Pathfinder Crash Course

[souran]

As others have pointed out, Pathfinder is like stepping into a long running Game of 3.5. It WILL have houserules. Hell the basic rules changes are basically houserules or errata.

The one big change that most groups do actually play with is that people generally play with pathfinder classes and the longer a table has played as "pathfinder" and not "3.75 D&D" the more likely they are to not want to use older D&D classes and prestige classes.

Also, people have fucked up ideas about how good or how "appropriate" some of the paizo classes are. Don't be surprised if your table doesn't let people play alchemists or gunslingers but has no problem with summoners.

The other thing is that because of how the archtypes work it seems to me that people are more willing to consider letting you swap class features. You won't be able to add casting or get better casting, but lots of DMs seem to be at least willing to listen to class feature swaps. I would, however, suggest sticking with reskinning class features from other classes and sources instead of presenting something homebrewed just because again it seems easier if you can describe it like an archtype.

[DSMatticus]

Also, people have fucked up ideas about how good or how "appropriate" some of the paizo classes are. Don't be surprised if your table doesn't let people play alchemists or gunslingers but has no problem with summoners.

It's difficult to overstate how crazily true this is. The best example is the summoner versus the synthesist summoner.

The summoner is a sorcerer-style partial caster who gets a bunch of conjuration save-or-get-fucked spells (and even random shit like charm monster and greater invisibility). In many cases, those spells appear on the summoner list at a lower spell level than on the wizard list, so despite being a partial caster (and getting new spell levels slower) you're not really behind on ass-kicking spells at all and have about as much encounter-clearing power as a wizard. You also get a pet who is a better fighter than a fighter.

The synthesist summoner is the exact same character, except instead of having a pet you get to wear your pet and use all of its abilities. The synthesist summoner is inferior to the regular summoner in every way. Instead of both the summoner casting a spell and the pet murdering a fool, only the summoner gets actions and the summoner can either cast a spell or use its pets natural attacks. Instead of the summoner taking feats for his casting and the eidolon taking feats for its murdering, only the summoner gets feats and he has to spend on things he needs for his eidolon.

The summoner is almost never banned. The synthesist summoner is banned all the fucking time.

[PhoneLobster]

I would, however, suggest sticking with reskinning class features from other classes and sources instead of presenting something homebrewed just because again it seems easier if you can describe it like an archtype.

Not actually pathfinder, it was 3.5.

But displeased with wizard prestige classes I floated one of my own on the off chance the pretty bad GM would bite.

I didn't tell him, but I carefully hand crafted every ability it offered to be "pretty much exactly the same as vanilla use of a scroll, only somewhat objectively worse".

Rejected out of hand.

[Username17]

-There are more viable casters, and they represent relatively wide archetypes, like "Witch" or "Summoner". However you look at it, even Beguiler and Archivist in 3.X were more of a bunch of rules thrown together rather than something people can think of playing before studying 3.X's rulebooks.

Mr Dee said it best:

I'm convinced that the Paizo crew creates classes solely based on whatever one dude in their corporate gaming group wants to play. When they wrote core they wanted only classic takes on classes, so they banned everything that didn't fit the OD&D model.

Depending on what books you have available, the available character types will vary considerably. But every archetype and character is actually weirdly specific, because every one of them was made because someone at Paizo wanted to play a specific character. And like all D&D material, most of it is crap you aren't going to use. So the Investigator class is someone wanting to play Batman, but like the Vigilante PrC from 3e, it does a piss-poor job of it. So even though they made an entire base class to satisfy someone's desire to play Batman, you still can't play Batman because that class sucks ass.

A lot of the other classes are concepts specific to D&D. The Alchemist was created because someone wanted to play a 3.5 Flask Rogue, despite the fact that Jason had banned that archetype in Core. So we have an entire class kludge whose only purpose is to re-implement functionality that 3.5 simply passively had but Pathfinder didn't.

