Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

What needs to be done


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

Andoran

I think the discussion of specific roles is a bit...off. It isn't to say that roles don't exist, but rather that assignment of roles to a party member isn't the only, or best way to approach accomplishing the goals.

I'm going to divide this into two sections. Needs and Wants. All parties need to be able to do the following, preferably without resorting excessively to consumables.

1. Remove Enemies from the Battlefield: Generally through removal of hit points, sometimes through SoS spells. The enemy has to go, and you need multiple ways of doing this.

2. Party Recovery: Early on this is just healing, but later in the game this becomes much more broad. Party Members will be hurt and/or killed and the party needs to be able to deal with this in the field.

3. Out of combat interactions: You need to be able to deal with out of combat social and skill encounters.

Looking at the three items, there is obvious crossover. Classes like Bards and Inquisitors cover all three, but not as well as some specialist classes.

The next division is more group wants, depending on party play style.

1. Stealth and Initiative: Not always combined, but the concept being the party that decides the terms of the combat starts with a significant advantage. Stealth allows you to get the drop on the enemy, and initiative allows you to set the terms of the encounter by going before the enemy.

2. Control and mobility: While you would prefer to choose where you fight, and to go first when you get there, if that fails you want to be able to effect the battlefield, either through control spells or by being able to get where you want to be, regardless.

3. Social Interaction and Intelligence Gathering: Allies are better than enemies, and the fight that can be avoided thanks to a good party face and/or effective intelligence gathering is in and of itself a combat win.

4. Versatility: Being able to do a ton of damage in a given encounter isn't helpful if that isn't the encounter in front of you. Being able to adapt on the fly when something unexpected occurs is just as important as being dominant when dealing with the expected.

The classic 4 accomplishes filling these roles in very specific ways, but that doesn't really make the classic four the ideal set. In fact, in many ways the classic 4 is somewhat lacking, particularly with regards to social interactions (who is the high charisma face in a party with a fighter, rogue, cleric and a wizard?) and versatility. Not to mention Stealth isn't exactly a strength of the Cleric or Figher.

Would you rather have the classic 4, or a replace the Figher and Rogue with a Bard and Ranger for example? Perhaps then replace the cleric and wizard with an Inquistor and Magus? And in that party, there are less "roles" being filled by a specific person and more situations being dealt with by the combined skills of the party.

Thoughts? Additional "Needs" and "Wants" I missed? Areas of disagreement?


I don't know that I agree with your breakdown, or maybe I don't understand it. Here's more or less how my group views roles. Hope it helps. Not everyone is locked into one role. Sometimes a role is shared.

Front-liner - the person best suited to going toe to toe with big guys and mobs.

Healer - this doesn't assume cleric, nor does it assume a bunch of spells at the ready, but rather the person best suited to heal.

Skill monkey - regardless of actual skill set, this is the person who covers the most bases with their skills.

Caster - the person with the best variety of spellcasting.

Note that these still resemble the classic 4 roles. We have a lot of overlap the way they actual play out though.

Andoran

That is "a" way to divide a group, but not the only way. This is my problem with the roles discussion.

That discussion is about process. What is more important is a discussion of outcomes.

No one player has to fill any of those roles if the group as a whole can achieve the same outcome collectively.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I believe there is an additional need to add to your 3. And that is a corallary to 1.

4. Keep the enemy from removing YOU from the battlefield. This can be with a high AC tank, magical miss chances, summoned minions, or strong battlefield control, but you need some means of keeping the enemy from removing all of your hit points as well.

Andoran

Kolokotroni wrote:

I believe there is an additional need to add to your 3. And that is a corallary to 1.

4. Keep the enemy from removing YOU from the battlefield. This can be with a high AC tank, magical miss chances, summoned minions, or strong battlefield control, but you need some means of keeping the enemy from removing all of your hit points as well.

I think blocking is definately a role, and I kind of was trying to squeeze it into controlling and mobility, but you aren't wrong.

