example because that can muddle the water.
A section on saves would be nice I think. What they are, how you figure them, and which ones are most important. They're vaguely mentioned under classes but not in any detail.
I'd think a section on AC would be welcome too. Maybe weapon selection too?
Overall, very nice though.
Included descriptions for attack bonuses for ranged and melee now.
I could probably put a section on saves, but I'm not sure on the best way to implement it, basically where to put it, but I'm sure I'll figure out something. AC would probably be around the same section.
I'm not sure how I feel about listing each race's "preferred classes". While I understand that it is simpler for the race to be a mechanically stronger character of that class, I suppose I would prefer a new player begin by pursuing a character concept rather than mechanically superior choices. On the other hand, having a chump character the first time you play doesn't encourage continuing to play. I dunno, maybe it's just the word preferred that I don't like.
New players need direction, I've talked to far too many who were clueless, so giving them some idea of what to play even if it's cliche is often helpful. It's actually why I really dislike having 3 characters with 'any' for their class.
Cool! Though you might want to warn new players that in many settings, orcs and half-orcs are seen with mistrust or hatred, so that weigh heavily for the character, even though it's not about mechanics.
I did put in that they're ugly, I suppose I could harp on that more.
I'm getting more people on the other thread who are asking to have more classes included, so I might include them later once there's less people on the guide.
|
|
...hit a snag on including new classes.
Which category do you think the following would fit into (assuming only one category per class)?
Magus (leaning towards Warrior)
Hunter (leaning towards Expert)
Skald (leaning towards Expert)
Warpriest (leaning towards Warrior)
Skald is probably my biggest sticking point, also might go with the name Specialist over Expert, seems cooler.
Combatant might work, still iffy on that one.
Edit: Do you think 'drink casters' should be listed separately?
|
I'd definitely put Skald in Warrior. It's only got 4+Int skills, after all (and without a class focus on Int). You could argue Bardic Knowledge and Versatile Performance make them Specialists but I don't know if that's quite enough.
Magus and Warpriest are definitely Warrior classes as well.
Hunter, I might throw in Warrior too. They have 6+Int skills but are even less good with them than Rangers (and way less than Slayers). If Ranger's in Warrrior, Hunter definitely should be. If Ranger's in Specialist it's a harder decision.
|
|
Sections are now
Combat Specialist
Utility Specialist
Divine Caster
Arcane Caster
I figure making everything a two word title is more uniform. Adding Skald to combat specialist, will probably add Hunter there too.
Edit: Before this I never really read over the Hunter, now that I am I'm not sure why it exist.
|
|
Edit: Before this I never really read over the Hunter, now that I am I'm not sure why it exist.
It's surprisingly solid in several subtle ways.
The ability to use the Ranger list as a 6th level caster is great, for example. Lead Blades and Resist Energy as a level 1 character is very nice to have.
Skirmisher Tricks being available to their companion is also awesome, and the Teamwork Feat synergy is brutal. Pack Flanking allows Outflank, Paired Opportunists, and Broken Wing Gambit to all stack. By 9th level you can have all that automatically with the only price being the purchase of Combat Expertise.
Heck, as early as level 3, we're talking Pack Flanking, Power Attack, Outflank, and the Skirmisher Trick Aiding Attack from your animal Companion you can manage something like +10 to hit for 2d6+9 damage as long as you and your companion are adjacent.
It falls behind Druid at higher levels, as do almost all 6-level casters behind their 9-level brethren, but it's very solid in its own way.
I personally view Hunters as better Cavaliers.
Think about it, with Combat Expertise you can pick up Packflanking and Outflank by level 3.
At level three, when charging while mounted, you will have +6 to hit. +7 if you are on higher ground than they are. So will your Animal Companion.
Pick a companion with sick damage and suddenly it doesn't matter that you are not going to get Spirited Charge for a while. At best you'd get it by level 7, 5 as a human.
With Spirited Charge and a Lance you can be dealing 3x your damage by level 5/7 which is the same as getting to the 3 attacks you'd have as a 3/4ths BAB character. Thanks to Ride By Attack, you can ride up to your opponent to hit them with your Lance and then continue on one more square to have your animal companion end it's turn in reach to attack with it's weapon.
At level 6 you have another teamwork feat, and don't forget that you are a Bard-Tier spellcaster. You get Strong-Jaw at the same time Druids do thanks to your spellcasting, which means that you are not only a terribly dangerous martial riding a terror pony but that you happen to be able to make your combination even more potent.