And still other classes implement character concepts that your DM probably isn't going to allow on thematic grounds - like the Gunslinger. That was created because someone wanted to play a Clint Eastwood character with a pistol. And um... yeah. Good luck getting a Pathfinder DM to OK that one. It would be one thing if they were magic punk wand slingers or early gunpowder grenadiers or something, but they are literally characters from Westerns with their flies open and they out-of-genre dangly bits hanging out.

-Username17

[rasmuswagner]

And still other classes implement character concepts that your DM probably isn't going to allow on thematic grounds - like the Gunslinger. That was created because someone wanted to play a Clint Eastwood character with a pistol. And um... yeah. Good luck getting a Pathfinder DM to OK that one. It would be one thing if they were magic punk wand slingers or early gunpowder grenadiers or something, but they are literally characters from Westerns with their flies open and they out-of-genre dangly bits hanging out.

-Username17

Oh no, I'm totally not a cowboy gunslinger, I'm a Fusilier, and I use slow-to load blackpowder weapons. So slow, in fact, that I'm reloading and shooting 10+ times per six seconds.

[FatR]

I'm convinced that the Paizo crew creates classes solely based on whatever one dude in their corporate gaming group wants to play. When they wrote core they wanted only classic takes on classes, so they banned everything that didn't fit the OD&D model.

Fucking wrong, considering just the fact that Wands of Cure Light Wounds are more accessible than ever in PF, and therefore HP attrition between individual combats, which was big deal in OD&D, is near-meaningless.

Depending on what books you have available, the available character types will vary considerably. But every archetype and character is actually weirdly specific,

If you're telling me that Alchemist, particularly in its current state, is more "weirdly specific" or more difficult to conceptualize without thinking purely in terms of rules that Beguiler, I'll laugh. Even though Alchemist is one of the narrower PF classes.

A lot of the other classes are concepts specific to D&D. The Alchemist was created because someone wanted to play a 3.5 Flask Rogue, despite the fact that Jason had banned that archetype in Core.

Flask Rogue was not an "archetype" in 3.5. It was a bizarre and laughable rules abuse that some people on this forum and this forum only decided to not see as a bizarre and laughable rules abuse, even though you were and still are vastly more likely to have a Divine Persist Nightstick-using cleric greenlighted at your gaming table than it.

And still other classes implement character concepts that your DM probably isn't going to allow on thematic grounds - like the Gunslinger. That was created because someone wanted to play a Clint Eastwood character with a pistol. And um... yeah. Good luck getting a Pathfinder DM to OK that one.

I know two such GMs within my RL reach. Three, counting myself. I mean, I'll probably try to talk people out of playing a Gunslinger, but only because the class is rather weak and they'll feel small in the pants.

[/i]

[Username17]

Flask Rogue was not an "archetype" in 3.5. It was a bizarre and laughable rules abuse that some people on this forum and this forum only decided to not see as a bizarre and laughable rules abuse, even though you were and still are vastly more likely to have a Divine Persist Nightstick-using cleric greenlighted at your gaming table than it.

This is a totally weird assertion. While it's true that I've seen a lot of DMs do a spit take about the flask rogue, I've never seen any DM who actually banned it once it was thoroughly explained. It's the combination of three core items (sneak attack, denying dexterity to AC, and alchemist's fire) that are allowed in every game and available from level 1. The fact that they go together like chocolate and peanut butter is certainly something that surprises a lot of DMs, but to compare it to dubious magical items and overpowered feats from obscure sourcebooks your DM probably hasn't even read is flatly absurd.

The fact that characters who have low BAB and large damage bonuses switch to weapons that give to-hit bonuses as soon as they can afford to is actually so unsurprising that the fact that you keep pretending this is an obscure exploit or even a point of contention in the rules is simply sour grapes on your part. I've played flask rogues under multiple DMs who had never heard of the concept before I started doing it. I've seen multiple people playing Rogues figure it out their own damn selves emergently during play because it's equipment that you can start affording to use as ammunition in low levels and you get as treasure in several pre-packaged adventures. It's less contentious than fucking Ride By Attack.

Stop whining about it.

