| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in the day Secret Wizard made an amazing guide to PF1 classes. It was my go to resource for newbies to help them decide which of the many classes they should play. While I don't think it is as badly needed in PF2 there are some fundamentals of character creation that trip people up. One is that your initial class selection has a huge role in defining what your character will be able to excel in. So I made a PF@ guide in the style of Secret Wizard to help newbies pick a class and make sure they check all the boxes for a functional character.
I imagine most people on this forum won't need this, but they might have new players at their tables who do.
This is a pretty rough draft and definitely has some room to improve, but I hope it helps someone out there.
(Also, I tried to reach out to Secret Wizard for permission in using their basic format, but their private messages on the forums seem to be disabled and I couldn't find any sort of email.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My players long ago selected their classes, but this guide would have been handy at the beginning.
I think the bullet point, "Figure out what you want to do in combat," under Commandments could be expanded to give more insight. For example:
Figure out what you want to do in combat. Combat is inevitable in Pathfinder games, and your character needs to contribute meaningfully to combat. Select a style of combat that suits you. Does your character want to be up close and personal in melee combat, distant from the action in ranged combat, or quickly switching between the two? Is your character going to boldly charge ahead or try to softfootedly catch the enemy unaware? Some classes excel at particular styles of combat.
The heading "Commandments" is fine if you want to sound like a divine authority, but I think "Practicalities" better describes the purpose of that section.
The heading, "What spellcaster is right for me?" sounds like that section involves an immediate choice of a spellcaster class. An alternative, "How about casting spells?" parallels the next heading, "What if I don’t want to cast spells?"
Furthermore, I think the final bullet point, "Do I want to have a liiiiittle bit of magic?" at the end of "What if I don’t want to cast spells?" could be expanded into its own section about classes with focus spells.
Do I want a little bit of magic?
There are ways to get magic on a martial character, such as ancestry feats that give cantrips. A cantrip is a little spell that does not consume a spell slot, so it is always available to its caster.
Another small magic is focus spells. They are more powerful than cantrips and cost a focus point to cast. The character can spend time to regain the focus point between encounters. The spellcasters have focus spells to supplement their spell slots. The Champion martial class has the Lay on Hands focus spell built in. A few other martial classes can gain focus spells through feats.
One of the empty spaces in the Casters table can be filled with Focus Spells Only: Champion, Monk, Ranger. The tradition of focus spells is unimportant.
That's great feedback! I'll incorporate at my next opportunity.
Having trouble coming up with anything good to say about Witch? The class specific description seems to be rather short.
Let me give it a shot.
-----
Witch (INT) - Prepared spellcaster of any tradition with a Patron and a powerful familiar.
Witch is a very flexible class that can be built in many different directions. The choice of spell tradition can make the Witch play similarly to other common spellcasting classes. The prepared spellcasting makes them similar to a Wizard in that they can choose their spells available to what is needed for that day. The Patron can be used for roleplay hooks. The familiar starts out more powerful than the familiars from other classes and they can get the same feat improvements to the familiar that the other classes can get. The focus spell Hexes are chosen independently of the main spell tradition, so the utility of the Hexes are available to any Witch. The complexity of the class is fairly high. Each day you will need to choose both the spells prepared and the abilities your familiar has for the day.
Having trouble coming up with anything good to say about Witch? The class specific description seems to be rather short.
YUP. To be honest I just don't really care about the class. Couldn't tell you why-- they have pretty interesting flavor. I know people have expressed dissatisfaction with them and I've never looked close enough to combat that mentality. I just like Oracles so much in comparison. I just haven't studied them much, which is admittedly not a great look if I am trying to speak from a position of authority.
Mind if I just use your write up?
Thanks for making this ^_^
Just a small note: in the "Pick weapons that play to your strengths" section, simple weapons with a feat that boosts them are still worse than martial weapons, so I just wouldn't mention them. That would save you space and allow you to get to more important things more quickly :)
I started making something like this and gave up very quickly
More suggestions :)
I would put the figuring out what you want to do in combat and pick a class that complements that sections first.
I would say probably instead may for taking optional flaws.
In the figuring out what you want to do in combat I would mention what I think the biggest distinction is, if you want to mainly cast spells or strike with a weapon.
I think saying "midpoint on the spectrum" is way too strong, I think maybe "inclination" would be better.
I think you should recommend precision edge for rangers, it's the easiest to use and usually the most helpful, flurry you have to build towards.
I think people should be recommended against witches, they have the drawbacks of wizards without the extra spells. I think a beginner choosing them would feel weak compared to everyone else.
Investigators work well going archers, because they get nothing from going melee (compared to rogue or swashbuckler)
I would separate the cantrips only and focus spells only sections away from the rest of the traditions.
