Do you have a go to class?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Title might be a bit odd, But I'l see if I can explain it a bit better.

Do you have a class that you realy love, That you will play more then others? A class thatyou will turn to as your first choise if you are unsure what to play?

For me, I love the Alchemist. I always try to think of ways to fit Alchemists into every situation and role..


I don’t really have a go to class, I’ve made somewhere in the region of 40 characters and there’s pretty large selection of classes within that.

I do make Oracles more often than any other class though. A lot of the mysteries are amazing and are very different. There isn’t really anything you can’t do with an Oracle in my experience.


A class that would be my first choice if I was unsure what to play? Yes, I do have one of those. Shaman. I also have secondary classes: Druid & Skald.

My reasoning is the same as your reasoning. I can build anything I really want out of those classes. If only there was a spontaneous casting variant of the Shaman, I would pick that every time.

Overall, I tend to make characters to fill a perceived role in the group that is lacking. I like to play support characters. The only time I enjoy being in the spotlight is when I am saving the lives of the other party members.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My "go to" are the core four. In effect, if one of those roles are covered, I usually go for one of those classes.

In a current campaign I played a brawler, only to find I was the only "front-line character". I can handle the role now (and we have an extra fighter-type too) but a 1st-level brawler is not a substitute for a fighter.


My first answer is all of them: I multiclass extensively, taking a bit of this and that to achieve the effects I want. This is especially for melee characters. I like to combine Druid and Warpriest to Wildshape into Huge Animals with lots of Natural Attacks then replace the base Damage with Sacred Weapon Damage. I like taking 5 levels or so of Inquisitor to get Bane and go wild on Teamwork Feats. I like taking Style Feats, say Panther Snake style or Panther Ascetic Style, so I can apply Panther Style Feats to my sword. When I make a Grappler, I like to combine Cavalier and Alchemist.

But if I were to single class or almost single class, I'd say Sorcerer and Oracle, because those classes really depend on the attainment of high-level Class Abilities rather than the mere accumulation of bonuses, and I also might go for Gunchemist or Grenadier alchemist: exploding arrows are cool; exploding bullets are cooler.


I suppose my go to classes for what I’d like to play are Sorcs, Witches, Investigators and Oracles,

I guess if I was answering for what characters I gravitate towards.


I don't have a class, but I prefer front-line characters with support capabilities. Most 6/9 classes can be built to suit this, but also things like Paladin and Cavalier.


My go-to playing style is summoning. But there are a lot of classes that can do that well.

Sovereign Court

Medium and Alchemist for me. Medium because you can get a lot of static damage with little effort (ie, I have a level 1 'pregen' for PFS that has a longsword with +8 1d8+10 +spirit surge 4-6/day). Just tacking a level dip of Medium makes most Martials better.

Alchemist because... bombs. And it was my second character ever in PFS after my 1st character (Magus) permanently died at level 2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really love Kineticist, Sorcerers, and Oracles.


If I need to make a character quickly, I usually go with Fighter. Every group needs a martial character, the class is flexible enough to have some variety, I don't have to pick out spells, and I've played Fighter often enough to roll one up without cracking open a book at this point. I can sit down without a word written on my character sheet and be ready to play in less than 10 minutes.


Barbarian, because hitting things with a huge f***off axe never goes out of style.

Dark Archive

Clerics. Sometimes I play them because no one else is. But really, I kind of wanted to play one anyway. They are just so darn versatile. I can play a whip-specialist bug-summoning cleric of Calistria who is *nothing* like my buff-happy caster cleric of Nethys who is *nothing* like my undead-loving negative-energy-channeling cleric of Urgathoa who is *nothing* like my longbow-using bear-companion-having cleric of Erastil. It's just crazy how much variance there is, between the various gods.

After that, Druids take second fiddle, along with a smattering of Wizards, Bards and Rangers. I don't play much non-base-class stuff, but I am intrigued by the Witch, pre-errata Summoner, Shaman and Mesmerist (although, like the Alchemist, the Mesmerist sometimes feels like it tries to be two or three different classes, jammed into one, and does all of them somewhat unsatisfactorily, IMO).


I pretty much only GM but necessity, not prefer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm almost always stuck in GM'ing duty (not that I necessarily object) so most of my building is for NPC's. I've gotta say that I really love the flexibility of the Fighter in the "complete" Pathfinder with all splatbooks, and how it serves as a beautiful tabula rasa for a combat-focused NPC that can be taken in any direction you choose. It's effective, versatile, and can be used for a wide variety of concepts.

