The Best Three Man Party


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder is based on the idea of a four+ man group, but on sometimes you wind up with only three. My question to you is this:

What combination of characters makes up the best three man party? Assume a modest level 5, if that in any way effects your judgement.


From what everyone tells me a Paladin is always a good choice.I personally would want a rogue in there.And then of course a wizard.

Silver Crusade

Lord Twitchiopolis, a 3 man team? i think it can be done.

For starters as you know we have 4 basic food groups when it comes to an adeventuring party. first there is the "meat shield" or warrior type. then the "trap finder and disarmer. Next the Arcane magic wielder, and finally your Divine magic wielder.

These rolls can be filled by a variety of roles. Now since we are going to cover 4 roles with three characters, we are going to need some versatility.

I dont think the levels matter too much.

Here is my suggestion. 1 Cleric. 1 Alchemist, and 1 Magus.

I am sure there are better suggestions.

All three classes have d8 hps. All three classes have the medium BAB.

The cleric can fill the roll of "meat shield" and Devine magic wielder (healer)

The Alchemist can fill the roll of "Trap finder and Disarmer" He can also fill the role of "arcane caster" with his bombs and Extracts ( spells that he activates by drinking a vial of alchemical fluid) poton. The alchemist can also heal in a pinch.

The Magus- being a hybrid class the Fighter-Mage, the Magus could cover the role of Meat shield and Arcane spell caster.

I hope this helps. I am sure there are lots of other combinations.


Urban ranger, (meatshield and trapfinding)
Inquisitor (human extra spells- use normal allotment for battle spells, extra for healing/restoration etc)
Any six/witch/sorcerer


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Many times we were reduced to three. It's hard to say which combos stood out best on their own because as DM/GM, I would be careful to more closely tailor the adventure to even out the challenge for the class types available.

But in more general situations, I remember the Cleric/Wizard/Fighter combo doing well. The wizard was very universal, the cleric could buff really well, and the fighter was very straight-ahead. Maybe they did so well because simple is better. None of these were multiclass or fancy at all.

Also, in our groups, the rogues very rarely did many roguish things. They were more about sneak attacks than checking for traps. So the loss of the rogue did not affect these players much. They'd much rather smash the door in than pick the lock.

Also, don't discount divine might. On occasion, we'd be reduced to two players taking a cleric/druid and a paladin. Overwhelming divine power can go a long way.

And finally, the other two-man group that worked really well was a wizard (same wizard as my first example) and a very finely-tuned ranger (with spells).


To clarify, this is merely a question of other's opinions. I'm not in a "need advise" state. A friend and I had this conversation years ago in 3.0 DnD.

My vote was for Cleric, Cleric, Cleric. With enough variances in available domains, your bases were always covered. One goes full tank, another goes blaster, and the last goes support.

His was cast for Bard, Paladin, Druid. He argued that everyone has some form of heal, Bard does all the support work, Paladin tanks, and Druid plays the role of blaster.

I always found the question interesting, as was mentioned that the archtypes of Tank, Blaster, Support, and Healer were always the cornerstones of a good party. It's always interesting to hear different people's takes on it.

Liberty's Edge

The best possible party with only three characters is quite probably three clerics, if you're playing on a competitive level. This is because clerics are more powerful than the other classes. They can cast almost as well as the wizard, fight almost as well as the fighter, and heal better than anybody else in the game. The only thing they can't do is deal with traps or have lots of points in skills.

Then they get spells like Find Traps, Enthrall, and Calm Emotions, which kind of lessen the need to do those things anyways.

My favorite combo would probably be rogue, bard, and ranger. This is because I love skills. Rogues, bards, and rangers can do pretty much anything in the game, so long as they get their hands on the right equipment.

But I hate being competitive, and I am very glad that Pathfinder (unlike Starcraft) is not a sport. I suck at sports, but I'm pretty good at Pathfinder.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I've played in several 3 PC parties.

