[PF] Only Optimizer in the group! Need to fill the role of 'Tank' and 'Healer'

[Armv]

I won't waste your folks time. I'm the only optimizer, in fact the only one who truly knows the rules, in a group that is soon to start a new campaign. I am the one the GM turns to in terms of rulings, and so I basically have any wiggle room I have. Beyond that. The GM is a first time GM.

We're dealing with a five person party. The GM and I worked in such a way that each player ended up with their ideal build and concept. The party has:

Human Conjurer (Mid-optimized Conjuration wizard. 18 starting int, Thrush familiar, and the best spells for a conjurer. Thus summoning, and most CC, is handled. The only other experienced 3.5/PF player/GM)

Human Cha based Gun-Slinger. Has only played a 3.5 core fighter before.

Elven Alchemist -- plays like a 3.5 beguiler (Using an archetype that allows for some stuff. Played countless WoD games, but needed help to generate current
 character)

Some sort of Rogue (Player has played six campaigns ALL have been 4e)

The newbie GM has lamented the lack of a passive 'tank' or 'healer' (Though both roles CAN be filled by the alchemist and conjurer), and so I wish to remove those lamentations -- even if such actions isn't mandatory. Such a build can be accomplished with Druid or Cleric. I don't want to play either. I want my character to let the GM feel at ease, but still not be useless -- nor be dedicated to either sub-optimal role. Without stepping on any players toes.

The advice I'm seeking is -- what would be the best course of avenue? Current considered builds:

Going with an Oracle that has the Metal mystery, Tongues curse, and Enlightened Oracle archetype? Going with the right options, gives an almost SAD full caster. Cha based, with Con and Str helping out. Starts with Heavy Armor and Martial weapons. The most straight forward.

Second build -- and the fuzzy rules, and why they are fuzzy, have been discussed with the GM. The build I would truly love going with.  Now then. Assume this is legal: Samsaran Sorcerer. Using a combination of Cross Blooded and Wild Blooded to achieve a character that has any arcane spell (Witch spells included for healing), in addition to a either casting off from Int or Wis. Well at the same time getting an animal companion. What would be the best? And would it be too much for the group?

Finally we have the Inquisitor. The putty that can fill any, and all, holes in question.

...what would be the strongest? What would be the most fitting? And what should I play? Again. I can crack this campaign open with a standard Druid. But why?

PS: Materials are all that are on the Pathfinder SRD. Starting at ECL 1. GM is VERY cooperative. Pathfinder only.

[ketaro]

I personally would just play a straight cleric with a pure healing build and laugh maniacally as I wield the power of life and death in my many girallon hands and make my party feel like undying monstrosities.

It gets pretty scary I tell ya what.

[wotmaniac]

If you're the only optimizer, and assuming the rest of the group knows this, then mechanically I don't see a problem with paladin ... it fits the 2 roles you stated (just get some cure sticks as you need).

I'm not really all that familiar with PF, so I'm not too sure about specific builds.

Here's the deal when dealing with a non/low-optimize groups, especially with a fresh GM ..... you don't want to really be in a position to out-shine anyone (this is especially important if you don't have a lot of table time with some of these people) -- if you rock druid (or really anything that's inherently capable of outshining the rest of the party), feelings will eventually get hurt.


/2cp

[Armv]

Hence why I turn to the others that know of such dilemmas. I don't want to cackle, I don't want to be the one to carry the party. I just want the DM to feel safe -and- the party be functional. Let their builds be damned. It is my role for the flaws, even unknown flaws (I made sure to suggest social, trap finding, and knowledge skills onto all, until all were filled).

What is a PF ECL 1 build of paladin that can achieve healing (HP at this point is all that is cared about).

[Endarire]

I'd go Druid or Cleric.  Both can be fun.  Cleric offers mass healing via Channel Energy and out-of-the-box Heavy Armor proficiency.  Druid eventually offers Wild Shape and is more offensive in this angle (and single target healy).  Cackling after victory is optional.

However, what do you want to play?  Surely you're skilled enough to carry the party.  You can assure the new GM that whatever happens, the party will be in good care with you (and the others, of course).

[Armv]

Aye, I thank everyone for their responses. But... well I myself often will skim over walls of text, so I understand if a few people missed when I wrote: " Such a build can be accomplished with Druid or Cleric. I don't want to play either." Still, the number of suggestions to play the said classes are always influential.

Cleric and Druid, on review, would have to have a stunted build in order to not outshine the party. Paladin could work. Not much of a fan of the play style behind them though. I much prefer oh... 3.5 comparison would be any tier 3 caster, with skills. Like the Beguiler or Warlock.

[phaedrusxy]

Any way to heal with a Summoner? I've never played PF, but have seen that class used in some more liberal 3.5 games, and it can certainly tank.