I'd put alchemist in its own category. And rogues and investigators are as martial as champions, but separating them is understandable.
Thanks for making this ^_^
You're welcome!
Just a small note: in the "Pick weapons that play to your strengths" section, simple weapons with a feat that boosts them are still worse than martial weapons, so I just wouldn't mention them. That would save you space and allow you to get to more important things more quickly :)
A mace with Deadly Simplicity is exactly as good as a War Hammer. A dagger with it is better than a short sword. Crossbow Ace is a harder comparison because it plays so much differently than a bow, but it has plenty of advantages and can be quite fun, especially when Running Reload comes into play.
I would put the figuring out what you want to do in combat and pick a class that complements that sections first.
I would say probably instead may for taking optional flaws.
In the figuring out what you want to do in combat I would mention what I think the biggest distinction is, if you want to mainly cast spells or strike with a weapon.
Agreed. While this seems to be less of a stumbling block in my experience, the combat style really is the first choice.
I think saying "midpoint on the spectrum" is way too strong, I think maybe "inclination" would be better.
I think you should recommend precision edge for rangers, it's the easiest to use and usually the most helpful, flurry you have to build towards.
Precision might be the most optimal, but it leaves you with a more complicated turn. Flurry calls for a little bit of building around but in really really obvious ways IMO. Flurry is the only build in the game which actually doesn't need to think about third actions or almost ever deviating from striking, so in a guide dedicated to ease of play rather than optimization it deserves singling out.
I think people should be recommended against witches, they have the drawbacks of wizards without the extra spells. I think a beginner choosing them would feel weak compared to everyone else.
Eh, they are already called out as harder to use, and I'm not comfortable calling the class bad until I actually look at them in more detail.
Investigators work well going archers, because they get nothing from going melee (compared to rogue or swashbuckler)
Agreed.
I would separate the cantrips only and focus spells only sections away from the rest of the traditions.
Yeah, this is really just listed that way out of laziness because Secret Wizard's guide had some formatting I haven't figured out how to tweak. I'll probably have someone with graphic design chops change these eventually.
I'd put alchemist in its own category. And rogues and investigators are as martial as champions, but separating them is understandable.
While alchemists are definitely unique, I'm not sure it is worth breaking them out into a separate category. Rogues and Investigators are as good (or better) as a champion offensively, but have less hit points and armor proficiency. Which is exactly how skill monkeys are described-- martials who are less tough.
I think you should recommend precision edge for rangers, it's the easiest to use and usually the most helpful, flurry you have to build towards.
I think people should be recommended against witches, they have the drawbacks of wizards without the extra spells. I think a beginner choosing them would feel weak compared to everyone else.
Captain Morgan's Class Selection Guide explains in its introduction: "I am not going to be giving you specific builds-- the rulebooks and archive of Nethys give some fine sample builds and there are plenty of class specific guides that go in depth. Nor will I be color coding what the good options and bad options are." The guide has a limited scope. The reader would decide, "Hey, ranger look interesting," and then seek out a separate guide on ranger builds that suggests precision edge.
I think you should recommend precision edge for rangers, it's the easiest to use and usually the most helpful, flurry you have to build towards.
I think people should be recommended against witches, they have the drawbacks of wizards without the extra spells. I think a beginner choosing them would feel weak compared to everyone else.
Captain Morgan's Class Selection Guide explains in its introduction: "I am not going to be giving you specific builds-- the rulebooks and archive of Nethys give some fine sample builds and there are plenty of class specific guides that go in depth. Nor will I be color coding what the good options and bad options are." The guide has a limited scope. The reader would decide, "Hey, ranger look interesting," and then seek out a separate guide on ranger builds that suggests precision edge.
He specifically mentioned flurry edge though, so I think it's fair to comment on.
Rogues and Investigators are as good (or better) as a champion offensively, but have less hit points and armor proficiency. Which is exactly how skill monkeys are described-- martials who are less tough.
Champions are a lot different than other martials in different ways though, they are extra tough with extra AC, the only class to focus on being a tank, and the only one to have focus spells by default. The point wasn't to criticize the distinction you made, just to point out that the grouping has distinctions within it that might be considered as significant as the distinction you made between skill focused classes and the rest.
Champions are a lot different than other martials in different ways though, they are extra tough with extra AC, the only class to focus on being a tank, and the only one to have focus spells by default. The point wasn't to criticize the distinction you made, just to point out that the grouping has distinctions within it that might be considered as significant as the distinction you made between skill focused classes and the rest.
Rogues and Investigators are as good (or better) as a champion offensively, but have less hit points and armor proficiency. Which is exactly how skill monkeys are described-- martials who are less tough.