It's also something that depending on the party isn't really needed. The Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Ranger group for example, doesn't really have anyone squishy that needs to be blocked for.

EDIT: In other words, I might add something like that to the "Party Wants" but I wouldn't put it with the three things the party "Needs"


ciretose wrote:
I think the discussion of specific roles is a bit...off. It isn't to say that roles don't exist, but rather that assignment of roles to a party member isn't the only, or best way to approach accomplishing the goals.

I completely agree with your approach. There are tasks that need doing, but that that doesn't mean each task is a different job for which you hire a different character. Ideally, the most important tasks can be done by all party members, and the less important tasks are covered by at least one party member.

I would define the tasks differently, more like this:

Needs
1) Enemy Removal - Defeat each enemy. (Melee, ranged, or spell damage; SOL spells, etc.)
2) Battlefield Control - Prevent the enemy from removing you before you remove them. (combat mobility; magic or other effects that defend the party or render enemies temporarily vulnerable or non-threatening, etc.)
3) Party Recovery - Be ready for the next round of combat. (Hit point healing, ability healing, condition removal, and death reversal.)

Wants

  • Social interaction (social skills, enchantment spells and abilities)
  • Intel (stealth, knowledge skills, scrying)
  • Mobility (mounts, overland flight, teleportation)
  • Item creation
  • In decreasing importance, many others I don’t list here.

    Here's my reasoning.
    First, I remove "out of combat interactions" from the top list. Those interactions are not a primarily based primarily on character mechanics. They're primarily based in roleplaying. If you just destroyed someone's village and killed their family, they WILL NOT tell you where the macguffin is. If you just saved their village from invasion and their family from death, the WILL tell you where the macguffin is. I don't care if anyone in the party has 10 ranks in diplomacy or not, the plot is still going to happen. That's not to say that social skills are useless, they're certainly one way of approaching a number of common challenges in campaigns - but there are always other methods as well.

    Second, I added "Battlefield Control" to the top list. This category encompasses all of the things that make you win a fight aside from removing the enemy. An enemy with half of its members at the bottom of a pit or behind a Wall of Stone is much easier to defeat, as is an enemy with less actions (Slow spell, trip combat maneuver, etc.), inferior positioning (due to superior combat movement of the party, terrain, low initiative, etc.), additional enemies (summons and animal companions), or whose attacks are ineffective (resist energy), and so on. While an easy fight can be won simply by attacking the enemy, more difficult fights require other tactics, and the group with well implemented battlefield control will prevail.


  • I thought it was about having fun, not devising a strategy on how best to beat the crap out of what the GM throws at you. The moment you turn the "game" into GM vs. Players, it is no longer a game.

    I understand that the GM has to come up with ways to make things fun and therefore he is against the players, but once you have made the GM the enemy, I think you have removed Fun from the game. It starts to sound like something out of World of Warcraft.

    Osirion

    Blueluck wrote:

    Wants

  • Social interaction (social skills, enchantment spells and abilities)
  • Intel (stealth, knowledge skills, scrying)
  • Mobility (mounts, overland flight, teleportation)
  • Item creation
  • In decreasing importance, many others I don’t list here.
  • Intel and Mobility are odd cases.

    In a sandbox-y PC driven campaign, they are *vital.*

    In a pre-packaged adventure / adventure path / organized play 'mod,' they are often (not always, but often) a total waste of resources.

    The mod *wants* you to find information X, and literally has no room to detail a bunch of extraneous crap that you *could* discover with great detective work or top notch divination spells, making such intel-gathering specialization a waste, as any information the adventure needs the party to know, will be handed to them, and any other information that the party *doesn't* need to know, is pretty much flavor.