One was druid (me), arcane trickster, fighter. It went from level 1 to 16. The arcane trickster had some fighter levels, the fighter had some mystic levels (spontaneous divine caster from Dragonlance). Most characters were built for versatility--my druid especially. The druid managed to be good at pretty much everything without quite stepping on the toes of the other players. And with animal companion and spontaneous summons, there were usually enough hit points to go around. The arcane trickster mostly did 2 weapon fighting in melee, dabbled in magic, then dabbled in fighter, then arcane trickstered, and began to wow us with the occasional disintegrate! The fighter was khopesh and board, and mostly just stood there and swung his blade and soaked up hits. Very effective face, though mostly through role-playing and not mechanically, not that that is a bad thing!

Another was scout (me), aristocrat-bard, wizard-truenamer. This aristocrat bard has a gnome cleric-rogue from Leadership. This campaign went from 1 to ???? I left it after 12th level-ish. It also got an uber-paladin around level 7 or 8... My scout had tanked until the arrival of the paladin, and then I became even more of a skirmisher. He was a versatile combatant, mixing it up with longspear, handaxe, or longbow, depending on my mood and the battlefield. Probably my most fun character, mechanically, for my style of play.

Another is a dragon shaman (me), ranger archer, and dragonblood battle sorcerer. Started at level 1 and is currently level 10 or 11. This is a neat party because my guy is the meat shield, the ranger and her wands is the healer (at least until I got touch of vitality), and the battle sorcerer can melee and blast (wraithstrike + pounce + 4 natural attacks + holy vicious amulet is DEADLY!), but is a bit of a paper tank. The dragon shaman is a gnome, so slow and does low damage, but is an effective buffer and will intentionally provoke AoOs so the BBEG can't use them against his more fragile allies. The ranger almost never gets hurt, since she is ranged.

Occasionally there is a DMPC (usually a healer), and sometimes I play a pathfinderized ninja from Complete Adventurer (not the new archetype). Sometimes the battle sorcerer (Unearthed Arcana) plays a druid if the ranger can't make it. The ninja is a paper tiger, but has learned to be a very effective sniper (uses Sudden Strike instead of Sneak Attack).


Maybe not the best, but this covers pretty much all your bases:

Barbarian
Rogue
Cleric/Sorcerer (arcane)…Mystic Theurge


right now we are running a 3 man time with A rogue an Alchemist and A rotating fighter type (ranger, paladin, fighter) my player are inconsistent so I just play with what we have.

But for an Ideal party of three, I can't say for sure, it more a matter of tactics, and Gamemastering. But a Clerics really can't be beat, Rouge or other skilled PC an then it is just a matter damage dealing, I would not go with full spell arcane because they just don't have the HP.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Druid
Summoner
Paladin

Party of 5, no waiting.


My previous group ran 75% of Stolen Lands (kingmaker 1) with a Sorcerer, Ranger, and Bard with no trouble. I was surprised.


two clerics and a druid


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing in a 3 man party in Council of Thieves.

Paladin - Scimitar and Shield (not TWF)
Urban Ranger - Takes care of traps and other skills, also has an AC with Boon Companion
Wizard - buffer

Fights can be hard, but we manage it.


Wizard
Barbarian/Fighter (multiclass)
Healing Domain Inquisitor (skills are nice) or Oracle or Cleric

OR

Magician Bard
Oracle or Cleric
Inquisitor or Paladin

Silver Crusade

Orical of Battle ( melee + divine casting )
Urban Ranger ( melee + skill expert )
Druid ( anamil companion + divine casting + melee )


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Druid
Paladin
Summoning based Wizard

Liberty's Edge

Lord Twitchiopolis wrote:

Pathfinder is based on the idea of a four+ man group, but on sometimes you wind up with only three. My question to you is this:

What combination of characters makes up the best three man party? Assume a modest level 5, if that in any way effects your judgement.

