Class Suggestion?


Advice


So this group I'm in is going to play in an Evil-Aligned game and the others have chosen/close to deciding their characters as:

Inquisiter of Asmodeus
Wizard Evoker or Necromancer
Warpriest
Evil Aligned Cleric

The thing is, I'm honestly not sure what to play as. I was honestly really open to playing whatever the group might need to fit in what they needed, even possibly getting to try out a new class in the process. But I'll admit, I'm not entirely sure what to go for.

Do you guys have any class suggestions for me that would fit well with this group? Doesn't matter what, I'm more interested in doing something new then anything else.


Well depending on the other's build they might need a solid front liner and this might be your one and only opportunity to play an anti paladin(you could even become a lich or graveknight with dm permission most evil parties try to either become undead or demons/devils so it wouldn't be an odd request).

Even though it would be another divine class in a party with 3 divines already its still pretty unique and you shouldn't be stepping on any toes.

Evil druid could also work filling in the nature caster roll focusing on destructive weather/natural disaster control would be right at home in that party.

Magus could also work but I personally find it less interesting but its a solid class that should also be considered.


doomman47 wrote:

Well depending on the other's build they might need a solid front liner and this might be your one and only opportunity to play an anti paladin(you could even become a lich or graveknight with dm permission most evil parties try to either become undead or demons/devils so it wouldn't be an odd request).

Even though it would be another divine class in a party with 3 divines already its still pretty unique and you shouldn't be stepping on any toes.

Evil druid could also work filling in the nature caster roll focusing on destructive weather/natural disaster control would be right at home in that party.

Magus could also work but I personally find it less interesting but its a solid class that should also be considered.

Antipaladin was my first choice, but the Inquisitor said it's just his base class to turn into a Hell Knight later. So I thought It'd just be redundant for me at that point.


You might want someone that can handle traps. A bard wouldn't be a horrible choice. Rogue is kind of the default. But you know, this is an evil campaign and you probably wouldn't make a rogue that is any different than you'd have otherwise.

Do not make an Assassin. Those are just bad. Same for Ninja.

Alchemist could be interesting. Int based class with a good reason to pump dex (bombs). Even the base alchemist makes a decent trap finder, though you need to be a Trap Breaker to handle magic traps with disable device.

Honestly the only troph your party is missing is a sneaky backstabber. Bard would be good if your group doesn't have any charisma builds. Most of the party has reasons to pump charisma, but none of them have to. I like alchemist because you can always go for that back alley surgeon feel where you're illegally acquiring materials for your experiments. And rogue is just...overdone? But it totally fits.


First, just about any class would fit into this group. A pathfinder party basically needs three things: HP damage (just about any character fulfills this), healing (the mere ability to use a wand of CLW or Infernal Healing qualifies), and problem solving (with skills and/or spells). The party is already good in all three areas. You do have characters that can deal with swarms, flying/unreachable enemies, invisible enemies, and a multitude of other challenges.
Second, the class name's tell us much about the characters. That party could, for instance, already have three melees, at which point a ranged combatant would definitely be favourable to avoid 'traffic jams'. It could be all ranged combatants just as easily, at which point a melee would be nice (not mandatory, but nice).

As you asked for suggestions, here're mine: As this is a five man party, stay away from animal companions/mounts/eidolons/phantoms; both to keep combat rounds from becoming too long, and to keep the battlefield from becoming too crowded. Find out whether the Cleric, Warpriest, and Inquisitor are melee or ranged; two melees are fine, three can be problematic depending on the campaign, so if more than one of these three guys is melee, maybe pick something else. A pure martial might feel weak and unsatisfying when everyone else has at least 6/9 casting, unless you like playing the "simple, straight forward" guy.


So you could fill a couple rolls here, the group already seems quite balanced and could well have the rolls below filled depending on build.

Front liner: Fiendflesh Shifter, this basically lets you turn into a Devil, Demon or Deamon style close combat melee brute, you get things like cool immunities, flight and enhancement scores. Very fitting for your campaign.

This role might be filled by Warpriest, Cleric or Inquisitor depending on build, but you would definitely be the most mobile of the lot.

Debuffer: Witch, the witch spell list really lends itself to evil campaigns and they absolutely excel at Debuffing.

The role might be being filled by the Cleric or maybe Inquisitor already

Necromancer: I like bone oracles for this but I think the Juju oracle is probably stronger strictly speaking, a lot of classes can do this if they try for it.