This is all covered by the specific class descriptions though. Every class has unique features and strengths. Despite that, Champions are better on the front lines than rogues and get no more skill versatility than fighters, so they don't represent the tradeoff that being a rogue, investigator, or alchemist has to make.
There are other distinctions that can be made, sure, and the champion certainly occupies a fairly distinct niche... But at that point you could say that monks should get their own category because they are the only class focused on unarmed combat or druids should because they are the only class focused on wild shaping. At a certain point you need to draw lines somewhere for categories to be useful at all.
He specifically mentioned flurry edge though, so I think it's fair to comment on.I think you should recommend precision edge for rangers, it's the easiest to use and usually the most helpful, flurry you have to build towards.
I think people should be recommended against witches, they have the drawbacks of wizards without the extra spells. I think a beginner choosing them would feel weak compared to everyone else.
Captain Morgan's Class Selection Guide explains in its introduction: "I am not going to be giving you specific builds-- the rulebooks and archive of Nethys give some fine sample builds and there are plenty of class specific guides that go in depth. Nor will I be color coding what the good options and bad options are." The guide has a limited scope. The reader would decide, "Hey, ranger look interesting," and then seek out a separate guide on ranger builds that suggests precision edge.
The difference is flurry factors into ease of use. If I was to mention precision, it would only be to say it is harder to play than flurry-- it is the option to pick if you want a complex turn with animal companions or tactical movement. But really, precision is pretty normal for martial classes, which means it isn't worth specifically citing.
If anything, the example relevant to your point would be the Thief racket, which I cite as probably the strongest, but it is also the easiest to play.
Having trouble coming up with anything good to say about Witch? The class specific description seems to be rather short.YUP. To be honest I just don't really care about the class. Couldn't tell you why-- they have pretty interesting flavor. I know people have expressed dissatisfaction with them and I've never looked close enough to combat that mentality. I just like Oracles so much in comparison. I just haven't studied them much, which is admittedly not a great look if I am trying to speak from a position of authority.
Mind if I just use your write up?
I would be honored.
Feel free to borrow my expertise as a PF2e Witch main.
Um... maybe link to "Guide to the Guides"? And add "Magus" "Summoner" "Gunslinger" "Inventor" and Archetypes?
Having played with playtest classes for a long time, I don't think I'm gonna bother including them in this. I have a guy aversion to it-- maybe because being playtest makes them much harder to use in play, especially because it is harder to look something up on the fly for them.
Yeah. Probably best to wait until the released version of these classes.
Added it HERE.
|
Next to "consider your role during combat" I would also command (yes command) people to consider their role outside of combat.
My basic rule for making enjoyable martial characters in PFS is to aim for a mental stat at at least 14 and pick the associated skills so that I have a decent contribution to make in skill challenges. And that's more a bottom than a top effort. My fighter who started with Int 16 (repairing shields works off of Int) regularly is the MVP in skill challenges.
Most martial classes have an obvious mental stat (ranger -> wisdom, champion -> charisma) but it's still wide open.
---
As for ranger, I think people tend to fixate on Flurry but I'm personally more impressed by the robustness of Precision. If a strength 10 Precision archer runs into skeletons he can still punch them or use a sling and get decent results.
It's a bit of a wider difference I've noticed between tradition best-case optimization and what I think works much better in PF2, average and worst case optimization. How much worse does my character perform against a variety of enemies that resist my plan A attack? The math of PF2 makes it hard to break the ceiling on the best case performance, but there's a world to be gained on plan B situations.
---
Overall a good sensible guide!
I'm not sure every character needs 14 in a mental stat at level 1 (that's very difficult to pull off for some MAD builds) but I do think considering out of combat stuff is worthwhile. But compared to combat, there's a few key differences.
1) Combat is a more consistent part of the game than non-combat. What skills are most useful will vary a lot from game to game. Medicine and Diplomacy are almost always good choices, but past that point it gets harder to predict.
2) Given 1, there's something to be said for letting your choices of skill feats and increases develop organically. See what makes sense the for the game and the character as you play.
3) Out of combat, you usually don't have a turn structure. If you don't have any idea of what to do in combat you're going to drag the whole game to a halt. Out of combat, at worst you're the only one not participating.
All that makes it a harder thing to nail down.
Regarding Precision, I agree it is the more flexible edge. But flexibility also means complexity. I'm happy with the guide citing flurry because it implies that if you want more options you should pick a different edge.
I do think you hit on a good point about plan B situations. Plenty of people buy a single melee weapon and think they are good to go. Ranged weapons and versatile damage types are severely overlooked.
|
|
I'm not sure every character needs 14 in a mental stat at level 1 (that's very difficult to pull off for some MAD builds) but I do think considering out of combat stuff is worthwhile. But compared to combat, there's a few key differences.