-Username17

[Koumei]

If you're telling me that Alchemist, particularly in its current state, is more "weirdly specific" or more difficult to conceptualize without thinking purely in terms of rules that Beguiler, I'll laugh. Even though Alchemist is one of the narrower PF classes.

"Alchemist" is one of those general things that appears in fantasy and all, sure. Often as a witch, poisoner (the two are far from being mutually exclusive, just ask Disney) or chemistapothecary. They are all character concepts that you can basically do at level 1 with a decent skill bonus.

The monstrous transformation thing is a separate thing that is iconic to one specific story (and then parodied and referenced a lot by Warner Brothers), and doesn't "play out" the same as all those previous things.

None of the above go around throwing bombs at people. You're thinking of America.

On the other hand, the Beguiler covers basically every "Enchanter" character from fiction except for Tim from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He mostly threw evocations, but in regular fantasy, an enchanter either uses what D&D calls enchantments, or is a magic item crafter. The former of those is precisely the Beguiler (if usually lower level because "D&D").

[souran]

I didn't tell him, but I carefully hand crafted every ability it offered to be "pretty much exactly the same as vanilla use of a scroll, only somewhat objectively worse".

Rejected out of hand.

In 3.X D&D swapping class features was one of those things that you just didn't do because the designers had "obviously considered classes as a complete package" If you wanted different features you found a prestige class to give yourself a different feature.

However, I still wonder if you had just said "I want to swap this ability for the ability to use wizard scrolls" if you might have been able to get the ability. I would certainty think so in pathfinder where the general feeling is that class features are just odd kinds of feats. If you have something that you can say "its works exactly like this other published thing but i have it instead of X feature" it often doesn't matter that X was a pointless shit ability that would NEVER be used in the style of game your playing and the new ability is a straight powerup. You are still just swapping one PRINTED ability for another. So obviously its not power gaming.

[DSMatticus]

If you're telling me that Alchemist, particularly in its current state, is more "weirdly specific" or more difficult to conceptualize without thinking purely in terms of rules that Beguiler, I'll laugh. Even though Alchemist is one of the narrower PF classes.

Koumei already said it, but you have that pretty much completely backwards. "Magic deceiver" is so incredibly less specific than "mutant druggie bomberman" it's not even funny. The starting point for the alchemist is very obviously the flask rogue (ffs, it gets a bunch of ranged touch attacks that scale exactly like a rogue's sneak attack), and the flask rogue is basically a total D&D-ism. From "dude who throws flasks of chemicals," they expanded into "dude who does chemistry magic," and from "dude who does chemistry magic," they expanded into "dude who can pull a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."

Seriously, start naming fictional characters who could be portrayed by an alchemist. That list is... what, the Green Goblin?

[Prak]

JigokuBosetsu has a character in Antipaladin Blues who is an alchemist by trade and throws flasks at people, and so could be represented by the Alchemist class-if you got rid of the monstrous transformation

[virgil]

This is a totally weird assertion. While it's true that I've seen a lot of DMs do a spit take about the flask rogue, I've never seen any DM who actually banned it once it was thoroughly explained. It's the combination of three core items (sneak attack, denying dexterity to AC, and alchemist's fire) that are allowed in every game and available from level 1. The fact that they go together like chocolate and peanut butter is certainly something that surprises a lot of DMs, but to compare it to dubious magical items and overpowered feats from obscure sourcebooks your DM probably hasn't even read is flatly absurd.

I may be an exception to the rule, but I have run into two DMs that instantly banned the flask rogue concept the moment it was explained. Months down the line when Pathfinder began, they were ecstatic to see their opinion 'vindicated' by Paizo.

These same two DMs had permitted a Bard to take enough feats and specific spells to increase his Inspire Courage to +12 by 10th level or so, and let it stack with flasks. They also allowed a Cleric Archer as a cohort, but I can't remember if Divine Persist was being used or not by it.

[Insomniac]

Long story short, the game is same as it ever was in 3.5, really. Casters are still the Gods of the Game, even stronger in Pathfinder, really and if you're playing something that can't cast spells, what is wrong with you? Do you have brain cancer or something?