The only guy I see maybe covering this is the Cleric.


If the Inquisitor is going for Hellknight he is probably going the heavy armor route. That means he is not going to be very good at sneaking around. You also lack a full BAB heavy hitter. To me that suggest a Ranger. Possibly an Urban Ranger to be able to deal with traps.

I know you said this was an evil campaign but you might want to consider playing a neutral character. Half your party is going to have strong aura’s so dealing with good could be a problem. By playing a neutral character it would allow you to be better at dealing with things like paladins without arousing suspicion. Take a trait to get bluff as a class skill and take human as your favored enemy. This works particularly well if you are going to be doing a lot of urban adventures.

Grand Lodge

An evil shifter would actually be kind of cool, you could even just go 4 levels of tiger or deinonychus weretouched shifter and multi class from there for thematics and mechanically powerful builds.

Vivisectionist alchemist is always a good choice too. They are very capable trapbreakers(especially if you kidnap a wizard or alchemist from the pathfinder society and steal their secret Aran Zey’s Focus spell). Even without trapfinding you can have one of your many spellcasters cast dispel magic on any magic traps you encounter. Or SM I for a way to trigger them safely.


Your party doesn't have a skill monkey. You could be some kind of ninja-assassin. Maybe be an Arcane Trickster.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Your party doesn't have a skill monkey. You could be some kind of ninja-assassin. Maybe be an Arcane Trickster.

Or you could play someone who actually contributes to the party. Skillmonkey is not a useful (main) character role in Pathfinder. Wizard and Inquisitor already have 6-7 skills per level each, how is that not enough?

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
You also lack a full BAB heavy hitter.

Just because it doesn't have one doesn't mean it needs one. Unless the party is commonly fighting in anti-magic zones, the Warpriest does the same job (doesn't need a pre-buffing time, and basically has the attack roll of a full BAB char).


Mysterious Stranger wrote:

If the Inquisitor is going for Hellknight he is probably going the heavy armor route. That means he is not going to be very good at sneaking around. You also lack a full BAB heavy hitter. To me that suggest a Ranger. Possibly an Urban Ranger to be able to deal with traps.

I know you said this was an evil campaign but you might want to consider playing a neutral character. Half your party is going to have strong aura’s so dealing with good could be a problem. By playing a neutral character it would allow you to be better at dealing with things like paladins without arousing suspicion. Take a trait to get bluff as a class skill and take human as your favored enemy. This works particularly well if you are going to be doing a lot of urban adventures.

I second this idea. Get some minor spell casting ability, and the ability to go either melee or ranged depending on the rest of the party's composition. Perhaps play it as a bounty hunter, or maybe an informant and scout for a thieves guild. Either way, I'd say it works. Maybe take a scouting animal companion instead of an active fighting one, or Hunter's Bond and avoid an animal companion all together.


If you are interested in a non-magic skills/social/stealth character, an evil campaign may be a good opportunity to play the Serial Killer Vigilante Archetype. Sneak Attack, Slayer's Studied Target, plus free Dreadful Carnage at 11th level for some intimidation fun.

As some in this thread have noted, being without magic may definitely hamper you power-wise, but you've got plenty of magic in the party, so you can probably get away with it.

I'd also toss out a mesmerist as a possible face option. Strong face skills and nasty debuffing, maybe go enforcer with a sap for some serious intimidate shenanigans. You can be a nasty secondary melee character and still have a lot to contribute to non-combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm betting you don't have an ranged focus with those classes.

I'd be inclined toward a halfing duettist bard with an archery focus. Have you familiar be a flyer and with the mauler template and you have a flying mount at 3rd level. You will be able to do an inspire courage the first round, and then shoot lots of arrows. As a halfing, the damage won't be great, but take arcane strike and between that and inspire courage and it shouldn't be bad at all.


Blue Tempest wrote:
doomman47 wrote:

Well depending on the other's build they might need a solid front liner and this might be your one and only opportunity to play an anti paladin(you could even become a lich or graveknight with dm permission most evil parties try to either become undead or demons/devils so it wouldn't be an odd request).

Even though it would be another divine class in a party with 3 divines already its still pretty unique and you shouldn't be stepping on any toes.

Evil druid could also work filling in the nature caster roll focusing on destructive weather/natural disaster control would be right at home in that party.