Don't forget that you also have free stat enhancements so your money can go elsewhere to other items. However, my preferred build is to play the Primal Companion Hunter who gives up Aspects to get EIDOLON EVOLUTIONS ON ANIMAL COMPANIONS.
AKA: Pick a 4 legged animal, give it pounce and maybe reach, even larger attacks, energy attacks, FREE FLIGHT, and win the game by riding a Flying Lightning Cow to victory.
Sure you do not have your class level to damage...but you do have an Eidolonized Animal Companion and let me tell you these babies built the right way can compete in the DPR olympics.
Also: Note, Strongjaw is able to be quickened with a metamagic rod and you can still deal full damage while charging ^_^
I would personally Describe the Hunter as a Teamwork class, rather than as a worse Druid or Ranger. They need to work with their Companion to achieve results but are terrors when working together.
They are, in my opinion, the single best class with a pet in the game. Baring summoner, because even without the Eidolon a summoner could just Summon their way to victory which is why they are the best class in the game right behind the Wizard and Sorcerer.
ALSO: EDIT: I love this guide a lot and I am sharing it with my one gaming group that has 5 newbies in it. This was exactly what I needed for next month's new campaign where they will actually build their own characters.
Fantastic job NJ
|
|
Very nice. I approve this immensely.
Though I'd put an extra line between Dex and Con, to make them match the rest. It looks slightly off otherwise.
I also see two minor issues on specific classes:
1. You should note that Hunter animal companions are by far the most badass animal companions. That's an important part of why you might want to play a Hunter.
2. What do you mean that Inquisitor lacks options in combat? I've never found that to be the case.
You could offer some simple (but useful) tips for new players and GMs...
e.g.:
1- CARRY A FREAKING BOW! SERIOUSLY! If you are proficient with them, there is no reason not to! It's unbelievable how often players (even veteran players!) forget about this! Then a flying enemy comes along and their uber-warriors can't do anything.
2- Carry backup weapons. Because you'll eventually be disarmed or have your weapon destroyed. Have a back up. It doesn't have to be as good as your main weapon, but it has to be good enough to keep you alive until you find a better one.
3- Remember: there are no aggro mechanics in Pathfinder. If you want your enemies to focus on you instead of the squishy wizard, you have to give them a reason to! Most often, this reason is raw damage output, but there are other ways.
4- Don't underestimate consumables. I know potions/scrolls are wasted after you use them, but sometimes, they're all you need to get through that one encounter/challenge.
5- Don't overspecialize. Be awesome at whatever it is that you want to be awesome, but don't do it at the cost of being ineffective at everything else. Sometimes, your usual course of action will not be a viable solution.
6- Knowing is half the battle. Always try and get as much information about your next challenge/enemies/puzzles/quest/etc as you can.
7- Carry wands of Cure Light Wounds and wands of Lesser Restoration. They'll save your life more often than your party. ;).
[b]8- Put skill ranks in Perception. Even if your Wis score is not very good and Perception is not one of your class skills. You'll be rolling Perception skill checks more often than any other, so you might as well invest in it. It'll probably save your life at some point.
1- Don't use DMPCs. I repeat: DO NOT USE A DMPC! That is, resist the temptation of having a character of yours in the party, unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, it should NEVER outshine the players.
2- Don't Get Attached to Your NPCs. Chances are they will end up dead or forgotten. Memorable NPCs are a real thing, but you should always think of them the same way you think of characters in Game of Thrones. ("This guys is kinda cool. He'll probably die.")
3- Learn to Improvise and Be Willing to Adapt. Your players will often surprise you with completely unexpected ideas. Learn to accept them and mold the story around their choices instead of forcing their choices to match your preconceived script.
4- Give Them Real Challenges, But Don't Get Adversarial.[/b] Remember, the PCs are the heroes! They are supposed to be the stars of the game. Don't be pissed off just because they one-shot'd your villain. Sometimes it happens.
5- Assume Players Will Kill Everything! I'm exaggerating, of course. My point is: Always be prepared for the possibility of the PCs killing (or at least attacking) anything you place in front of them. Sooner or later they will attack someone or something when you were sure they had absolutely no reason to do so. Be prepared.