    Similarly, the adventure *wants* the party to arrive at the scenes of the pre-arranged encounters, and has provisions in place to get the party there. It ultimately doesn't matter if your character can open dimensional portals, summon genies to carry the party on a whirlwind to their destination (a very flavorful transportation option in Al-Qadim!), or owns his own quinjet/six-man flying carpet/chariot of sustarre. If the adventure is 'over there,' you will end up 'over there.' Indeed, if the party has too good of a transportation option, it might end up mysteriously not working (if the adventure is based around encounters en route to the final encounter, which provide the XP / WBL / information / McGuffin needed to actually succeed in that encounter, resulting in the unfortunate case where your character being so good at transporting the party past establishing encounters to the big finish that he got them all killed!).

    Item creation, if it allows you to have gear beyond your WBL, can help kill stuff (by increasing your entire party's damage, hit points, saving throws, spell DCs, etc.). If it doesn't, it's just wasted feats, and is functionally decreasing your characters effectiveness.


    Dot.

    Andoran

    Blueluck wrote:


    Needs
    1) Enemy Removal - Defeat each enemy. (Melee, ranged, or spell damage; SOL spells, etc.)
    2) Battlefield Control - Prevent the enemy from removing you before you remove them. (combat mobility; magic or other effects that defend the party or render enemies temporarily vulnerable or non-threatening, etc.)
    3) Party Recovery - Be ready for the next round of combat. (Hit point healing, ability healing, condition removal, and death reversal.)

    Wants

    •Social interaction (social skills, enchantment spells and abilities)

    •Intel (stealth, knowledge skills, scrying)

    •Mobility (mounts, overland flight, teleportation)

    •Item creation

    •In decreasing importance, many others I don’t list here.

    First, I remove "out of combat interactions" from the top list. Those interactions are not a primarily based primarily on character mechanics. They're primarily based in roleplaying. If you just destroyed someone's village and killed their family, they WILL NOT tell you where the macguffin is. If you just saved their village from invasion and their family from death, the WILL tell you where the macguffin is. I don't care if anyone in the party has 10 ranks in diplomacy or not, the plot is still going to happen. That's not to say that social skills are useless, they're certainly one way of approaching a number of common challenges in campaigns - but there are always other methods as well.

    Second, I added "Battlefield Control" to the top list. This category encompasses all of the things that make you win a fight aside from removing the enemy. An enemy with half of its members at the bottom of a pit or behind a Wall of Stone is much easier to defeat, as is an enemy with less actions (Slow spell, trip combat maneuver, etc.), inferior positioning (due to superior combat movement of the party, terrain, low initiative, etc.), additional enemies (summons and animal companions), or whose attacks are ineffective (resist energy), and so on. While an easy fight can be won simply by attacking the enemy, more difficult fights require other tactics, and the group with well implemented battlefield control will prevail.

    This is fair, I could get behind this. I like what you did with Battlefield control.

    I just don't like the whole idea of designing a character to fill a role, when what you really need to do is look at your party and fill in the gaps.

    Andoran

    Set wrote:


    Intel and Mobility are odd cases.

    In a sandbox-y PC driven campaign, they are *vital.*

    In a pre-packaged adventure / adventure path / organized play 'mod,' they are often (not always, but often) a total waste of resources.

    I completely disagree about pre-packaged. They are guidelines more than prescriptions. If your players go off book, you have to go with them. All an AP or module is telling the GM is what is happening. How the PCs deal with that doesn't change.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
    ciretose wrote:
    Kolokotroni wrote:

    I believe there is an additional need to add to your 3. And that is a corallary to 1.

    4. Keep the enemy from removing YOU from the battlefield. This can be with a high AC tank, magical miss chances, summoned minions, or strong battlefield control, but you need some means of keeping the enemy from removing all of your hit points as well.

    I think blocking is definately a role, and I kind of was trying to squeeze it into controlling and mobility, but you aren't wrong.

    It's also something that depending on the party isn't really needed. The Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Ranger group for example, doesn't really have anyone squishy that needs to be blocked for.

    No they dont have to be blocked FOR because they are all blocking for themselves. They are all doing it a little bit, but its still neccessary for SOMEONE to be able to be the target of enemy aggression and survive. Instead of one person being the sole target and being really good at it, its spread through the whole party but it is still a need.