Magus could also work but I personally find it less interesting but its a solid class that should also be considered.

Antipaladin was my first choice, but the Inquisitor said it's just his base class to turn into a Hell Knight later. So I thought It'd just be redundant for me at that point.

Which hellknight there are two prestige classes for that one is a fullplate melee brute and the other is a light armor caster.


Derklord wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Your party doesn't have a skill monkey. You could be some kind of ninja-assassin. Maybe be an Arcane Trickster.

Or you could play someone who actually contributes to the party. Skillmonkey is not a useful (main) character role in Pathfinder. Wizard and Inquisitor already have 6-7 skills per level each, how is that not enough?

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
You also lack a full BAB heavy hitter.
Just because it doesn't have one doesn't mean it needs one. Unless the party is commonly fighting in anti-magic zones, the Warpriest does the same job (doesn't need a pre-buffing time, and basically has the attack roll of a full BAB char).

There is no need to be pejorative. Perhaps you think that being nasty will cover up for the fact that you are wrong. Lots of GMs, including Pathfinder ones, pose challenges that require something other than making and robbing dead bodies. Pathfinder Society Adventures usually require special skill roles to resolve special problems that some kind of Rogue or Ninja or something would be especially good at. Failure at this doesn't generally lead to a TPK or something, but it usually leads to getting 1 Prestige Point instead of 2.

Remember the OP is entering an evil campaign. Evil campaigns are different from good campaigns. In a Good campaign, the townsfolk send a boy running through the fields to the heroes, screaming, "Hercules! We need you!" And then the heroes just roll up their sleeves and defend the status quo. Evil characters are much more likely to have a more complicated relationship with both the townsfolk and with the Goblins. The Evil "heroes" might cultivate the reputation of heroes in town, then arrange a payoff/protection scheme with the Goblin Chief. The Party might be hired to find the missing children, only to find that the mayor is the ringleader of some kind of child slave ring. So, the party blackmails the mayor, then frames the town midwife and trumps up charges of witchcraft (That usually works.). Evil parties characters are not all Nazgul Riding in groups of 9, you know.

The party does not have a character that is good at being sneaky and subtley breaking into places and quietly disarming traps, at least at first blush, it doesn't appear that way. Maybe Blue Tempest's GM doesn't make that kind of adventure: do you have some special knowledge of the OP's GM's campaign?

If you are any good at all at character building, you can build a highly effective skill-monkey character. The other thing you need is creativity and imagination when it comes to roleplaying. I can show you how it's done, if the OP wants.

Also, Wizards, 2 skill points per level, not 6 or 7.


Dave Justus wrote:

I'm betting you don't have an ranged focus with those classes.

I'd be inclined toward a halfing duettist bard with an archery focus. Have you familiar be a flyer and with the mauler template and you have a flying mount at 3rd level. You will be able to do an inspire courage the first round, and then shoot lots of arrows. As a halfing, the damage won't be great, but take arcane strike and between that and inspire courage and it shouldn't be bad at all.

I really like the idea of Grenadier Alchemists shooting exploding arrows.

I also like the idea of a Half Elf Ninja with that Arcane Apprentice Trait that lets you use Magic Wands. You get some Wands of Scorching Ray, Orb of Acid, and stuff and then spam Ninja Vanishing Trick + False Attacker, making Ranged Touch Attacks vs. Flatfooted AC that also lock in Sneak Attack Damage. I dare you to say "Ranged Touch Attack vs. Flatfooted AC" without grinning like the Cat that Ate the Canary!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm fond of Grenadier Alchemists as well.

Rather than the pure Ninja, I'd be inclined to Ninja > Sorcerer > Arcane Trickster and have the Sorcerer spells and levels focused on blasting
(tattooed sorc flying mauler familiar would be pretty awesome with this too).


Dave Justus wrote:

I'm fond of Grenadier Alchemists as well.

Rather than the pure Ninja, I'd be inclined to Ninja > Sorcerer > Arcane Trickster and have the Sorcerer spells and levels focused on blasting
(tattooed sorc flying mauler familiar would be pretty awesome with this too).

Ninja/Wizard would allow earlier access to Arcane Trickster. Also, Sorcerer has those splendid Class Abilities, and you don't get those if you become a Arcane Trickster.