I have to admit I have a soft spot for Wizards. While they aren't my favorite class from a purely mechanical perspective (Sorcerer takes that distinction) they really allow me a degree of control over the flow of combat. After all, if a Wizard sets up a Wall of Force to separate a specific party member it looks a legitimate combat strategy, when in fact it was a narrative ploy on the party of the GM to create a specific 1 on 1 scenario between a party member and an NPC antagonist. Wizards can carry a single copy of a wide range of spells that allow me to determine not only the flow of combat, but also the events leading up to it. The one thing is that you absolutely need to pull your punches with NPC Wizards, since if played too well they can completely foreclose the party's options and put them in no-win situations, and that's just not fun.


Set wrote:

Clerics. Sometimes I play them because no one else is. But really, I kind of wanted to play one anyway. They are just so darn versatile. I can play a whip-specialist bug-summoning cleric of Calistria who is *nothing* like my buff-happy caster cleric of Nethys who is *nothing* like my undead-loving negative-energy-channeling cleric of Urgathoa who is *nothing* like my longbow-using bear-companion-having cleric of Erastil. It's just crazy how much variance there is, between the various gods.

After that, Druids take second fiddle, along with a smattering of Wizards, Bards and Rangers. I don't play much non-base-class stuff, but I am intrigued by the Witch, pre-errata Summoner, Shaman and Mesmerist (although, like the Alchemist, the Mesmerist sometimes feels like it tries to be two or three different classes, jammed into one, and does all of them somewhat unsatisfactorily, IMO).

Two things,

1) Have you ever given an Oracle a try? If you’re a fan of clerics mechanically you’ll probably like Oracles too, you can produce similar mechanical relevance with a different theme and potentially character archetype I.E a super charismatic one.

2) I am a big fan mesmerist and have spent a lot of time thinking about them. Basically I think they don’t really work at low levels on there own. They want to be a full caster, most closely comparable to a witch, but don’t have the slots to handle it sufficiently.
They have half a tool kit to be a middling martial striker but if they dedicate the resources to do it they will sacrifice any real hope of using their caster based tools effectively.

Generally I think the best road to go down is multiclassing. The most fun I had was with a inspired blade swashbuckler 1/Vexing daredevil and made a character that presented herself as a swashbuckling striker. Using her magic more subtly for manipulation and social situations.

That said staying single classed I think the thing to do would be to do an intimidation build. Feats would be medium armour prof, with he feats to do the hurtful combo, alongside manifold stare to get two blasts of painful stare,

Use the debuff from shaken alongside hypnotic stare to allow your spells to remain effective.


I also GM most of the time, except for PFS (where I share the load with a handful of others), so I build a lot more NPCs than PCs.

I'm not sure how much I have a "go to" class for PCs. When I first started playing PFS, I played pregens for my first several games to get used to how OP worked before building my own characters. The pregens I used most back then were rogue, paladin, witch, and sorcerer. My first few PFS PCs belonged to those classes as a result, though mine were radically different from the iconics.

I now have something like 16 or 17 PCs in PFS, and the only classes I have duplicated are cleric and rogue (my "dash-1" rogue dipped cleric, and my single Core PC is a C/R). That's deliberate, because I want to play a wide variety of characters. That keeps things interesting, and helps me get more experience with material from books I haven't yet introduced into my (non-PFS) home game.


Druid, fighter, or rogue, depending on my mood.

Dark Archive

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
1) Have you ever given an Oracle a try?

I play a lot of low levels, and Oracles, like Sorcerers, really turn me off for that whole extra level of just 1st level spells... At higher levels, when they have more revelations than the Domain abilities a Cleric starts with, I might like them more, but I tend to play beginning characters and prefer my immediate gratification. :)

Quote:
2) I am a big fan mesmerist and have spent a lot of time thinking about them. Basically I think they don’t really work at low levels on there own.

I *want* a completely viable Mesmerist built around Tricks *or* a completely viable Mesmerist built around Stares, but instead I got a weird mix of partial spellcasting, Touch Treatments, Stares and Tricks, none of which are all that snappy on their own. I'd frankly give up spells entirely for a really kickass Stare-focused Mesmerist (perhaps synergizing with the Nexian Third Eye feat, and the ability to Stare at two or even three (when the 3rd eye is open) different targets at once!). Ditto, I'd love a Mesmerist who could implant Tricks all day long, multiple Tricks at once, and multiple times per combat, even if that replaced Stare, Touch Treatment *and* spellcasting. Both just feel like they *almost* were an awesome thing to build a class around, but instead were just sample platter size portions that left me hungry for more.