Cleric (need heals), Druid (summoned bears are good improvised tanks)...and at 5th level...probably a sorcerer.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

For Pathfinder including the APG, I'd probably go with:
Druid (animal companion, some buffs, healing, summons, Wild Shape)
Paladin (combat, Diplomancer, minor buffs and healing; great against "team evil," especially undead)
Witch (battlefield control, some buffs and healing, good versatility; patron selection is very important, as certain spells like haste or invisibility can only be gained from a specific patron)

These three characters have enough overlap that they can support/fill in for each other in many cases (all have buffing and healing capability, etc.), while retaining distinct areas in which they shine. As long as one character invests in Disable Device as well as Perception (possibly the witch, since it's an Int-based class, although the druid can also work with 4+Int mod Skill Ranks and Perception as a class skill), they should be able to deal with just about anything a 4-character party can. Alternately, a cleric and/or oracle in place of the druid and/or paladin can also work, with a bit more effort in domain/mystery selection.

Core Rulebook only, I'd go with Cleric, Druid, and Wizard for sheer magical power. These three classes can prepare and cast 95+% of the spells in the game with few restrictions.


I played in a group as a Ranger, with a Cleric and a Druid. Everyone had the animal companion (the ranger was also a beastmaster), I took the archer style but I used the other feats to become a two-weapon master with shield and scimitar; druid was an eagle shaman specialized in perception checks which made the party always alert at danger, just as if we all had uncanny dodge; cleric had all sort of debuffs ready and remove conditions spells with just a few feats like power attack and combat reflexes ready. All the 3 animals focalized more on obstaculating foes with the advantage of natural reach, improved with combat patrol feat lol On top of that, all of us had cures and remove conditions spells, revivification-like spells, cleric's find traps spell, divination, survival skills and social skills this thx to cleric plus the ability to query animals and plants...


Druid and Paladin for sure. Third man? Bard maybe. Summoner would probably be a better addition. Either way you get a variety of skill sets and a healthy mix of martial and magical prowess, along with the pets to round out the front line. Every class involved is self sufficent to some degree for healing and buffs as well.


Lyrax wrote:
The best possible party with only three characters is quite probably three clerics, if you're playing on a competitive level. This is because clerics are more powerful than the other classes. They can cast almost as well as the wizard, fight almost as well as the fighter

This is a common claim made on these boards, but I just don't see it. I think what you mean to say is that a cleric who is given several rounds to just sit and cast spells on herself can fight almost as well as a fighter.

But battles are often over before those all those spells can be cast, and quite often, the cleric would be in the middle of the battle while trying to cast those spells.

Furthermore, if the cleric chose to cast those spells on the fighter instead of on herself, the fighter would be fighting at a level the cleric could never hope to reach.

I believe one of the biggest strengths of the fighter class is the fact that they are ready for battle starting in round one.

Dark Archive

Depends on the game.

If you are going to be running a 'dungeon' or underdark sort of game, Paladins are rocking, as you won't need to worry about a lot of flying monsters, and your class features aren't dependent on size large critters.

Outside, Druids would be more useful, as you will likely face flying critters, and have more room (and better options to provide food) for those big bears and whatnot.

A single Summoner is decent, but a Druid is better able to provide healing and support to both his companion and to his party, and has a better range of utility options. His animal companion may not be an Eidolon, but he's got stronger spellcasting, and, unlike the Summoner, he doesn't have to choose between his pet and his summons, and can use both at the same time.

A Wizard might have some decent utility, but is *highly* dependent upon the GM / scenario making available spells to fill the spell book. If you run Council of Thieves, for instance, you'll be three adventures in, halfway through the entire Adventure Path, and still have seen not a single wizard scroll or spellbook or wizard-friendly item (wand, bracers, ring, etc.), other than the two spells you gain automatically by leveling. A scenario like World's Biggest Dungeon, or a campaign set in a smaller town (like Sandpoint), or a trek through the wilderness (like the beginning of Serpent Skull), or a sandboxy hex-exploration-based game (like the beginning of Kingmaker), might be even worse, as you won't even be able to buy new spells. Wizards are victims of GM kindness. Without it, they suck hard, and in a smaller party, that suckage can get everyone killed since, with three party members, there's just no leeway for one of them to be useless in an encounter because he's got the wrong spell prepared. Similarly, a bad choice in specialization (enchantment specialist in a scenario involving lots of undead, for instance) can lead to the wizard being as useful as teats on a bull in a particular encounter. If you, the player, get to choose the timing and makeup of every encounter you face, and 24 hours to prepare the perfect spells in advance, from an infinite spellbook that you don't have to pay for or acquire in-game, gosh, the wizard rocks, but that doesn't happen outside of thought experiments, fanfiction and messageboard posts.

