I'm starting in a Homebrew campaign next week with a human Harrow bloodline Sorceror, human Rogue planning to go assassin, and a gnome Monk. DM is sticking to CRB and APG with case-by-case acceptance of other rules/classes/etc. we're starting at level 1, 20 point stat buy.
I'm trying to fill group need, and looking at a 2H paladin with reach weapon and extra lay on hands, archer paladin, or a switch hitting ranger. I'll probably end up in tank duties when one is needed in confined spaces (unless I play archer paladin), but also likely be the primary healer. Any advice you guys and gals could give me?
Are you prepared to deal with the drama of playing a Paladin in a party with an assassin?
Given that the rogue is going assassin I would probably stick to a ranger to avoid any possible PvP issues down the road between the Paladin and the rogue.
Yeah... That's the major thing making me lean Ranger. I would play the paladin more as a "lead by example" than preachy and hope to inspire the assassin to give up his more evil ways and redeem himself, but, still would be tricky. Paladin would stick to his own code and his god's values, but not expect others to live by the same oaths. That said, I couldn't allow him to just murder anyone in my presence, nor would I assist his shady dealings in any way.
Of note - DM is somewhat lenient on paladin stuff because none of us really like the stick in the mud type. I've also never played a paladin before, so, not entirely sure what I'd be getting myself into.
You could play a paladin with the intention of role-playing his fall into darkness, tempted by how much easier it is to just kill the bad people instead of going through legal red tape.
I always thought that would be fun.
My rule is don't play a Paladin unless the entire party has agreed to be champions of good or everyone is up for some party conflict (and for the second one, more often then not it isn't going to be nearly as much fun as you expect.)
Honestly in that group I'd probably go with a reach cleric, quite possibly evangelist. Your rogue and monk probably want to be 'the melee guys' but they are probably going to kind of suck at it. Rather than overshadowing them, if you make something that actually lets them succeed instead you will probably increase their fun, the party's overall effectiveness, and you seem to want to be a healer anyway.
Go with the hole evil vibe and later you can help your rogue and monk out with a few bloody skeleton flanking buddies too.
My rule is don't play a Paladin unless the entire party has agreed to be champions of good or everyone is up for some party conflict (and for the second one, more often then not it isn't going to be nearly as much fun as you expect.)
Honestly in that group I'd probably go with a reach cleric, quite possibly evangelist. Your rogue and monk probably want to be 'the melee guys' but they are probably going to kind of suck at it. Rather than overshadowing them, if you make something that actually lets them succeed instead you will probably increase their fun, the party's overall effectiveness, and you seem to want to be a healer anyway.
Go with the hole evil vibe and later you can help your rogue and monk out with a few bloody skeleton flanking buddies too.
I'd never thought about going cleric, the evangelist actually looks pretty cool. Overall it's a good group and the rogue is trying to stay neutral I believe, so I wouldn't go evil, but the rest sounds pretty good. The rogue and monk are not really optimizing for combat and the Sorceror isn't going to be much of a damage dealer at all, so it might get pretty rough no matter which way I go. Evangelist buffs and some summoned creatures would go a long way toward group survival.
Honestly, if you don't optimize, your GM will probably lower the difficulty to help you out.
If you go for summoning, you'll be stomping on the rogue and monk's feet, and the GM will be scratching his head, trying to balance encounters.
Stay away from summons, and spend your time buffing the other two, I'd say.
If you go for summoning, you'll be stomping on the rogue and monk's feet, and the GM will be scratching his head, trying to balance encounters.
With regards to the rogue, he would probably love you. Well played summons drastically increase the amount of flanking a rogue can get.
I'm not of the opinion that there has to be PVP because all paladins are smite happy dicks.
There is a big space between PVP and having a lot of intra-party conflict, and a group that doesn't sign up for the 'Paladin Ideal' is probably going to have a fair amount of conflict at the least.
If you are open to a cleric you may want to look at the war priest. The Champion of the Faith archetype is very similar to a paladin but without the alignment restrictions. They are not quite as powerful in combat but have much better magic.
I ended up going for a switch hitting ranger as the DM nixed using archetypes and wanted to keep classes as simple as possible to make it easier for him (first time DMing and its his own homebrew so wanted to ease in)
Question: I'm currently using a bow/bardiche for weapons, but running into positioning issues as neither the monk nor rogue want to stand in front line Melee. They are both doing hit and run, with the rogue focusing on poisoning. Should I abandon the reach weapon and just use a great sword? I'm currently equipped with a cestus for adjacent threat, but it really isn't going to hit hard enough for permanent close-combat. We don't really have a tank and combat gets out of control pretty fast. Our squishy sorceror and NPC hired cleric dance on deaths doorstep every encounter, even the easy ones.
you don't need a greatsword. If they come into you they provoked an AoO and then you 5ft step and hit them.