(I felt the same way about the PF1 Alchemist. He wasn't a great Mutagen user, or an unlimited Bomber, or a full spellcaster, or particularly amazing with the actual Craft (alchemy) skill, or able to really use poisons in any breathtaking manner. Just a whole barrel-full of possibilities. That turned out to be a great place for Archetypes to come in and focus the class into a pure Bomber AT or a pure Mutagen-user, but the Mesmerist, IMO, hasn't quite gotten that sort of AT love yet.)


I only have time for one game a week and I don't like switching out a character unless they die, so I've only played a couple of them. But when I'm building, I find that the class I dip the most is a tie between Swashbuckler and Rogue.


Set wrote:
Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
1) Have you ever given an Oracle a try?

I play a lot of low levels, and Oracles, like Sorcerers, really turn me off for that whole extra level of just 1st level spells... At higher levels, when they have more revelations than the Domain abilities a Cleric starts with, I might like them more, but I tend to play beginning characters and prefer my immediate gratification. :)

That’s a shame my games tend to start at about 2-4 region but we don’t spend long there.

I see what you’re saying though a level 3 cleric is more appealing than a level 3 Oracle. But I think I’d rather be a level 6 Oracle than a level 6 cleric.

Quote:


I *want* a completely viable Mesmerist built around Tricks *or* a completely viable Mesmerist built around Stares, but instead I got a weird mix of partial spellcasting, Touch Treatments, Stares and Tricks, none of which are all that snappy on their own. I'd frankly give up spells entirely for a really kickass Stare-focused Mesmerist (perhaps synergizing with the Nexian Third Eye feat, and the ability to Stare at two or even three (when the 3rd eye is open) different targets at once!). Ditto, I'd love a Mesmerist who could implant Tricks all day long, multiple Tricks at once, and multiple times per combat, even if that replaced Stare, Touch Treatment *and* spellcasting. Both just feel like they *almost* were an awesome thing to build a class around, but instead were just sample platter size portions that left me hungry for more.

To be honest they feel to me to be built around being a support caster and I think it would all mesh (tricks/stares/touch treatments) if they had something to do with there standard action.

But they don’t get enough spells to rely on them at low levels and they get basically nothing to buff them in melee (to hit or AC wise).

Which means at low levels you’re left in this weird floundering position for a lot of combat where you’re good at preparing for the fight but don’t contribute much when you’re actually fighting.

If you could start at say level 7 they’d be fine probably.

Quote:


(I felt the same way about the PF1 Alchemist. He wasn't a great Mutagen user, or an unlimited Bomber, or a full spellcaster, or particularly amazing with the actual Craft (alchemy) skill, or able to really use poisons in any breathtaking manner. Just a whole barrel-full of possibilities. That turned out to be a great place for Archetypes to come in and focus the class into a pure Bomber AT or a pure Mutagen-user, but the Mesmerist, IMO, hasn't quite gotten that sort of AT love yet.)

To be fair I’ve never had much trouble making an alchemist make sense (besides the poison stuff which is crap).

To me making a bomber who self buffs with mutagen and buffs others with infusions he hands out has always been pretty user friendly and made sense.
The alchemy crafting is more a downtime thing for me.

Archetypes came in and gave us a lot of new options but I don’t think the alchemist was ever floundering without them in quite the same way the mesmerist does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Investigator is my go to class, it's just such a fun versatile class. Because it doesn't have a long history there are archetypes for psychic casting, bard casting, inquisitor casting, or the wierd arcane casting that the antiquarian has with the alchemist list or you can just stole with alchemy.

I like skills a lot though so that colors what classes I pick.

I also really like magi. And frequently build those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogue. Yes, it's not a powerhouse by default, but that's part of the charm. You have to work with what you got, try to land your sneak attack often and make the best out of these many skill ranks. On the plus side you rarely have to worry about daily uses (makes playing way more relaxed) and success with such a class feels way more rewarding. Hence I prefer Core rogue over Unchained rogue.

When it comes to flavor, I really like that you depend on your wits and not on a fickle deity or a pet.