Our group of the last decade or so pretty soundly loathes playing rogues. There's never a shortage of clerics or druids, and somebody always wants to play a barbarian/fighter/ranger of some sort, but we've gotten used to 'trapfinding' being 'take damage, get healed, move on.' If the scenario doesn't explicitly require a rogue to survive, trapfinders and arcanists seem to be the most expendable of the four classic rolls.

Bards, while hot patootie in a five or six man group, end up being less of a 'force multiplier' in a three man group. If the other two members of the party have some sort of critter command utility (druid, necromancer, conjurer, summoner, hound master, etc.), that's a different situation, as, once again, those piddly little +1s start adding up when the druid's leopard is pouncing and the conjuror / summoner has just popped out a pack of of celestial eagles.

Liberty's Edge

Trainwreck wrote:

This is a common claim made on these boards, but I just don't see it. I think what you mean to say is that a cleric who is given several rounds to just sit and cast spells on herself can fight almost as well as a fighter.

But battles are often over before those all those spells can be cast, and quite often, the cleric would be in the middle of the battle while trying to cast those spells.

Furthermore, if the cleric chose to cast those spells on the fighter instead of on herself, the fighter would be fighting at a level the cleric could never hope to reach.

I believe one of the biggest strengths of the fighter class is the fact that they are ready for battle starting in round one.

I concede your point, that a cleric-buffed fighter is better than a cleric-buffed cleric (self-only buffs can even the score, but take time). I also concede your other point, which is that a fighter is ready to fight on round 1, and is a better combatant at the beginning of round 1 than the cleric is.

However in a 3-cleric party, a fighting cleric could easily be supported by the buffs of 1 or 2 allies, making him a formidable opponent. He will have sufficient strength of arms to win most contests of arms, and he's also a full caster on top of that. In a 3-cleric party, you're unlikely to see all three casting buffs on themselves, but rather all three casting buffs on one cleric, who then fights better than a fighter normally would. Would they be able to deal damage more quickly with a fighter and 2 clerics? Yes. I think so. But the versatility afforded by having 9 levels of spells cannot be ignored, either, and a cleric can be a powerful combatant without any buffs at all.

The 3-cleric party will be able to scale their resource usage to the fight at hand. Simple fights will be dealt with swiftly, no need to cast spells. Long fights will be easy, with all the buffs available. Difficult fights will be made much more possible because any member of the party can heal the other two whenever necessary.

And a 3-cleric party will have so much healing it's not even funny.


I'd have to say that what makes a good 3 man party is largely dependent on the campaign. Obviously, casters are practically useless against a construct heavy dungeon, but are awesome if everything you face is living inside full plate, gotta love touch AC against meat shields.

That being said, i think a healing heavy party is certainly better than a healing light party. Especially with only 3 people, healing efficiency is going to be of great importance, as damage output would be more focused than if you were going with a 4+ party. What makes up the optimal 3 man party should not be thought of as what has the largest damage output (aka: the fighter), but rather, what party make up has the greatest survivability and defences (more likely to be the clerics).

However, i don't think that 3 clerics is the best way to go, rather a variation of the idea.

My choices would be as follows.