Ninja/Arcanist allows you to get at least some Arcane Exploits. I really like Dimensional Slide. Even dipping 1 level in Arcanist will give you that 10' Teleport you can use to achieve Flanking.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
There is no need to be pejorative.

I apologize if you saw it as offensive towards you, that was certainly not my intention. I was purely talking about characters.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Perhaps you think that being nasty will cover up for the fact that you are wrong. Lots of GMs, including Pathfinder ones, pose challenges that require something other than making and robbing dead bodies. Pathfinder Society Adventures usually require special skill roles to resolve special problems that some kind of Rogue or Ninja or something would be especially good at.

Woah, stop right there. I'm not saying skills are useless. I'm saying that a character whose main character focus is skills is not useful!

There's no need to actually focus on skills - as I've said, the Wizard and the Inquisitor already have 6 to 7 skill ranks per level. Bard and Invesigator also combine 6/level skill ranks with abilities that improve skills, making those two classes better at being a "skillmonkey" than Rogue, while also contributing plenty in combat.

TLDR version: "skillmonkey" as a primary character role is crap, "skillmonkey" as a secondary (or tertiary etc.) character role is good, but the party already has two of those.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Also, Wizards, 2 skill points per level, not 6 or 7.

Do you often see Wizards with 10 int?

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
The party does not have a character that is good at being sneaky and subtley breaking into places and quietly disarming traps, at least at first blush, it doesn't appear that way.

Wizard can cast Invisibility; Wizard and Inquisitor can cast Knock; Cleric, Warpriest and Inquisitor can cast Silence; Wizard, Cleric and Warpriest can cast Silent Table.

Whether disabling traps is necessary depends on the campaign. Anyone can disable non-magical traps, and Dispel Magic (or using spells for e.g. summoned creatures to simply trigger them harmlessly) can suppress magical ones, but if you want to directly disable magic traps: Investigator, Slayer, Seeker Sorcerer, Patient Ambusher Hunter, Trapper/Urban Ranger, Alchemical Trapper/Crypt Breaker/Trap Breaker/Vaultbreaker Alchemist, or Archivist/Archaeologist/Detective/Sandman/Seeker Bard can use Disable Device on magical traps, or anyone affected by the Aram Zey's Focus spell. The traits Criminal/Mechanical Expertise/Vagabond Child/Nimble Fingers, Keen Mind/Gold Finger make Disable Device a class skill, and the Voices of Solid Things trait also makes it charisma based.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
I apologize if you saw it as offensive towards you, that was certainly not my intention. I was purely talking about characters.

You came across as awfully dismissive of my suggestion. I accept your apology.


I wrote:
Also, Wizards, 2 skill points per level, not 6 or 7.
Derklord wrote:
Do you often see Wizards with 10 int?

No, but if it is character classes we're talking about, then it would be the Class Skill number that is important: a Wizard's is 2. If a particular Wizard's Skill number were 6, that same character's Skill number would be 12, were he a Rogue.

Derklord wrote:
Woah, stop right there. I'm not saying skills are useless. I'm saying that a character whose main character focus is skills is not useful!

Interesting, maybe. I'm not sure I agree with you. I have to admit, the skill monkey characters I've been thinking of most lately do not focus on skills: they tend to focus on Sneak Attack Damage. I tend to assemble Multiclass Salad characters. My melee Sneak Attack character build combines levels in Snakebite Striker Brawler, Bounty Hunter Slayer, and Ninja, with maybe a level in Arcanist and/or White Haired Witch, unlocking SAD variously though Feinting, Dirty Tricks (Blinding), or Flanking. She would probably be a Tengu with Claws, and would do other things to get even more Attacks in her Full Attack. Anyway, Brawlers have a Skill number of 4, Slayers 6, and Ninja's 8. This would be a highly Skilled character with an emphasis on melee rather than Skills.

Derklord wrote:
Wizard can cast Invisibility

Arcane Tricksters, one of my suggestions, are Wizards. If you are in a hurry, you only have to spend 2 levels in nonwizard classes: 1 level in Snakebite Striker Brawler, 1 level in Rogue or Ninja or something. You might go ahead and spend a third level so you can take Ninja Tricks and/or Rogue Talents as Feats. Basically, you will be Wizard who is good at being sneaky and has a broader Class Skill portfolio, or you will be like a Rogue who is AWESOME at infiltrating places, casting Disguise Self to get an extra +10 on your Disguise Checks, wearing a Mask of the Stony Demeanor to get a +10 on your Bluff Checks and using Coax information to Bluff instead of Diplomacy, letting you Skill Dump into Bluff. Maybe Honeyed Words to roll twice and take the better. No one will know who you are, everyone will like you, even while the Necromancer's minions are eating their friends.