    Quote:

    EDIT: In other words, I might add something like that to the "Party Wants" but I wouldn't put it with the three things the party "Needs"

    I disagree, I think if no one in the party can be the target of enemy aggression and survive (be that with high AC, magical miss chances, loads of HP summoned minions, or battlefield control) the party will do very very poorly. Someone has to get in the way of sword, claw, and arrow without going down easily.


    Set wrote:
    Blueluck wrote:

    Wants

  • Social interaction (social skills, enchantment spells and abilities)
  • Intel (stealth, knowledge skills, scrying)
  • Mobility (mounts, overland flight, teleportation)
  • Item creation
  • In decreasing importance, many others I don’t list here.
  • Intel and Mobility are odd cases.

    In a sandbox-y PC driven campaign, they are *vital.*

    In a pre-packaged adventure / adventure path / organized play 'mod,' they are often (not always, but often) a total waste of resources.
    [reasons deleted, but accepted - Blueluck]

    Item creation, if it allows you to have gear beyond your WBL, can help kill stuff (by increasing your entire party's damage, hit points, saving throws, spell DCs, etc.). If it doesn't, it's just wasted feats, and is functionally decreasing your characters effectiveness.

    Thank you for the well thought-out feedback. Also, props for the Al-Qadim reference! That's still one of my favorite game settings of all time.

    We agree that, in many pre-packaged campaigns these out-of-combat abilities are unnecessary (or even useless, if you're entirely railroaded). As a GM who mostly runs sandbox campaigns, I still consider these abilities to be optional. When the campaign is a GM created sandbox, it can be tailored to the party in many ways. That includes making the adventures work with whatever resources the party has. So, while I really enjoy many of those abilities, I still consider them optional in the majority of games.

    I'm sure there are GMs who assume certain abilities in a party and will punish players for not having those abilities rather than making the story about the characters they do have. (I'd call this the Rumsfeld postion, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.") Any time you have a GM with peculiar demands, you just have to do whatever it takes to make them at least moderately happy.


    ciretose wrote:

    This is fair, I could get behind this. I like what you did with Battlefield control.

    I just don't like the whole idea of designing a character to fill a role, when what you really need to do is look at your party and fill in the gaps.

    Totally. I think we're on the same page:)

    One of the reasons I like this overall strategy is that there are some roles that really should be present in all characters.

    1) Enemy Removal - Every character should be able to defeat a weak enemy on their own. That might just mean keeping your magic weapon up to date and not having a negative STR modifier. For a caster, that might mean keeping a couple of direct damage spells in your back pocket.

    2) Battlefield Control - Some characters may have little or no sharable control elements, but they can still contribute on a individual basis by having a mount, mobility feats, one good combat maneuver (or two, if you buy a Grappler's Mask for 5,000 gold), invisibility, or even just a very high Perception score to make sure the party is never surprised.

    3) Party Recovery - There are plenty of characters who can't really do much recovery, but if Heal is a class skill, but a point in it! (or two, to get a +5, so you can hit a 15 by taking 10.) Carry a potion of "Cure X Wounds" where X is the best the party has access to.


    So much of this depends on whether or not you're running APs or homebrew. As a GM, I know that I calibrate my encounters according to the party's capabilities, rather than expecting them to force themselves into roles that they aren't interested in fulfilling. In APs, obviously you have less flexibility to do that.

    In a campaign that I am currently running, for instance, I've introduced a lot more consumable methods to recover hp/deal with status effects because the party does not have a character to cover these challenges. These consume party resources, of course, but I facilitate the means for them to address these concerns without having to force someone into a particular class/build.


    princeimrahil wrote:

    So much of this depends on whether or not you're running APs or homebrew. As a GM, I know that I calibrate my encounters according to the party's capabilities, rather than expecting them to force themselves into roles that they aren't interested in fulfilling. In APs, obviously you have less flexibility to do that.