You can get a bonus spell every level as a Human Sorcerer and cast off your Intelligence or Wisdom and then still get strong, Prestige class level abilities built right into your base class and that is probably not even a Top 25 thing to do as a Caster in the setting. Would you like full casting divine spells with a d8 and a bunch of goodies and Charisma to all your saves as if you were a Paladin for one measly feat? Yep, that is on the table, too.

Outside of some hugely compelling character concept you've wanted to do for years that is entirely non-magical, there is no reason to not be a Caster in the game. None whatsoever. Especially if it is a pick up game.

Spend some time at d20pfsrd.com and see all the cheese that they lavish on casters with classes and Archetypes. It is absolutely bonkers.

[Ferret]

Would you like full casting divine spells with a d8 and a bunch of goodies and Charisma to all your saves as if you were a Paladin for one measly feat? Yep, that is on the table, too.

Do tell.

[RelentlessImp]

I'd argue that something a person has to look out for is the shitty writing that plagues Paizo, mainly because the same people who were doing shitty writing during the Dungeon days are still doing shitty writing for them now.

[ishy]

Would you like full casting divine spells with a d8 and a bunch of goodies and Charisma to all your saves as if you were a Paladin for one measly feat? Yep, that is on the table, too.

Do tell.

Most likely an oracle with the divine protection feat.

Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks, ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings, domains, or mystery class feature.

Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1 bonus on all saving throws.

[pragma]

You can also take the merciful curse as an oracle to gain lay on hands. If there's a way to pick up smiting (and I expect there's a feat that does it) then you're all the way there.

[Insomniac]

You can also take the merciful curse as an oracle to gain lay on hands. If there's a way to pick up smiting (and I expect there's a feat that does it) then you're all the way there.

I think that there is a way to get this and that variety of an Oracle is called an "Oradin." It originally called for a 2 level Paladin dip but with that feat and with mysteries it is no longer necessary to dip.

[hyzmarca]

And still other classes implement character concepts that your DM probably isn't going to allow on thematic grounds - like the Gunslinger. That was created because someone wanted to play a Clint Eastwood character with a pistol. And um... yeah. Good luck getting a Pathfinder DM to OK that one. It would be one thing if they were magic punk wand slingers or early gunpowder grenadiers or something, but they are literally characters from Westerns with their flies open and they out-of-genre dangly bits hanging out.

-Username17

I'd counter the arguement that Blint Eastwood is out of Genre by pulling out the entire Dark Tower series, but mostly The Gunslinger.


Gunslingers are perfectly in genre for a pulp fantasy mash-up.

[Seerow]

You can also take the merciful curse as an oracle to gain lay on hands. If there's a way to pick up smiting (and I expect there's a feat that does it) then you're all the way there.

I think that there is a way to get this and that variety of an Oracle is called an "Oradin." It originally called for a 2 level Paladin dip but with that feat and with mysteries it is no longer necessary to dip.

I don't follow PF optimization too closely, but the only time I've heard of the Oradin the build presented was the other way around, with a short dip into Oracle (like 2-6 levels) with the rest going into Paladin. It seemed to focus a lot on Paladin being able to heal itself as a swift action, and Oracle being able to direct damage from oracle level in party members to itself, basically letting the player play a damage sponge tank.

[Shatner]

OP here. I've been talking with the other players in the campaign and, based on what's been said in this thread compared to what I could infer from the players, the party I'll be joining isn't anything remotely cheesy so I think I should build my character in a similar spirit. For reference, the other players are a cleric focused on healing and tanking, a gnome paladin focused on mounted combat and healing, a zen archer monk, and a dagger-master rogue.