Cleric: brings (arguably) the best healing in the game to the table. I say arguably however. With the addition of the AGP, a life based Oracle could probably give a cleric a good run for her money. I think Channel Energy tips the scales slightly to the Cleric's favor, so long she has selective channel. I have not seen a Life Oracle actually played, so i can not say for sure. I'm pretty much just going from my 3.0 play experience of "nothing out heals a cleric"

Paladin or Inquisitor: While clerics can be pretty good front liners (indeed, one of my favorite play builds), the paladin or inquisitor are much better "unbuffed" tanks. Both can call on their damage pump abilities as a swift action and get right to work, where the cleric would need to buff in the first round or two against non-fodder opposition. Their self healing and melée abilities make either class the optimal front line in a 3 man party.

My third choice is a little more open. I feel that the pally/inquisitor with a cleric fills all possible requirements for front line and healing potential, and i would have to base my third slot choice more on the campaign ahead ( or if a home brew campaign, based on the GMs style and typical choice in baddies ). I like what someone said earlier about ther trap finding style being "find it, set it off, heal up, move on. So rogue is out for purposes of this discussion. The first two choices also have significant buffing potential, so there goes bard as well. As i said, the front line is pretty much taken care of, so no summoner, as I think it really steps on toes in this case with the potential of what i have seen eidelon's do.

So what to choose for third slot. I think I'm going pick witch today. They bring decent arcane ability to the table, with solid buff/debuff abilities. They have great healing available, in the form of both cure spells and healing hexes, to go along with the theme of high end survivability. Seeing as healing is all ready pretty well covered, i would personally just stick to the healing hexes, but maybe sprinkle in a cure at every other spell level just in case

Like i said earlier, this party build is based on High Survivability. However, I think it is important in a group that no one steps on anyone elses toes. I, personally, don't find it fun to build a front line fighter only to be out shined by an eidelon. In the group i am currently playing in, one person has an eidelon built out like a dragon-like humanoid with 5 attacks and a breath weapon. Although it is a pretty sweet concept, it is effectively a fighter with over 200 hit points at level 13, thanks to the ability to share hit points with its master ( who is usually invisible during a fight) and Ac 35. If i had built a sword and board fighter, i would not be happy fighting along side this thing, though luckily and happily, the party is built right to accommodate everyone in this case without significant overlap or outshining.

Edit: this build theory crafting is stricly Pathfinder based. I can think of several more powerful party build in 3.x, mostly involving various Book of Nine Swords builds along with a mystic thuerge, but that is a discussion for the 3x boards.


I was in a three person campaign for a while. We did pretty well, although we occasionally wished we had another player. We had a sorcerer, cleric and druid. The cleric was the tank/healer, the sorcerer was artillery and the druid did pretty much whatever was needed, including finding clever ways to defeat traps, get around obstacles, etc. Druids are pretty dang handy to have around, frankly. The main thing we missed from time to time was a sneaky skill monkey. However, when we did get another player to join the group, he played a rogue for a short time until his rogue died, and he's been playing a second cleric since then. We've still been doing fine.

From a more academic perspective I think if I could have had my druthers during that period of three player playing, I would have preferred cleric, druid, rogue to cleric, druid, sorcerer, especially at the levels we were playing at (mostly levels 4 and 5). Rogues do quite a bit of damage in melee at that level and our sorcerer was a bit too squishy for his own good, frequently deciding to turn invisible in the middle of fights to go hide and heal up, leaving the cleric and druid to hold down the fort.

I do think any three person group I would want to adventure with ought to include at least one druid.


i'm gonna have to go with 3 druids.

3 druids with maxed out perception are going to be finding traps as well as any rogue. and that leaves each druid with at least 3 skill points per level to devote to any other skills the campaign requires.

3 animal companions are pretty much as good as having a fighter, and they'll have their own skill ranks as well. pick ape and at fifth level you can easily have them using a weapon, and they'll have a natural 10 foot reach.

9th level spells, decent healing access, and spontaneous summoning. and that whole shapechange thing. plus easy to justify why they're all hanging out together.


angryscrub wrote:

i'm gonna have to go with 3 druids.

3 druids with maxed out perception are going to be finding traps as well as any rogue. and that leaves each druid with at least 3 skill points per level to devote to any other skills the campaign requires.