    In a campaign that I am currently running, for instance, I've introduced a lot more consumable methods to recover hp/deal with status effects because the party does not have a character to cover these challenges. These consume party resources, of course, but I facilitate the means for them to address these concerns without having to force someone into a particular class/build.

    Yes, it's true that whether or not the party NEEDS anything is a function of the campaign and setting they're in. However, in addition to being applicable to a majority of campaigns, an analysis like this one can aid in party building other perspectives

    One reason to make a well-constructed party is to aid the party in overcoming obstacles. That may even be the primary reason some players optimize characters and parties, especially when preparing for a preconstructed adventure.

    Another important reason to build a well-constructed party is to insure that each character is useful. Say you're joining a party of [Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue], if you make another martial character you'll add a fifth personality to the mix, but really only contribute a bit to damage output. If, on the other hand, you make a Witch, you'll provide whole new dimensions of ability to the party - and by contributing more you'll feel more useful. [Martial, Martial, Martial, Martial, Witch] is a pretty radical example, but it makes my point clearly, and I'm sure any experienced player can make up many more subtle scenarios.


    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
    Blueluck wrote:

    I would define the tasks differently, more like this:

    Needs
    1) Enemy Removal - Defeat each enemy. (Melee, ranged, or spell damage; SOL spells, etc.)
    2) Battlefield Control - Prevent the enemy from removing you before you remove them. (combat mobility; magic or other effects that defend the party or render enemies temporarily vulnerable or non-threatening, etc.)
    3) Party Recovery - Be ready for the next round of combat. (Hit point healing, ability healing, condition removal, and death reversal.)

    Wants

  • Social interaction (social skills, enchantment spells and abilities)
  • Intel (stealth, knowledge skills, scrying)
  • Mobility (mounts, overland flight, teleportation)
  • Item creation
  • In decreasing importance, many others I don’t list here.
  • After reading the whole thread so far I think I am leaning toward Blueluck's list. I like that the roles make sense and I do agree with him that several of the role-play elements need to remain that, role play.

    Andoran

    princeimrahil wrote:

    So much of this depends on whether or not you're running APs or homebrew. As a GM, I know that I calibrate my encounters according to the party's capabilities, rather than expecting them to force themselves into roles that they aren't interested in fulfilling. In APs, obviously you have less flexibility to do that.

    In a campaign that I am currently running, for instance, I've introduced a lot more consumable methods to recover hp/deal with status effects because the party does not have a character to cover these challenges. These consume party resources, of course, but I facilitate the means for them to address these concerns without having to force someone into a particular class/build.

    See I don't calibrate for the party. I want the party to have to adjust to the setting, not the other way around.

    If you aren't contributing, you need to modify your play to create synergies with your group. Teamwork above all else.


    I suppose I disguise calibrating to the party under offering several choices. For example, a noticeboard might offer (among other options) a reward for clearing undead out of a crypt. Which I'm almost certain they'll ignore, as they haven't got a cleric.


    Is it bad that I never seem to have a Standard party at least in the long run?

    Though I use a Job Board and Guild/Tavern/etc. Setup Ala FFXII and Fairy Tail.

    Cheliax

    1. Stay Fit
    2. Keep Sharp
    3. Make Good Decisions


    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    I suppose I disguise calibrating to the party under offering several choices. For example, a noticeboard might offer (among other options) a reward for clearing undead out of a crypt. Which I'm almost certain they'll ignore, as they haven't got a cleric.

    I am curious, if they went for it anyway, would you try and work with them or would you just let the dice fall where they fall?


    danielc wrote:
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    I suppose I disguise calibrating to the party under offering several choices. For example, a noticeboard might offer (among other options) a reward for clearing undead out of a crypt. Which I'm almost certain they'll ignore, as they haven't got a cleric.
    I am curious, if they went for it anyway, would you try and work with them or would you just let the dice fall where they fall?

    I really don't know. I think the reward giver might express doubts, make them convince him they can do it, perhaps temporarily offer them a tag-a-long lower-level cleric NPC, offer or at least sell them appropriate equipment. Maybe start with low-CR undead at the entrance, see what they can handle and go from there.