The party's only stealth character is the rogue, the party has no damage caster or control caster, the party has tons of healing, and I'm told the party is lacking in the intelligence and diplomacy/bluff/talky department. Also, and this is a big ALSO, the game features a lot of Logistics and Dragons as roughly a third to a half of the game is focused on building up a nascent kingdom the party was previously granted after they cleared the place of undesirables. There's some sort of Crusader Kings-esque mini-game where each character is a kind of adviser for the realm whose stats, skills, and relevant abilities/magic make stuff work better. Money comes in monthly and can be spent on building buildings which improve realm stats and make various goods and services available to the party. As such, I'm wanting to pick something that more-or-less covers the holes in the party (and is fairly robust because it sounds like the DM leans towards harsh and/or lethal combat encounters), and can bring a fair amount of utility to the nation-building portion.

I'm thinking of going as an 8th level Druid, taking the Urban archetype with the Nobility domain. This lets me rock up with a bunch of diplomacy and knowledge skills, the control and (admittedly modest) blasty potential of the Druid spell list, gives me early access to 1000 Faces (i.e. at-will Alter Self, i.e. unlimited stealth, disguise, and subterfuge), nation-boosting spells (most notably Plant Growth), and Leadership (which means I can put a bunch of minions on nation-boosting and/or item creation tasks, and bring a cohort who can blow shit up if that's deemed desirable). The Druid spell list also offers a lot of buffs and stealth enablers, allowing me to do divinations, sneaking, logistical buffs, and a slew of combat buffs/debuffs. It also saves me from having to deal with ensuring a good selection of spells known/spells written in my spellbook (the new PF spells are numerous and bewildering) and it saves me from paying too much attention to Wild Form or Summon Nature's Cannon Fodder Ally. Summoning and shape-changing were hassle enough when I had near-encyclopedic knowledge of the monster manual; now, I'd rather not bother.

I'm leaning towards Half-Elf or Human and dumping a lot of the various, fiddly character creation options into getting me all the skill points I'll need to play a learned, charismatic, sneaky sage despite being a wisdom-based caster. If this sounds like sand-bagging, you'd be right. Anyway, what I'm really unsure of is what combination of feats, traits, racial subtypes, or racial feats I should take to make this work. Hell, I still don't understand how traits even work. Do I get all of the standard ones? Less? As a Half-Elf, it says I can pick traits off the Human and Elf lists? How the hell does that even work? Also, skills. Are there skill synergies anymore? If not, is there any goddamned reason to have Knowledge(Nobility), or a slew of other skills, for that matter? How does a druid get access to bluff and/or stealth? So if the luminaries here on the board can help out, I'd really appreciate it. Books used in this group are CRB, APG, UC, and UM.

Bonus question is equipment. Assume whatever the normal wealth-by-level budget for an 8th level character. This may not actually be the case because the DM hasn't been able to answer all my questions, but I'll have an easier time tweaking an existing equipment layout if needed than I will building a new one from scratch.

[momothefiddler]

Also, and this is a big ALSO, the game features a lot of Logistics and Dragons as roughly a third to a half of the game is focused on building up a nascent kingdom the party was previously granted after they cleared the place of undesirables. There's some sort of Crusader Kings-esque mini-game where each character is a kind of adviser for the realm whose stats, skills, and relevant abilities/magic make stuff work better. Money comes in monthly and can be spent on building buildings which improve realm stats and make various goods and services available to the party.

Sounds like the Kingmaker rules.

Hell, I still don't understand how traits even work. Do I get all of the standard ones? Less? As a Half-Elf, it says I can pick traits off the Human and Elf lists? How the hell does that even work?

As a Half-Elf, you can take anything that has a racial prereq of "Human" or "Elf" (assuming you meet the other prereqs), including but not limited to the Human/Elf limited traits, of which you get two at first level if you're using that rule, two for a feat if it's not banned, and technically zero by default. This is completely different from the Racial Traits (and Alternate Racial Traits) listed for each race, of which you only get the Half-Elf ones. You do, though, get all the "standard" ones, and then you can swap them out for Alternate ones as described in the listing for each ("Ancestral Arms [...] This racial trait replaces the adaptability racial trait.")

Also, skills. Are there skill synergies anymore?

No.

If not, is there any goddamned reason to have Knowledge(Nobility), or a slew of other skills, for that matter?