6- Remember: Your Priority is to Make Sure the Players Are Having Fun! I know it sounds cheesy, but it's true: The GM has the most fun when the players are having fun. You'll quickly notice that you enjoy the game the most when your players having a blast.
Additionally, put some emphasis on how important saving throws are at mid/high level. It's common for new players to think saving throws are just another simple layer of defense, like AC or CMD, without realizing how dire the consequences for failing a Fort or Will save can be.
Unlike AC and CMD, failing a saving throw can (and will) completely remove a character from combat (or even from the game).
|
|
I would personally Describe the Hunter as a Teamwork class, rather than as a worse Druid or Ranger. They need to work with their Companion to achieve results but are terrors when working together.
They are, in my opinion, the single best class with a pet in the game. Baring summoner, because even without the Eidolon a summoner could just Summon their way to victory which is why they are the best class in the game right behind the Wizard and Sorcerer.
ALSO: EDIT: I love this guide a lot and I am sharing it with my one gaming group that has 5 newbies in it. This was exactly what I needed for next month's new campaign where they will actually build their own characters.
Fantastic job NJ
Yeah, put in the teamwork part, thanks all for describing to me the value of this hardy beastmaster. And I appreciate the support, I just want this to be the best guide for people possible.
Very nice. I approve this immensely.
Though I'd put an extra line between Dex and Con, to make them match the rest. It looks slightly off otherwise.
I also see two minor issues on specific classes:
1. You should note that Hunter animal companions are by far the most badass animal companions. That's an important part of why you might want to play a Hunter.
2. What do you mean that Inquisitor lacks options in combat? I've never found that to be the case.
Are you reading it on a different device or something? I ask because in my doc, there's a line break there which is why I didn't include a space. I threw one in because I could fit it though.
And for the Inquis, the problem is that their weapon selection almost forces a ranged character, which is where I thought their combat styles were limited. Let me know if you can think of a better 'problem' with the class though.
I think this is the first time I've ever been told that the Magus has a varied spell list.
I'm not sure that I'd include the whole "swinging from ropes" thing given that the Swashbuckler has no mechanism to do that, but that might just be me.
To continue to harp on the AC, I think I'd like to see a full list of different AC bonuses (Natural Armor, Armor, Deflection, Shield, Dodge, Dex, etc, etc.) along with which ones apply to flat-footed and which ones apply to Touch. That said, you might think that's getting too in-depth, and if so I can respect that. I only suggest it because for a long time that confused the hell out of me.
I like the saving throw section. Short, to the point, tells us what we need to know.
To reiterate the most important part of what I said though, excellent work. This is awesome.
The list has teleport, that's honestly good enough for me. I judge it against the Duskblade, which was all gun spells, so in that respect, it's decently varied.
I thought they did have some mechanic for it, or was that just an archetype that has that? If I replaced it, it'd probably just be changing it for a name, so I've no problem doing that.
I could possibly add an AC cheat sheet, since I could see that being a problem. And again, thanks for the support.
You could offer some simple (but useful) tips for new players and GMs...
Additionally, put some emphasis on how important saving throws are at mid/high level. It's common for new players to think saving throws are just another simple layer of defense, like AC or CMD, without realizing how dire the consequences for failing a Fort or Will save can be.
Unlike AC and CMD, failing a saving throw can (and will) completely remove a character from combat (or even from the game).
I can't validate putting GM tips in here, since this is for character creation, mostly a PC process. A new GM should be familiar enough with it to not need a guide, or at least not need tips from a player reference. If I do a GM guide I would, but the way I GM shouldn't be used as a model of excellence. It should be used as a model of double excellence and cannot be replicated.
Yeah, I'll try to throw in something about saves (fort and will especially) being super important.
And for the Inquis, the problem is that their weapon selection almost forces a ranged character, which is where I thought their combat styles were limited. Let me know if you can think of a better 'problem' with the class though.
They get proficiency with their deity's favored weapon, which is usually enough. Few characters focus on more than 1 weapon anyway. And why do they need to have a problem? They are possibly the best balanced and well-rounded class in the game. They have no glaring weakness or game-breaking strengths. They are basically a "selfish" Rogue. Just say they are basically a Paladin with less raw power but far more versatility. Simply put, they are a solid class that is useful in every situation without overshadowing specialists (other than underpowered classes, that is... It's not their fault that they make Rogues and Fighters look bad ><')
EDIT: Something else... There is a fundamental flaw in how the CRB tells players to create characters... They say the player should choose race first and only then pick his class.