1) Combat is a more consistent part of the game than non-combat. What skills are most useful will vary a lot from game to game. Medicine and Diplomacy are almost always good choices, but past that point it gets harder to predict.
2) Given 1, there's something to be said for letting your choices of skill feats and increases develop organically. See what makes sense the for the game and the character as you play.
3) Out of combat, you usually don't have a turn structure. If you don't have any idea of what to do in combat you're going to drag the whole game to a halt. Out of combat, at worst you're the only one not participating.
All that makes it a harder thing to nail down.
I'll admit not every one of my martial characters manages the 14, although most of them do. My experience is heavily flavored by PFS where in fact, skill challenges are a very regular occurrence, on average I'd say 2 full multi-step skill challenges that have a significant effect on the progress of the story and the eventual rewards.
In home groups/AP parties I think that's a bit less crucial because you have a stable team where you can really divide who's covering what and those people will be covering those roles again next week.
I think the 14 really makes a difference compared to the 12 to competitively aim for the skill DCs. Also you have to try quite hard not to already have one mental stat at 12, boosting it to 14 mostly means your third physical stat is probably going to be a 12.
Now there is a tendency among a lot of people to focus on the main aspect of their character ("I'm a fighter I'm going to take physical stats") but I think PF2 allows and rewards you to spread it around a little more. You really want the 18 in your primary but the 12 in your tertiary is okay. And being more fully rounded between mental and physical needs some advertising at this stage of getting to know the game.
Regarding Precision, I agree it is the more flexible edge. But flexibility also means complexity. I'm happy with the guide citing flurry because it implies that if you want more options you should pick a different edge.
I do think you hit on a good point about plan B situations. Plenty of people buy a single melee weapon and think they are good to go. Ranged weapons and versatile damage types are severely overlooked.
I would say it's the opposite way. With flurry you have to actually be more careful with the weapons you pick or you end up with bad plan B situations, like firing piercing arrows at skeletons. Precision is a robust choice because it automatically performs adequately even in most bad situations, while still being competitive in best case situations.
Somehow flurry is the sexy looking option but precision is very good and actually easier to get to work.
Flurry does call for choosing some specific weapons, but not THAT specific. And I'm not sure precision has much of an advantage in that regards. Flurry still works with any weapon type. It might favor agile weapons a bit more but even in your example bows aren't agile and they work fine. There are agile bludgeoning attacks, and every character gets one for free: their fists. Really, the only drawback I can think of there is that twin takedown doesn't work with unarmed strikes, but it also combines two hits into one for punching through resistance.
I'll admit I don't think about PFS much when I look at character builds-- but that's a personal choice because I loathe the social dynamics. I should probably try and accommodate it more here. Do you find there are a lot of PFS players who would need this guide? I'd imagine they probably know more about Pathfinder if they are showing up to play it specifically with strangers.
Flurry does call for choosing some specific weapons, but not THAT specific. And I'm not sure precision has much of an advantage in that regards. Flurry still works with any weapon type. It might favor agile weapons a bit more but even in your example bows aren't agile and they work fine. There are agile bludgeoning attacks, and every character gets one for free: their fists. Really, the only drawback I can think of there is that twin takedown doesn't work with unarmed strikes, but it also combines two hits into one for punching through resistance.
Flurry is not specific at all, so I agree with what your saying. I often choose one weapon based on the circumstance. For example, using doubling rings, my flurry ranger has a selection of weapons at his disposal. Warhammer and Pick are used, but usually just two dogslicers.
First attack Warhammer, second to (up to) fifth attack dogslicer. Works fine. Doesn't take any consideration.
If you know what you're doing, doubling rings makes two weapon fighting one of the most styles at higher levels, yeah. You also can use flurry with anything really. If you didn't bother with twin takedown, a forceful weapon like an elven curve blade shows promise. The flurry rangers in my own games have regularly switched between longbows, shortbows, and a variety of melee weapons.
Really, the only thing flurry is bad with is reload weapons. Well, that and other demands on your actions like animal companions, but that's more likely to come up while building than on your turn.
I've updated the guide to include everything up through Dark Archives. The nice thing about this guide format is adding more classes isn't a lot of work.
Also, yeesh do the typos in my old posts make me wince.
You haven't put Gunslinger, Inventor, Thaumaturge in the last few tables. They probably all count as martials... I wouldn't recommend Inventor or Thaumaturge to new players though.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm considering rethinking my categories a bit. The new classes have blurred the lines a bit between martial, skill monkey, and caster. Maybe giving each class a grade in different categories would be better. Gotta brainstorm categories though. I could go as simple as martial, magic, an utility, or start to break those up into sub categories like melee damage, ranged single target damage, AoE damage, mobility, battlefield control, and so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This feels like a helpful resource given the recent exodus.