3 animal companions are pretty much as good as having a fighter, and they'll have their own skill ranks as well. pick ape and at fifth level you can easily have them using a weapon, and they'll have a natural 10 foot reach.

9th level spells, decent healing access, and spontaneous summoning. and that whole shapechange thing. plus easy to justify why they're all hanging out together.

oh, don't forget SECRET PARTY LANGUAGE WOOH! Always a fun little thing :D

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

If 3.5 classes are allowed, I'd go with binder, druid, and paladin. The binder can be an effective tank, and they can change what role they fill each day, and even twice a day with the right feat selection. They are super versatile, and their default skill selection makes them excellent faces (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive) and they even have some useful Knowledge skills (arcana, history, planes, religion).

Binder, cleric, scout might be a fun combo too. The scout has nearly as many skill points as the rogue, has trapfinding, enough bonus feats to fill melee and ranged roles, and can also do the nature thing if needed. He doesn't need a flanker to get his extra damage, which is important in a small party. The lack of Use Magic Device is a bit troubling, but there are traits for that. The binder can use his pact bonus or whatever to increase his attack rolls, so he ALMOST has a full BAB. Some vestiges even give him magic weapons and/or armor.


Summoner (Buffs, de-buffs, pet to compensate for lacking member)

Sacred Servant or Hospitaler Paladin (Can use wands to heal after battle, good survivability, if hospitaler, get selective channel for emergency party heals)

Alchemist (Energy damage for those encounters needing it, decent combatant, good utility, finds all the non-magical traps, summoner uses his summon monster ability to set off traps he can't find)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Three-Man/Six Member Team:

Druid with Combat Pet
Summoner with Combat Pet
Cavalier with Combat Pet

Plenty of HP and nifty abilities to go around. Make sure your Summoner invests in UMD to perform some nifty wizard tricks as required.


Psychic Warrior- can heal and buff himself
Magus- for arcane type spells and combat
Druid- for animal companion, spells

Shadow Lodge

Fighter - the go-to guy for combat, he'll cleave through enemies
Rogue - sometimes you need the sneakiness and skills
Witch - handles the arcane magic needs, and the healing

Dark Archive

Team Cheliax
Fighter
Cleric(neg channel) fireball at 5th level, lots of offensive spells
Cleric(pos Channel) Good summoning abilities, summoner before there was a summoner

It works well with others it works as well as a 3 man team.

We need the Fighter
Three man cleric team wouldn't always be good, need a full BAB strong guy.


I'm currently a player in a three man party + GM.

My elven wizard (conjurer) takes care of battlefield control and buffs/debuffs

A Dwarven 2h fighter I usually give enlarge person for massive low level dps and a great meat shield

A human druid who's got a bunch of utility.

Between the druid's summons, my summons, the druid's animal companion and the dwarf with the 3d6 damage greatsword, we don't really get into problems encounterwise.

I'm a big proponent of higher dps > higher damage mitigation. Every action taken to heal damage during a combat is one action less devoted to ending the encounter.


Fighter
Cleric
Wizard


Paladin.
Rogue.
Sorcerer.


Bard, Paladin, Wizard


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In an all gish party, which seems to be a popular suggestion, there are four key roles: face, traps, battlefield control, and healing (including condition removal). By definition everybody is his own tank.

I don't think there's any real substitute for a cleric for condition removal. Life Oracle may work in a larger party, but I don't think we can readily afford a back liner and the opportunity costs of having potentially necessary situational spells are high for oracles and near zero for clerics. I'd suggest an evangelist for the extra buffing.

Druid or Summoner is a must for battlefield control, though the emphasis is different. I'd give this slot to the druid because I don't like summoners, but honestly the summoner is probably better because of the better pet or standard action summon spam depending on the archetype.

Traps and face are best handled by the archaeologist bard. This guy needs to be as martial as he can be built because the bard list is nearly useless against undead and dead weight is not acceptable. Bards can be pretty tanky against anything without true sight.