Derklord wrote:
Wizard can cast Invisibility; Wizard and Inquisitor can cast Knock; Cleric, Warpriest and Inquisitor can cast Silence; Wizard, Cleric and Warpriest can cast Silent Table.

Silence is problematic. It has a 20' Radius. I might not hear you coming, but if I am writing at my desk, and suddenly I notice I can no longer hear the clock ticking or the quill scratching my paper, and I say, "That's weird," but the sounds do not come out of my mouth, the jig is up, and I KNOW there is a Silent assassin somewhere within 20 feet of me.

Meanwhile, Wizards and Clerics can cast those things, but why should they when they have a specialist with them. Let the Ninja sneak into the castle with a few Skeletons in his Handy Haversack, releasing them into the baily as he opens the portcullis and the rest of the Undead Army pours in while the real spellcasters ravish the defenders with Fireballs and Flame Strikes, or whatever.

Derklord wrote:
I was purely talking about characters.

Ah, and I wasn't even talking about characters to build, yet. I was talking about roles to play in the party!


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
If a particular Wizard's Skill number were 6, that same character's Skill number would be 12, were he a Rogue.

This is completely irrelevant, because according to the OP, the player has already decided to play a Wizard. The Wizard played by the other player will start with 6 to 7 skills per level, the Inquisitor as well. This isn't a theoretical debate, the party as it is will have around 16-18 skill ranks per level without the OPs character (without them being humans). That much is already decided.

Also, a Wizard with 18 starting Int is a big help in combat, a Rogue with 18 Int probably not so much, but that's not even relevant here.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I have to admit, the skill monkey characters I've been thinking of most lately do not focus on skills: (...) This would be a highly Skilled character with an emphasis on melee rather than Skills.

This is basically why I said "useful (main) character role" maybe I should have left the parentheses out, for clarity.

I think this whole thing between us has been a misunderstanding. To me, a "skillmonkey" is a character who does basically nothing but skills, a character who's very inefficient in combat because all his investment went into improving skills. That was the kind of character I was commenting on. I just presumed you meant the same, because under the definition of your last post, the Wizard and the Inquisitor are both skillmonkeys. Maybe we were both unclear.
To avoid potential further misunderstanding, I do not think the multiclass character you've described is useless or not contributing to a party, but I wouldn't call it a skillmonkey. I see skills being a tertiary focus for that character (behind melee damage and debuffing).

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Arcane Tricksters, one of my suggestions, are Wizards.

Sure, but my point was that the ability to sneak into a house is not something the party with the four given members is missing. They don't need a Ninja to "sneak into the castle with a few Skeletons in his Handy Haversack". The OP could totally play a Ninja, sure, but I just want to make sure that he doesn't feel like he needs to do so. Even if he wants to play a sneaky, skillful character who can disable magical traps, there's a bunch of choices like Alchemist, Slayer, Bard, or Investigator.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Silence is problematic. It has a 20' Radius. I might not hear you coming, but if I am writing at my desk (...) I KNOW there is a Silent assassin somewhere within 20 feet of me.

It also prevents spellcasting, e.g. of Knock, within the area. Which is why I included the Silent Table spell - it lacks the combat potential of Silence, but is basically perfect for infiltration.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Ninja/Wizard would allow earlier access to Arcane Trickster. Also, Sorcerer has those splendid Class Abilities, and you don't get those if you become a Arcane Trickster.

Earlier access is nice, but CHR synergy is nice too.

Usually I prefer Wizards to Sorcerers, but if your plan is just using spells to deliver sneak attack, then sorcerers do the job just fine (especially when there is a wizard in the party.)

You also don't get the splendid class abilities of a sorcerer if you are a wizard. And there are some bloodlines that will give you a nice damage boost for your offensive magic right at the start.


Derklord wrote:
Alchemist, Slayer, Bard, or Investigator.

