Does your GM think that unchained classes are "broken"? I believe that the intent of unchained was to make them less bad...
What do you think of the magus or alchemist? Both have a variety of ways to build them.
It looks like ranged combat and arcane magic are your holes in this party. For ranged combat an archery focused ranger or slayer are my standard suggestions. As for the arcane role you've said no wizards, maybe a witch? Some good cliche fodder for evil witches. For race human, elf, and tiefling would be my top witch choices, for an archer hobgoblin, wyvaran, human or tiefling.
Would you mind asking one or both of your GMs why they ban unchained? I am curious. They are now the default for those classes in both of my groups.
What is confusing about the magus? The basic idea is that you cast a spell and make an attack at the same time. The spell is often an attack spell, but thats not the only way to play it. How many times have you had to decide between attacking or buffing yourself when combat starts? The magus doesn't have to choose.
I haven't played a slayer yet, but they almost a blank slate that you can build a character with. There is no resource management at all (no spells, no point pools), and that is appealing to some players. Its got its own class features, but you also draw abilities from the rogue and ranger. Its parent classes are ranger and rogue, but you can easily play it as a "fighter" if you like.
Play a fighter McAwesome. You can make a fighter pretty awesome now, especially with halberd+shield brace.
Hmm... Is there any archetypes of other classes that gets the Alchemists Mutagen?
Brawler Mutagenic Mauler, Fighter Mutation Warrior, and Vigilante Experimenter. Also, Investigators can gain the Mutagen ability as an Investigator talent/Alchemist discovery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorcerer or Arcanist-> Diabolist
Have played several evil characters and nothing has beat my Diabolist yet. Hail Asmodeus
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should 100% play a Gingerbread Witch
They're the most deliciously evil archetype ever printed, IMO. It fits so many fantastic evil stereotypes. It's not a super optimized archetype, but it's very thematic.
Personally?
I would want to play a NE Reincarnated Druid (The cycle of nature? Doesn't apply to me! I'm special, you see.) who takes the Shade of the Uskwood feat to get the necromancy spells. You can eventually raise an army of your own corpses. You can essentially be a Lich whose phylactery is the entire world around you.
Maybe weasel your way into the Whispering Way and become an Agent of the Grave at 10th level, buying back that level of spellcasting with the Prestigious Spellcaster feat.
I'd go for Antipaladin or another class/archetype that you would only be able to play on an evil campaign. Evil campaigns don't happen so often so I'd go for a concept that I would never be able to explore on an average campaign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go for Antipaladin or another class/archetype that you would only be able to play on an evil campaign. Evil campaigns don't happen so often so I'd go for a concept that I would never be able to explore on an average campaign.
I agree with this recommendation. If you use an option that is available to anyone then, well, it is your actions that are evil. You just have to change one thing on the sheet... your alignment... so that is just so... diet-evil. But if you pick something that you have to be evil for... well, that is commitment! And lets face it, who wants to be the lesser evil?
Given that mix of characters, I'd probably be looking at something with ranged damage capabilities. There are endless builds for this, and most don't particularly scream evil, but I think an Alchemist (with the Grenadier Archetype, just because I like it) would be pretty awesome. You could really play up the 'mad bomber.'
Mechanically it also offers a fair amount of versatility and you would be able to adapt to different roles if you needed too.
Does your GM think that unchained classes are "broken"? I believe that the intent of unchained was to make them less bad...
I can understand the view, for the most part.
unchained summoners and barbarians were basically a bit of nerfing and some relatively small flavor and mechanical tweaks on the side. So I can see people being 'meh' on that. Why relearn the class when you mostly just end up with something slightly worse?
Unchained monks and rogues are better than their core versions taken alone... but the unchained versions suffer since they have to compete with all the other 'fixes' to the classes.
Monks have tons of archetypes that do not work with unchained (sohei monks can compete and perhaps surpass unchained in melee, and there were a ton of maneuver ones), and brawlers kind of already fit a 'simpler monk' niche. Add on styles like pummeling style (which was meant to give monks a pseudo pounce), and it can be hard to justify unmonk when it is not exactly that 'new'.
Unrogues have to compete with alternatives that all bring their own unique advantages- ninjas (lots of invisibility), slayers (very simple, able to do direct melee and with decent bonuses to their main skills), and the various roguish archetypes for better classes (which often bring the class's main advantages along, like bards with buffs and social casting).
Anyway, BACK TO THE MAIN DISCUSSION- how about a blood rager? Some more arcane casting to match up with bard, and you have plenty of options for builds. i particularly like aberrant builds that focus on reach. A good reach build can define a battlefield based on how much the enemies are willing to get hit in the head with your attacks. Add on arcane strike and riving strike, and you can make it a very bad idea to be hit by you (due to damage, adn taking a -2 to saves that would make it easier for the other casters to target them).
Unchained barbarians are more powerful than core.
Unchained barbarians are more powerful than core.debatable
at the very least, it can be a fine enough line that general inertia could make someone avoid relearning the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fond of witches so naturally I suggest playing a witch and getting the cook people hex.I'd go with the advice that you play something with evil restrictions/mechanics that you simply wouldn't get away with playing in a standard game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My wife has a Ghoran witch for Hell's Vengeance that's going that route. :-)
I'm fond of witches so naturally I suggest playing a witch and getting the cook people hex.I'd go with the advice that you play something with evil restrictions/mechanics that you simply wouldn't get away with playing in a standard game.
Or a hexcrafter magus. It has options- melee, spell nuking, general arcane stuff, and debuffs.
I'd go for Antipaladin or another class/archetype that you would only be able to play on an evil campaign. Evil campaigns don't happen so often so I'd go for a concept that I would never be able to explore on an average campaign.I agree with this recommendation. If you use an option that is available to anyone then, well, it is your actions that are evil. You just have to change one thing on the sheet... your alignment... so that is just so... diet-evil. But if you pick something that you have to be evil for... well, that is commitment! And lets face it, who wants to be the lesser evil?
I will agree here.
I am running an evil table top campaign starting in January 2018. I recommended to my PCs that they explore evil options - including PRCs (I run 3.5 so PRCs are more utilized there than they are in Pathfinder) as they won't have a chance to explore those options for a long time, if ever, again.
If the DM allows it, converted PRCs from the 3.0 Book of Vile Darkness could be an interesting option to explore.