However, race has very little impact on the character's abilities in the long run. Class, OTOH, defines basically everything you can do.
IMHO, a far better (and more honest) way to explain is telll players to choose what character concept they want, then choose the class (or combination of classes) that best fit their idea, since that where most of their abilities and limitations will come from. Race should be considered both from a mechanical perspective and from a role-play perspective. There is nothing wrong with going against type, but new players shouldn't be misled into thinking their character's race plays a bigger role than class when it comes to mechanics (although it might do it when it comes to role-play, so that must be kept in mind as well)
|
|
Are you reading it on a different device or something? I ask because in my doc, there's a line break there which is why I didn't include a space. I threw one in because I could fit it though.
I'm just following the link. So...I really dunno.
And for the Inquis, the problem is that their weapon selection almost forces a ranged character, which is where I thought their combat styles were limited.
As Lemmy notes, they get their deity's Favored Weapon, too. This makes them as limited in melee options as a Cleric, but better at range.
Let me know if you can think of a better 'problem' with the class though.
Like Magi, they can burn through resources really quick if you aren't careful. Bane is wonderful, but very limited and you get fewer Judgments a day than there are fights for much of your career. Spells help with this, but unlike Magus, take up turns you could be fighting.
Obviously, you'd need to sum that up in a slightly shorter format...
|
|
Magus: Somehow I knew Teleport would be mentioned. Xp. Fair enough if you want to keep that line, and they are better off than the Duskblade, but most of their arsenal is combat spells. Still, if your point of comparison is the Duskblade you're certainly right.
Swashbuckler: They can give themselves mild bonuses on Acrobatics checks and stand up from prone more easily? That's the extent of their mobility options. I'd swap that with Errol Flynn or some such, personally.
AC: Yeah. Really I'm just trying to think of what tripped me up the most when I was starting out. Calculating AC, CMB, and CMD were the big three, and you have the latter two covered pretty well. Though on the subject of CMD: don't you also add your BAB to that?
It's a better list than most combat monsters should have, especially considering the company they keep. Swashys are...whatever, really. There's nothing I can say that'll convince them more than the name.
And yeah, I messed up on CMD, added BAB to the formula and added things that add to touch and flatfooted AC, let me know if I missed any.
LEMMY LIKES INQUISITORS
EDIT: Something else... There is a fundamental flaw in how the CRB tells players to create characters... They say the player should choose race first and only then pick his class.
However, race has very little impact on the character's abilities in the long run. Class, OTOH, defines basically everything you can do.
IMHO, a far better (and more honest) way to explain is tell players to choose what character concept they want, then choose the class (or combination of classes) that best fit their idea, since that where most of their abilities and limitations will come from. Race should be considered both from a mechanical perspective and from a role-play perspective. There is nothing wrong with going against type, but new players shouldn't be misled into thinking their character's race plays a bigger role than class when it comes to mechanics (although it might do it when it comes to role-play, so that must be kept in mind as well)
I basically have to give everything a downside, even if it's a fluff downside. I just said they can overspecialize easily, which isn't really a downside, but sounds like one.
And yeah, I do actually agree with you on the Race thing, I think I'll switch around where those are in the order of the guide, since class is the most important decision in the game.
Like Magi, they can burn through resources really quick if you aren't careful. Bane is wonderful, but very limited and you get fewer Judgments a day than there are fights for much of your career. Spells help with this, but unlike Magus, take up turns you could be fighting.
Obviously, you'd need to sum that up in a slightly shorter format...
Yeah, just saying they can overspecialize aside from resource management, but everyone can, so it's really just a space filler.
I basically have to give everything a downside, even if it's a fluff downside. I just said they can overspecialize easily, which isn't really a downside, but sounds like one.
Well... The real "downside" of jack-of-all-trades classes (such as Inquisitors and Bards) is that they can't reach the raw power of more specialized classes. Inquisitor won't be as good as casters as Clerics or Oracles, nor will they be as good combatants as Paladins or Barbarians.
In Pathfinder this his ends up making said classes the most well balanced in the game (Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor and Investigator are probably the best balanced classes in the game... Although we do have other balanced classes hat don't fit the "jack-of-all-trades category).
Are there really people who pick out their character's name before picking their character's race/birthplace? That seems a really backwards way of going about it to me.