Bard is totally what I'd call a Skill Monkey Class. I've been thinking about how to work in some levels in Flame Dancer Bard into a Sneak Attack Build. Flame Dancers get this ability to grant themselves and the whole party the ability to see through Smoke and Fire. The character then gets an Eversmoking Bottle. It makes everyone within 20' Blind, except for the party, of course. Everyone likes fighting Blinded opponents, but Sneak Attack characters REALLY like it!

Probably any homespun GM would arrange it so that it just so happens all the opponents the party is facing all have Improved Blind Fighting all of a sudden, so this would be particularly devastating for a PFS Character, when the GM can't just change stuff.

Derklord wrote:
Alchemist,

Not exactly a what I'd call a skill monkey, either, but they do get a lot of skills. With the Alchemal Allocation Extract, Godfrey Gloop would have a huge amount of magical utility to share with the party. Since they are technically not spellcasters, they don't normally make magic items except for Potions, but they can take the Master Craftsman Feat, which qualifies them to take Craft Wondrous Item and Craft Magic Arms and Armor.

It would be wicked fun to play a Goblin Grenadier Alchemist with a Size Medium Musket Pistol and the Burn! Burn! Burn! Feat and the Explosive Missile Discovery. Just try saying Ranged Touch Attacks with Exploding Bullets. without laughing maniacally!

It occurs to me that if the Wizard is going to be a Necromancer, he might not be much of a Blaster. The role of Blaster Wizard might be open in Blue Tempest's party, and a Goblin Alchemist shooting exploding bullets just might serve nicely and round out the party's skills.


Dave Justus wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Ninja/Wizard would allow earlier access to Arcane Trickster. Also, Sorcerer has those splendid Class Abilities, and you don't get those if you become a Arcane Trickster.

Earlier access is nice, but CHR synergy is nice too.

Usually I prefer Wizards to Sorcerers, but if your plan is just using spells to deliver sneak attack, then sorcerers do the job just fine (especially when there is a wizard in the party.)

You also don't get the splendid class abilities of a sorcerer if you are a wizard. And there are some bloodlines that will give you a nice damage boost for your offensive magic right at the start.

Maybe.

The reason I favor Wizard over Sorcerer when I'm multiclassing is that Wizards can learn more spells, and they get access to higher level spells, sooner. In addition to the obvious advantage of that, the more-spells-sooner-technically-not Class Ability will still be enjoyed when you become an arcane Trickster or Archer or something, and most Class Abilities aren't. Also, it means you can start taking those levels in your Prestige Class sooner and not wait so long to start enjoying the character build the way you presumably intend to.

It's because the sexy thing about Sorcerers is those Class Abilities that I generally discommend them for most Prestige Classes, but if there is a low level Sorcerer Class Ability that you really want, then you should probably go for it.

Silver Crusade

I recommend Bard fore a few reason. The group is very healing heavy. However it lacks any full BAB classes. Gaining the bonus from inspire courage will help the party as a hole preform better in combat. With two things any bard can disable traps 1: Trait Vagabond Child 2: spell Aram Zey's Focus. You can now disable any type of trap with limited investment. It also gives the party a character that can gather information, and a second character for knowledge skills. You can build them to be effective combat characters in melee or range depending on your preference. I tend to not use archetypes as they force a bard in to one role, vs there ability to do multiple jobs good.

Grand Lodge

If the party needs a switch-hitter, have you considered a Kineticist? He doesn't have much armor, but as a Con-primary class, he'll have a sack-load of hit points. With two infusions (Kinetic Blade and Extended Range) he can cover either role. Depending on the element he chooses, he can have melee/ranged touch attacks.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Alchemist,
Not exactly a what I'd call a skill monkey

Why not? A bomber Alchemist would start with ~7 skill ranks per level, and has spells to boost or complement them. For example, Monkey Fish removes all need to invest into climb or swim, Disguise Self/Vocal alteration improve disguise checks, Heigan archetype like the [url=https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/archetypes/paizo-alchemist-archetypes/trap-breaker-alchemist-archetype/]Trap Breaker[/url and maybe a trait, can basically do everythign a Rogue can do, and then some.

What many advocates/followers of the skillmonkey forget or ignore is that it rarely is about the skill check itself, it's about the result. The underlying objective is problem sloving - as an example, the goal is not to pick the lock, the goal is to get past the door. Spells can substitude a lot of skills, often even low level spells whose slots you won't need in combat anyway.

Venkatesh wrote:
If the party needs a switch-hitter (...)

Does any party need a switch hitter?