Summoner
Cleric
Sorcerer

Lots of casting lots of dps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Summoner, Summoner, Summoner.

It's a party of 6 that can heal, bump any skill with a buff spell and fill any role required. Add the fact that it's 3 arcane casters, and it's gravy. Beats 3 clerics any day.

Druid, Druid, Druid is a close second.


Urban Ranger
Paladin
Witch

You get a good blend of spellcasting, ranged and melee combat, and social skills. The paladin is good for keeping some of the healing pressure off of the witch, so that she can focus on using hexes and control spells during combat. The urban ranger gives you some trap finding, an extra combatant (Don't skimp on boon companion! The paladin needs a flanking buddy and something to look after the horse.), and a nasty archer.


I have two schools of thought on a three man party.

1) go with three attributes and on the three bodies max em out. When I consider this I prefer charisma, wisdom, and dex. Charisma for talking, wisdom for casting and perception, and dex for skills plus good ranged. For charisma paladin or summoner stand out since both have buffs, debuffs, heals, and can fight well. For wisdom Druid probably is the best but a well made cleric at level 5 would do well (certainly has adaptability in creation if he talks with his group a little). For dex... Harder to say. A der USB bard is good, urban ranger is also great, inquisitor is also good if someone refuses to play a straight wis caster.

2) take one type of source power such as arcane and take it to the max. Grab a magus, bard, and sorcerer. Same could be do e with divine. All of you have the similar lists so u can coordinate spell lists and cover weaknesses but stl stay strong. U will still have a face, a monkey, and multiple casters, with a decent front man in the magus.

Personally I think summoner and paladin ALWAYS shine in small groups as they fill multiple roles without suffering from MAD. Alchemist gets honorable mention as his combination of int and dex is great if the other two are not stron in that, PLUs he has great diversity in extracts along with area damage.

Grand Lodge

I'm surprised I didn't see more mention of Inquisitor. The wealth of divine spells, broad range of skills, and ability to hand out serious damage in melee combat makes the inquisitor a must have, IMO.


It definately depends on the campaign, but if I were to go for general adventure covering as many bases as possible? I would probably choose:

Druid - with either an armor wearing combat focused animal companion
Summoner - Non-synthesist
Bard - Any archetype that allows finding of magical traps.

Keep the action economy up and have good front liners with the two pets, solid mix of magic, skills, healing, buffs. All for the low low price of 3 characters.

Now if I knew traps werent going to be a focus in the game, I might turn the bard into a different archetype but overall I think this is my ideal 3 man party.


Zen Archer
Cleric or Oracle of Battle
Wizard or Witch(?)


If I could pick what I want?

Magus (dex-based for defense, go keen scimitar + intensified shocking grasping -> needed for killing fast)
Inquisitor (ideally with ability to take care of traps)
Witch (Hedge Archetype)

between the Inquisitor's high skillpoints and the other two having high int for skillpoints, they should be able to cover everything skillrelated

the witch gives a good mix of support/shutdown, her familiar can be upgraded to use wands with UMD

both magus and inquisitor can be build to be deadly in melee without sacrificing defense (inquisitor can share his judgements through a 1st level spell with his magus buddy).

depending on the inquisitors choice of domain he could have an animal companion at level 4 (animal domain, pick natural bond feat)

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry - too many variables. I don't know that there is a 'right answer'. Some players have thoroughly mastered a class and provide unusually strong characters of that class. Others just can't grasp what they need to make a particular class effective. And, of course, the answers will be different based on the challenges of the campaign, and how committed the players are...

I suppose if I had to cover all the bases, I'd want either a ranger or a barbarian, a bard or an inquisitor, and a druid or cleric or oracle - see how undecided I am?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Druid x3

Druid, Paladin, Summoner / God wizard would work too.

Scarab Sages

Three Qinggong monks with jacked ACs, crane wing and Wyroot weapons.

All characters are self healing, can walk through traps and spells and are near impossible to hit.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Best Three Man Party All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.