[Power]

Aye, I thank everyone for their responses. But... well I myself often will skim over walls of text, so I understand if a few people missed when I wrote: " Such a build can be accomplished with Druid or Cleric. I don't want to play either." Still, the number of suggestions to play the said classes are always influential.

Cleric and Druid, on review, would have to have a stunted build in order to not outshine the party. Paladin could work. Not much of a fan of the play style behind them though. I much prefer oh... 3.5 comparison would be any tier 3 caster, with skills. Like the Beguiler or Warlock.

If you don't want to crack it open with a Cleric or Druid, don't pick an Oracle either. It's the new addition to CODzilla. You'd have to gimp yourself at least (no human, no mnemonic vestment, no half-elf paragon surge).

In your case, it sounds like you might as well play a Bard. It has healing spells, it gets light armor & shield, and it's as close to playing a Beguiler as you're likely to get. Tanking is its weak point, but you could build for it if you wanted (Tower Shield? You could also go Merfolk race for the +2 Cha/Con/Dex and +2 natural armor. Triple Time masterpiece will bump your 15 land speed into 25 or you could ride a mount or just use a Seafoam Shawl, but you still lose the human favored class bonus). If you want to ignore Arcane Spell Failure chance for medium/heavy armor, there are a few ways:

• Use the Bard's Arcane Concordance spell (a strong spell) for a free Still Spell (It gives the option of other metamagics too) and +1 DC on all your spells (oh, buffs nearby allies too). Get the Still Spell feat and use a trait (Magical Lineage or Wayang Spellhunter) to reduce the metamagic cost and you're set to ignore all ASF.
• Use the Chelish Diva archetype. Equips Medium armor at 5 and Heavy at 11. Also, Scathing Tirade performance is completely broken (no save frighten). You should probably just houserule that you keep Dirge of Doom instead.
• Use the Arcane Duelist archetype. Equips Medium armor at 10 and Heavy at 15. Focuses on combat, has some good abilities, can use weapon for somatic components (free hand not required), but the armor proficiencies are really late.
• Play a Dwarf, use the Favored class bonus to get Medium Armor proficiency with -10% ASF for it at level 10. Then equip Mythril.

Also: If you play a bard with Versatile Performance feature, get the Xenophobic Drawback for a bonus trait then negate the drawback with Versatile Performance (Oratory).

Any way to heal with a Summoner? I've never played PF, but have seen that class used in some more liberal 3.5 games, and it can certainly tank.

Use a Samsaran Mystic Past Life or equip a Ring of Spell Knowledge for a cure spell. You can also just dump some skill points into the Heal Skill, maybe pick up the Caretaker trait (+1 trait to heal & heal is class skill), then use a Healer's Kit. Still, the party already has a Conjuror wizard. A Summoner is not a bad pick by any means, but the niche is already covered. Also, Samsarans get no Charisma.

[PsyBomb]

Paladins don't heal out of the box, but they get LOH at level 2 (which SHOULD be early enough for most parties) and Channel at 4. Given that the DM wanted a tank, you pretty much know you'll be taking most of the attacks, so if you start things off as sword-and-board you should be plenty to handle any incoming damage. Just make sure to optimize more for defense and charisma.

Once your party gets its feet under it (and you have the items to support it), you can shift to 2H for output.

[xzyx]

There is the vitalist in PF, which is an awesome healer. And I think he can "tank" as well, if well built. There's a "Vitalist Handbook" somewhere in these forums too, if you like it.

[Saxony]

I'm not sure why you wouldn't just play a Druid or Cleric, accomplish the healing and tank goals... and then resist the urge to cast Miracle, choose less powerful spells, choose less powerful wildshape forms, et cetera so you don't outshine everyone else.

Druids and Clerics have enormously variable power levels. Some of them are worse than Fighters.

Just downplay the powerful classes and you'll have a really easy time finding a class which won't outshine everyone else.

[Power]

Saxony, some folks play the game as a test of skill, so playing badly on purpose can ruin the point of playing. Taking a handicap is fine, but intentionally making bad decisions can even feel like willfully inflicting brain damage on yourself. If you're thinking of a tabletop RP as a group drama/story session and/or the GM indulging your power fantasies, then I guess playing badly is fine. But if you're interested in testing your wits, then playing like this sucks. It can be done. It just isn't fun.

All in all, the GM is new here, so it's not recommended to run characters who can easily destroy a campaign if the GM doesn't know how to deal with them. Besides, why are you recommending taking a top tier class and playing at a lower power level instead of just... picking a class with a lower power level?

[veekie]

Paladins don't heal out of the box, but they get LOH at level 2 (which SHOULD be early enough for most parties) and Channel at 4. Given that the DM wanted a tank, you pretty much know you'll be taking most of the attacks, so if you start things off as sword-and-board you should be plenty to handle any incoming damage. Just make sure to optimize more for defense and charisma.