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Derklord wrote:
Venkatesh wrote:
If the party needs a switch-hitter (...)
Does any party need a switch hitter?

It depends on how you define "switch hitter," doesn't it? See your own comments about "skill monkey."

IMO, everyone except "squishy" casters should have at least a decent ability in both melee and ranged combat, even if they focus mostly on one or the other.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
IMO, everyone except "squishy" casters should have at least a decent ability in both melee and ranged combat, even if they focus mostly on one or the other.

That's totally true, but I just have a problem with definitions that encompass just about every character. like, if we use that to define "switch hitter", the phrase "If the party needs a switch-hitter" would be equivalent with "if the party needs a character that's anything but a squishy caster".


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Derklord wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
IMO, everyone except "squishy" casters should have at least a decent ability in both melee and ranged combat, even if they focus mostly on one or the other.
That's totally true, but I just have a problem with definitions that encompass just about every character. like, if we use that to define "switch hitter", the phrase "If the party needs a switch-hitter" would be equivalent with "if the party needs a character that's anything but a squishy caster".

OR "If the party needs a combat-focused character other than a dedicated archer or a rage-pounce barbarian." There are people that still play archers without a decent melee option or melee brutes with no ranged option beyond thrown dagger or two.

Silver Crusade

Dragonchess Player wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
IMO, everyone except "squishy" casters should have at least a decent ability in both melee and ranged combat, even if they focus mostly on one or the other.
That's totally true, but I just have a problem with definitions that encompass just about every character. like, if we use that to define "switch hitter", the phrase "If the party needs a switch-hitter" would be equivalent with "if the party needs a character that's anything but a squishy caster".
OR "If the party needs a combat-focused character other than a dedicated archer or a rage-pounce barbarian." There are people that still play archers without a decent melee option or melee brutes with no ranged option beyond thrown dagger or two.

Why would you need a melee weapon when you can just 5ft step and full attack with your bow? Even better if you qualify for Point Blank Master. Apart from that, just slap a cestus on at the beginning of the campaign and leave it on forever.


Gray Warden wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
IMO, everyone except "squishy" casters should have at least a decent ability in both melee and ranged combat, even if they focus mostly on one or the other.
That's totally true, but I just have a problem with definitions that encompass just about every character. like, if we use that to define "switch hitter", the phrase "If the party needs a switch-hitter" would be equivalent with "if the party needs a character that's anything but a squishy caster".
OR "If the party needs a combat-focused character other than a dedicated archer or a rage-pounce barbarian." There are people that still play archers without a decent melee option or melee brutes with no ranged option beyond thrown dagger or two.
Why would you need a melee weapon when you can just 5ft step and full attack with your bow? Even better if you qualify for Point Blank Master. Apart from that, just slap a cestus on at the beginning of the campaign and leave it on forever.

This is one of those things PCs do that would be super weird in reality.

Grand Lodge

^ But super common in fantasy, superhero stories, etc.


It may be too late, but have you considered the summoner? Your party has a lot of wisdom based characters and an intelligence based caster. So, being charisma based would be nice. And eidolon’s can get great evil flavor.


I answer this question the same every time.

If you're the kind of player who thinks prepping, planning, and customizing a character is half the fun. And you enjoy looking at limitless different utility options as well as playing a character who can fill many many roles then you play an Alchemist.

If not. then you don't.

You can even pick a madness alchemist that is based of Charisma. Just do it for Barghest Feast. Nothing like eating people for some buffs.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Gray Warden wrote:
Why would you need a melee weapon when you can just 5ft step and full attack with your bow? (...)
This is one of those things PCs do that would be super weird in reality.

Actually... the "step back" is a pretty common technique in basketball where you step away from your opponent to create a space to throw without your throw being blocked or otherwise interfered with.

Still, we aren't honestly calling a Barbarian with a few Amentum Javelins, or an archer with Point-Blank Master, a switch-hitter, are we? I don't think that's what Venkatesh meant.

Silver Crusade

Derklord wrote:
Still, we aren't honestly calling a Barbarian with a few Amentum Javelins, or an archer with Point-Blank Master, a switch-hitter, are we? I don't think that's what Venkatesh meant.

I'm not, and that's why I believe switch-hitters (which to me identifies any build with both Rapid Shot and Power Attack) are useless in any Pathfinder game.