My go to is...something I haven't done before. Though I do also like trying the same thing in a different system. So I've played quite a few D&D wizards over the years, and my first Pathfinder character was a Universalist Wizard with a bonded item. Absolutely vanilla wizard.

I've done an Archer Fighter. I could see myself doing another fighter, but not an archer. I could even do another archer, but not a fighter. I think I'd be more likely to do a gunslinger...or a Magus with firearms.

Currently I'm playing a Druidic Herbalist type Druid. It has been...frustrating. Strange Aeons AP is built around the idea you have a cleric in the party, and not having one has been difficult. It isn't the damage, it is getting rid of conditions. I never realized that drains and blindness were so difficult to get rid of without a cleric.

It feels like I'm forgetting a character, but probably not? Our group isn't Pathfinder exclusive, and when we do play pathfinder a campaign usually lasts a year give or take a month.

And the next character...I'll figure it out when we start a new campaign. Who knows maybe I'll make a full BAB dip monstrosity with absurdly good saves? Probably not. I kind of hate dips.


For me it's always been a wizard, then that formed into a Mystic Theurge... but since 4e and my discovery of Swordmage (Eldritch Knight was not nearly as interesting) and now Magus is my favorite class, but I wouldn't call it exclusive, just a choice to jump into if no other idea comes to mind.

Dark Archive

Meirril wrote:
Currently I'm playing a Druidic Herbalist type Druid. It has been...frustrating. Strange Aeons AP is built around the idea you have a cleric in the party, and not having one has been difficult. It isn't the damage, it is getting rid of conditions. I never realized that drains and blindness were so difficult to get rid of without a cleric.

Yeah, I've had similar experiences. I tried to play a Druid as primary healer in a Jade Regent game, and there'd be encounters with four to six ninja using deathblade-poisoned weapons followed by one with a level draining wight, and my 4th level druid was just utterly dead weight at dealing with energy drain or poison. He couldn't even read a scroll of restoration that we found, so the NPC cleric in the caravan had to do it. (Hey, good thing we have an NPC back in town who can do your job, since you suck at it...)

I love the idea of a druid, and the herbalist option even more so, but, dayum, I could not function in my role as 'healer' without those status removal effects like restoration. So I changed to cleric of Erastil with the Animal domain (so that I could keep my animal companion), and all was, more or less, good, and, bonus, I traded up from a small bear to a large elk, and my new companion was much more fun. :)


I don't think I've ever *played* the same class twice since I switched from D&D 3.5 to 3.P to PF, but Wizards have always captured an essential part of my imagination since I got big into playing TTRPGs.

I think the biggest thing is just the sheer amount of ways to interact with the setting they have, and as a result, their theorycrafting potential.

It may not be practical. It may be exorbitant. But a mid-level Wizard can literally create a planet. Well, set the creation of a planet in motion, at least. Even a low-level Wizard could create their own dungeon, even if it would be limited in the amount of moving pieces and verbs they could bring to bear.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogue. Great damage, amazing skill points, versatile styles. I can pretty much play anything with it.


I've spent the most table time playing a witch.

I've built the most bard characters.

Witch is definitely my favourite class, though. Followed by bard, paladin and sorcerer. I like a cha based character. However, I wouldn't feel entirely comfortable bringing the cha based witch archetype to the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I like about my go to classes.

Kineticist
-At will physical/energy attack that scales.
-You can do full damage to swarms.
-Cool elemental/concept themes.
-Cool utility abilities, many of wich are at will.
-Decent skill points and class skills.

Sorcerer
-Bloodline powers/concept.
-Cha based spontaneous arcane caster.
-Bloodline arcana.
-Bonus spells known.
-Cool special defenses for most bloodlines.

Oracle
-Oracle mysteries, like bloodline but more and you have a choice of wich ones and when to get them.
-Oracle curses.
-Cha based spontaneous divine caster.
-Decent skill points and class skills.
-bonus spells known.


Inquisitor. Especially with the various archetypes, you can make it into almost anything; front line, support, healing, skill monkey, summoner, etc.


I also like playing as a Monk, Ranger, Rouge(Unchained), Summoner, and Swashbuckler.

I want to play as a Bard, Brawler, Hunter, Mesmerist, Investigator, Psychic, and Shifter.

I really wish we got a cha based spontaneous Druid based caster class.

I like the bomb mechanic of the Alchemist and the hex mechanic of the Witch.