Once your party gets its feet under it (and you have the items to support it), you can shift to 2H for output.

Paladins work very well as tank and healer, you probably don't even need the shield, just go 2H outright, and swift action personal lay-on-hands to constantly deplete the damage your enemies are doing to you(and they'd be attacking you because you'd be up in their face on your horse, not giving them much choice in the matter). If you need any more fancy condition removal, paladins can use most of the healing  wands, and the later Mercies let you fix more or less anything.

[Saxony]

Saxony, some folks play the game as a test of skill, so playing badly on purpose can ruin the point of playing. Taking a handicap is fine, but intentionally making bad decisions can even feel like willfully inflicting brain damage on yourself. If you're thinking of a tabletop RP as a group drama/story session and/or the GM indulging your power fantasies, then I guess playing badly is fine. But if you're interested in testing your wits, then playing like this sucks. It can be done. It just isn't fun.

All in all, the GM is new here, so it's not recommended to run characters who can easily destroy a campaign if the GM doesn't know how to deal with them. Besides, why are you recommending taking a top tier class and playing at a lower power level instead of just... picking a class with a lower power level?

I don't see the difference between intentionally picking a weak class and intentionally picking weak spells/wildshape forms. If the original poster wants to avoid cognitive dissonance of "Why doesn't my Cleric cast Miracle, when he can?", he could just let the DM house rule powerful spells away. Maybe his god is limiting his spell choices for whatever reason. It's DnD; we can do that with a myriad of readjustments mechanical and/or story in nature.

As far as being nice to the GM and not using campaign breaking characters, I totally agree with that, and it's what I was suggesting in the first place. The original poster should resist the urge to cast Miracle and I think it'll all work out. Clerics are great re-adjusting their power level in the middle of a campaign because they know all cleric spells. They just prepare weaker spells the next day and the GM is happy. Druids are the same, considering spell selection, and they can also re-adjust their animal companions and wildshape choices.

As far as why I'm suggesting picking a class with high potential and playing it weakly... well, that class choice is a rather simple answer to the original poster's question. The full build is "Play Cleric, and don't cast Miracle. Cast Prayer and Cure Light Wounds instead". Thus, the crux of this entire thread, answering the original poster's question of "What can I play to accomplish this goal?" is answered neatly.

The real reason I'm suggesting playing a Cleric or Druid is because it was a solution I knew would work, and didn't know of any other solutions off the top of my head. I wanted to pitch in, but didn't really want to go to any extraordinary effort and research in an area I wasn't terribly familiar with.

[wotmaniac]

Thus, the crux of this entire thread, answering the original poster's question of "What can I play to accomplish this goal?" is answered neatly.

Such a build can be accomplished with Druid or Cleric. I don't want to play either.

Just sayin'.

[Saxony]

Thus, the crux of this entire thread, answering the original poster's question of "What can I play to accomplish this goal?" is answered neatly.

Such a build can be accomplished with Druid or Cleric. I don't want to play either.

Just sayin'.

I am aware of that. That's why my post discussed how that sort of problem could be avoided, rather than just being "Just play Druid 20, noob".

[Power]

Saxony, some folks play the game as a test of skill, so playing badly on purpose can ruin the point of playing. Taking a handicap is fine, but intentionally making bad decisions can even feel like willfully inflicting brain damage on yourself. If you're thinking of a tabletop RP as a group drama/story session and/or the GM indulging your power fantasies, then I guess playing badly is fine. But if you're interested in testing your wits, then playing like this sucks. It can be done. It just isn't fun.

All in all, the GM is new here, so it's not recommended to run characters who can easily destroy a campaign if the GM doesn't know how to deal with them. Besides, why are you recommending taking a top tier class and playing at a lower power level instead of just... picking a class with a lower power level?

I don't see the difference between intentionally picking a weak class and intentionally picking weak spells/wildshape forms. If the original poster wants to avoid cognitive dissonance of "Why doesn't my Cleric cast Miracle, when he can?", he could just let the DM house rule powerful spells away. Maybe his god is limiting his spell choices for whatever reason. It's DnD; we can do that with a myriad of readjustments mechanical and/or story in nature.

Noted. You're a roleplayer who doesn't understand different playstyles. So I guess I'll have to repeat myself: Some of us play the game as a test of wits. When you are intentionally underperforming, the issue isn't whether or not you have some roleplaying reason not to do what you're doing, the issue is that it stops being a test of wits. Meaning: the sense of fun and challenge is being stomped into the ground. When you play under a handicap, you still have a challenge. When you play a campaign-busting char and decide not to utilize him properly, there is no challenge, which is probably what you as a roleplayer are subconsciously after because that makes the game easy on you and lets you get on with the camaraderie/plot/etc.