Derklord wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
Gray Warden wrote:
Why would you need a melee weapon when you can just 5ft step and full attack with your bow? (...)
This is one of those things PCs do that would be super weird in reality.

Actually... the "step back" is a pretty common technique in basketball where you step away from your opponent to create a space to throw without your throw being blocked or otherwise interfered with.

Still, we aren't honestly calling a Barbarian with a few Amentum Javelins, or an archer with Point-Blank Master, a switch-hitter, are we? I don't think that's what Venkatesh meant.

I’m talking about setting out on an adventur and putting a cestus on and then not taking it off for the next decade in case you need to punch someone.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I’m talking about setting out on an adventur and putting a cestus on and then not taking it off for the next decade in case you need to punch someone.

Ah, sorry. (It would be helpful if you removed the parts you're not refering to from the quote!)

Apart from the fact that you wouldn't wear it at rest, a cestus is basically a (fingerless) glove - wearing a cestus whenever you're wearing armor is rather realistic. A combat archer is probably wearing archery gloves, anyway, outfitting those with knuckle guards doesn't sound outlandish to me.


Don't forget never taking off belts & headbands so they remain permanent bonuses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Garretmander wrote:
Don't forget never taking off belts & headbands so they remain permanent bonuses.

Adventurer's love lives really take a hit once they became wealthy enough.

Grand Lodge

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:


I’m talking about setting out on an adventur and putting a cestus on and then not taking it off for the next decade in case you need to punch someone.

About worn fist weapons. This is a world were putting on hand wraps makes some people 20% worse at a punching, but does nothing for other people. If you punch someone they get to punch you back 100% of the time, but with the warps they 'magically' don't get punch you back. People wear them because the rules are incongruent with reality.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gray Warden wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Derklord wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
IMO, everyone except "squishy" casters should have at least a decent ability in both melee and ranged combat, even if they focus mostly on one or the other.
That's totally true, but I just have a problem with definitions that encompass just about every character. like, if we use that to define "switch hitter", the phrase "If the party needs a switch-hitter" would be equivalent with "if the party needs a character that's anything but a squishy caster".
OR "If the party needs a combat-focused character other than a dedicated archer or a rage-pounce barbarian." There are people that still play archers without a decent melee option or melee brutes with no ranged option beyond thrown dagger or two.
Why would you need a melee weapon when you can just 5ft step and full attack with your bow? Even better if you qualify for Point Blank Master. Apart from that, just slap a cestus on at the beginning of the campaign and leave it on forever.

Unless the melee enemy has feats like Improved Sunder or Step Up/Following Step/Step Up and Strike. Or reach (which is very common starting at mid-level play). Or protection from arrows in low-level play.

The point is, specialists should not expect a single tactic to work 100% of the time. So if the melee-focused character with only a handful of thrown weapons is confronted with an archer at long range (200 ft+) or a dedicated archer with no melee weapon other than a cestus is facing an ogre (10 ft reach) in a small room, then they better not whine about the GM being "unfair," IMO.

Silver Crusade

Or, you know, just move. Roll Acrobatics (high Dex = high Acrobatics) to avoid the AoO, withdraw or just eat up the AoO (high Dex = high AC) and next round you're good to full-attack again with your three or more arrows per round shot from a magic bow with Deadly Aim, PBS and other ranged-specific feats/spells.

What's the point of staying there, drawing a masterwork longsword or something and dealing a puny 1d8+2 damage, just to be exactly in the same crippled situation the next round?

Same for melees: enemies at range? Just move your arses and charge. True, you might waste a couple of rounds before full-attacking, but at least after that you're up at maximum power. There's nothing sadder than a melee Barbarian trying to outmatch a dedicated archer at its own game.


@Gray Warden: Unless you can really pull it off. A ranger switch hitter needs "only" Power Attack and Quick Draw for melee, the rest would go into archery. When he gets Point Blank Master online (6+, I'd rather say 10th level is quite early enough), he could retrain the feats. Or stay a not so super optimized switch-hitter.

Apart from that, if in the game world of your GM weather and visibility are a thing, a melee option might come in handy.

For most characters switching between melee and ranged might be doable for the first three or four levels but after that it's usually not worth to keep it up. Specialization is a thing in Pathfinder and Air Walk and Fly are not unheard of.


Just have to be a robot with rocket propelled fists just level up as a melee monk and then use your fists as throwing weapons.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Class Suggestion? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.