If you're playing Logistics and Dragons with an emphasis on running a kingdom, expect a lot of ass-pulled skill checks... and figure out a way to deal with them without having ranks in Every Skill because that's bullshit. I haven't spent a lot of time looking into skill flexibility, but by 8th you might be able to manage one of these, which is one of the few int-enhancing items that doesn't have a set skill and doesn't require an attunement period, giving you a different skill at max ranks each day (and unless you have an antagonistic MC, a day's delay should be fine for most kingdom-running checks). Hell, maybe you can get your kingdom to own it and just have appropriate members of the upper classes (i.e. you) use it as necessary.

How does a druid get access to bluff and/or stealth?

Traits, mostly, though there are other ways.

[Prak]

And still other classes implement character concepts that your DM probably isn't going to allow on thematic grounds - like the Gunslinger. That was created because someone wanted to play a Clint Eastwood character with a pistol. And um... yeah. Good luck getting a Pathfinder DM to OK that one. It would be one thing if they were magic punk wand slingers or early gunpowder grenadiers or something, but they are literally characters from Westerns with their flies open and they out-of-genre dangly bits hanging out.

-Username17

I'd counter the arguement that Blint Eastwood is out of Genre by pulling out the entire Dark Tower series, but mostly The Gunslinger.


Gunslingers are perfectly in genre for a pulp fantasy mash-up.

Also, this-

is an actual character from Gygax's games. The party got transported to a Wild West world and Murlynd came back with boots, a stetson and pistols.

Gunslingers in D&D are honestly almost as old as the game.

[rasmuswagner]

So if the luminaries here on the board can help out, I'd really appreciate it. Books used in this group are CRB, APG, UC, and UM.

Bonus question is equipment. Assume whatever the normal wealth-by-level budget for an 8th level character. This may not actually be the case because the DM hasn't been able to answer all my questions, but I'll have an easier time tweaking an existing equipment layout if needed than I will building a new one from scratch.

So, assuming books are a hard limit, your Traits will be Fast Talker and Highlander (Stealth and Bluff become class skills, and you get +1 to both). You're playing a Human, and your Favored Class bonus is either MOAR SKILL POINTS or a solid +4 to Diplomacy and Intimidate.

Feats include Natural Spell, Improved Initiative, Extra Traits (World traveller for Sense Motive, Reactionary for +2 initiative, or Gifted Adept: Call Animal), Wild Speech, Powerful Shape. Shit, you could take SF: Alteration - > Spell Specialization.

Stat-wise, I'd suggest a balanced spread. Something 4*14, 2*10. Remember that Wild Shape and Alter Self add to your physical stats instead of replacing them. Or hard-dump STR and get an Agile AoMF for 4k.

[FatR]

Koumei already said it, but you have that pretty much completely backwards. "Magic deceiver" is so incredibly less specific

Fist, please decide if beguiler is "Enchanter" or "Magic deceiver" between themselves.

Second, "straight mind control" and "deceiving opponent's senses" are indeed distinctly different niches (indeed the former tends to make the latter redundant) and I don't think it anyone would naturally come to conclusion that the latter should make the former easier.

than "mutant druggie bomberman" it's not even funny. The starting point for the alchemist is very obviously the flask rogue (ffs, it gets a bunch of ranged touch attacks that scale exactly like a rogue's sneak attack),

You haven't actually read the alchemist class and taking your knowledge about it from the Den, haven't you?

The starting point for the alchemist is warlock. Note how both classes have as their most noticeable ability a ranged touch attack that is fired as a standard action and scales almost the same (shittily) and is mostly useable due to possible rider effects. Both also feature transformative powers. The key difference is that alchemist is given limited resources both for ranged touch spam and transformations, but with archetypes and shit it still can come out stronger.

Seriously, start naming fictional characters who could be portrayed by an alchemist. That list is... what, the Green Goblin?

Any number of Jekill/Hide ripoffs; Bane or, in fact, any character who depends on some sort of non-permanent super serum for competence; Dr. Moreau, Herbert West and in fact a good deal of mad scientists;