Cleric or rogue.
The concept might mutate into something else along the way, but most of my character ideas start as one of those two.


I have done, in order for my last five: rouge, cleric, bard, Druid, witch. I generally try to avoid repetition.


I'm not sure that I have a go to class, but I have a go to "style". I gravitate towards Melee Combatants (usually Fighter or Monk) and Pyromancers (which run the gamut in terms of classes).

And, between those two, Pyromancers probably win out. Pyrokineticist, Desert Druid, Fire Wizard, etc. I just like fire.


Vigilante.
I like making highly gimmicky builds, usually focused around things not intended to actually be practically viable, so being able to essentially make my own class from scratch is a huge boon. I also don't like being bogged down with resource limitations, like spell slots or x times per day abilities, which the Vigilante avoids almost entirely.

After that, Fighter and Brawler.
Again gimmicky builds, afforded by a plethora of bonus feats and archetypes that change the core functionality of the classes.


Personally I liked the play test version of the vigilante better then the final version.


I mostly GM anymore, but I do still play on occasions. Still I guess I always preferred hybrid classes. Ones with a little spell-casting and some combat abilities to boot. Like the ranger, paladin & bloodrager. I always liked the cavalier over the fighter class (but only played one for a short time). For a couple of years I played a summoner on and off again, loved the eidolon, so customizable.


Nope. I never multiclass, but I tend to always try to make something new

A human sniper rogue, a gnome necro-focused sorcerer, a human polearm fighter, a human melee ranger, a human mounted barbarian, a hobgoblin cleric of Abadar, then turned paladin of Abadar, a human falchion fighter, a goblin conjuration wizard, and a lizardfolk grappling bloodrager.

I might have also made more. I think fighter is the only one I made twice, but different archetypes and builds. With so many options, there's little reason to do the same thing twice. ;)


Never multi-class as well.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Cleric and Wizard style classes. Prepared casters with a sizable chunk of spells. Magus, warpriest, witch, shaman, and to a lesser extent druid. I haven't played a hunter yet, but I count it in that grouping.


I am always multiclassed.

I almost always have levels in Soulknife.

My primary class is usually Bard or Witch.


Sorcerer, definitely. It's always been one of my favorite classes since it was first introduced. It feels more like I think magic should work; when you know a spell, you KNOW it, and can cast it repeatedly.

If permitted, Soulknife is a favorite. GM is stingy with magic? Not my problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure the Rogue is my "spirit animal", so to speak, regardless of game system. In my last few games I have tried to move away from that style (sneaky/sly/subtle, not the backstabbing/stealing from the party schtick), but each character did sort of migrate back that direction.
I'd love to try playing an Inquisitor, Vigilante or Occultist one of these days as a pseudo-Rogue, thanks to their customizability, but at this point my Pathfinder 1 options are limited to GMing. Some day, maybe.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Oracle. I get to offer the party healing when needed and other things when not. And there are so many different ways to build them.


Occultist, Kineticist and Vigilante are my favorites ^_^

However, I never multiclass... I just hate how it works. Class features rely on class levels instead of character levels and they are tied to specific levels, not using scaling.


Ever since I picked one up for the first time almost a decade ago, I have played exclusively cleric.


JiCi, what type(or types) of Vigilantes do you play as?

Mikemad, do you have any go to deity or deities?

TriOmegaZero, do you have a go to mystery and/or oracle curse?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Blackened is a favorite one, especially on pure spell casting oracles. It gives a bit of offense early on the divine spell list, which is largely defensive until mid levels. Wasting is great for an unsettling Typhoid Mary kind of character. (My Winter Oracle was permanently frostbitten with splotched skin.) Tongues is also amazing if the party buys into learning your restricted languages.

Life is always a solid and appreciated mystery, as a well played spontaneous healer gives incredible breathing room in hard fights. Lore has been very fun even without the ridiculous trance revelation for +20 to Int checks. Flame is also a great thematic mystery, if cliche. Honestly, mystery choice is the absolute best way to make every oracle you play unique, and less metagamey than curse selection. (I’m guilty of picking a curse with minimal effects, hello Covetous, for maximum benefit and minimum drawback.)


Life has always been my favorite Oracle mystery. Tongues is my favorite Oracle curse.

For those who like to play as Sorcerers, what are your go to bloodline(or bloodlines)?

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do you have a go to class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.