As far as being nice to the GM and not using campaign breaking characters, I totally agree with that, and it's what I was suggesting in the first place. The original poster should resist the urge to cast Miracle and I think it'll all work out. Clerics are great re-adjusting their power level in the middle of a campaign because they know all cleric spells. They just prepare weaker spells the next day and the GM is happy. Druids are the same, considering spell selection, and they can also re-adjust their animal companions and wildshape choices.

As far as why I'm suggesting picking a class with high potential and playing it weakly... well, that class choice is a rather simple answer to the original poster's question. The full build is "Play Cleric, and don't cast Miracle. Cast Prayer and Cure Light Wounds instead".

No, see. This is exactly the kind of shitty play that is brain-damage inducing. That might seem ridiculous to you because you enjoy it just fine and you're a healthy individual, but to other people that is exactly what it is like because their impetus for playing the game (the need to apply one's cleverness) is being violated (make the player play badly while easily able to trounce all obstacles). Your impetus is apparently "enjoy a story," "act out characters," or just "casually pass the time with friends" so this wouldn't be a problem for you. But it would for others. I'm not saying this because I'm hardcore about RPGS MUST BE PURE MECHANICAL CHALLENGES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS FOR SCRUBS, which I'm not. I'm saying this because you have to realize that not everyone has the same priorities in playing games as you do and you need to respect that. Mind, I'm not saying this is my 100% insight into how armv ticks, but I reckon this does play some part in his/her preferences and even if it didn't, there's still no point giving the kind of advice that's already rejected, so give it a rest, please.

Thus, the crux of this entire thread, answering the original poster's question of "What can I play to accomplish this goal?" is answered neatly.

Frankly it's all sorts of crass and dubious to keep giving the one answer you've clearly been told is unwanted. Are you trolling, perchance?

The real reason I'm suggesting playing a Cleric or Druid is because it was a solution I knew would work, and didn't know of any other solutions off the top of my head. I wanted to pitch in, but didn't really want to go to any extraordinary effort and research in an area I wasn't terribly familiar with.

Swell. Well, I hope you gained something from your participation in this thread, because I suspect the rest of us didn't.

[Saxony]

Power, I suggest you chill out. For some reason I think you have taken my suggestion as some sort of personal insult and are now defending yourself and getting more intense as a result. Fair enough; I can understand that. I must respectfully disagree and (hopefully) civilly register my disappointment with you insulting me.

I am not trolling. I am merely suggesting something which will accomplish the original poster's goals, while being fully aware of the original poster's constraints. I have suggested that those constraints could be re-thought, but I didn't push it and I did not state that discussion strongly. Discussing re-thinking constraints is par for the course in character building forums. Being rude or pushy about it is not par for the course, and is not okay. I wasn't rude nor pushy. I merely gave the suggestion.

If Armv doesn't want to play a Cleric or Druid, that's perfectly fine. There's no "right" way to play DnD, and I'm certainly not trying to push my preferred method.

Strangely enough, you seem to have characterized me incorrectly. I'm mostly a power gamer, and I play DnD mostly as a tactical exercise, or figuring out how to optimize characters for the highest power level (in various metrics of power), and I've even invented a couple dirty tricks. This is why I find your protest especially annoying; you seem to have gotten me all wrong and are chastising me for reasons not grounded in actual fact.

I'm just trying to help out by giving my suggestion to someone asking how a certain character building goal might be accomplished (The point of these types of threads).

In any case, considering the original poster hasn't replied to the thread for a week and the reasons I gave for playing a Cleric or Druid have been fully explored, there isn't a point to discussing my suggestion further.

Thus, the crux of this entire thread, answering the original poster's question of "What can I play to accomplish this goal?" is answered neatly.

Frankly it's all sorts of crass and dubious to keep giving the one answer you've clearly been told is unwanted. Are you trolling, perchance?

The real reason I'm suggesting playing a Cleric or Druid is because it was a solution I knew would work, and didn't know of any other solutions off the top of my head. I wanted to pitch in, but didn't really want to go to any extraordinary effort and research in an area I wasn't terribly familiar with.

Swell. Well, I hope you gained something from your participation in this thread, because I suspect the rest of us didn't.

... Sigh. I posted twice after my first suggestion. Both times to explain my suggestion, and how it wasn't the cancer killing DnD as a hobby.... not keep suggesting it.

In any case, you seem to have gotten quite upset. I'll repeat my suggestion to chill out. I really am not trolling, not trying to disrespect Armv, and not trying to disrespect you. However I won't roll over because someone thought I was being mean or disrespectful. I did nothing wrong here and I will maintain that stance. On the other hand I do have a strong, combative personality and sometimes that unintentionally comes out when I explain myself so I apologize if something I said seemed confrontational.

If I explicitly insulted you at any time, please point it out so I can formally apologize.