    I like ciretose' analysis here. I'll chime in and add one more role that I think is crucial. I'll call it Contingency/Escape. In every game I've ever played there have been situations in which the party gets in over its head and realizes it has no chance to survive the encounter. This could be because of GM vindictiveness but usually occurs because of overconfidence, bad dice luck, random wandering monsters showing up when everyone's tapped out, or players jumping the rails/exploring the deep end of the sandbox.
    On days that happens I want someone with Teleport, someone with Invisibility Sphere, a giant retreat-covering illusion, that kind of thing. At higher levels this person has access to Wish or Miracle... something to rewrite reality or rewind time when the only other option is TPK. In other words, a server/wizard/cleric/oracle with some good tricks up their sleeve to let the good guys live to fight another day.


    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    danielc wrote:
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    I suppose I disguise calibrating to the party under offering several choices. For example, a noticeboard might offer (among other options) a reward for clearing undead out of a crypt. Which I'm almost certain they'll ignore, as they haven't got a cleric.
    I am curious, if they went for it anyway, would you try and work with them or would you just let the dice fall where they fall?

    I really don't know. I think the reward giver might express doubts, make them convince him they can do it, perhaps temporarily offer them a tag-a-long lower-level cleric NPC, offer or at least sell them appropriate equipment. Maybe start with low-CR undead at the entrance, see what they can handle and go from there.

    Who needs a Cleric to take out undead in a Crypt? A standard Party should have at least 2 Bludgeoning and 2 Slashing weapons to be used against the undead. The only thing they might need to go out of the way for might be some different Arrow Types.

    Heck a club costs nothing to Craft and can be found anywhere. Heck let them use a broken table leg as a club.

    P.S.: The roles I usually look at are:

    -Front Liner
    -Skill
    -Support
    -Magic
    -Healing

    These five can easily overlap and should overlap. And every class has something to offer inside them.


    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    danielc wrote:
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    I suppose I disguise calibrating to the party under offering several choices. For example, a noticeboard might offer (among other options) a reward for clearing undead out of a crypt. Which I'm almost certain they'll ignore, as they haven't got a cleric.
    I am curious, if they went for it anyway, would you try and work with them or would you just let the dice fall where they fall?

    I really don't know. I think the reward giver might express doubts, make them convince him they can do it, perhaps temporarily offer them a tag-a-long lower-level cleric NPC, offer or at least sell them appropriate equipment. Maybe start with low-CR undead at the entrance, see what they can handle and go from there.

    Who needs a Cleric to take out undead in a Crypt? A standard Party should have at least 2 Bludgeoning and 2 Slashing weapons to be used against the undead. The only thing they might need to go out of the way for might be some different Arrow Types.

    Heck a club costs nothing to Craft and can be found anywhere. Heck let them use a broken table leg as a club.

    P.S.: The roles I usually look at are:

    -Front Liner
    -Skill
    -Support
    -Magic
    -Healing

    These five can easily overlap and should overlap. And every class has something to offer inside them.

    I'm a bit more concerned with the shadows and stuff that hurt strength etc, or haunts. I've not used much undead so I'm not familiar with them, and yes, I might find, if I started looking at them intending to build an encounter, that there isn't actually anything the party can't handle.


    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    I'm a bit more concerned with the shadows and stuff that hurt strength etc, or haunts. I've not used much undead so I'm not familiar with them, and yes, I might find, if I started looking at them intending to build an encounter, that there isn't actually anything the party can't handle.

    Meh, you could always just pull a Shadows of the Crypt. Hordes of Skeletons and Zombies lead by something like a Skeletal Champion and/or Zombie Lord.

    Or even a Magus Zombie or some sort of Magus Skeleton(if possible).

    Andoran

    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    I'm a bit more concerned with the shadows and stuff that hurt strength etc, or haunts. I've not used much undead so I'm not familiar with them, and yes, I might find, if I started looking at them intending to build an encounter, that there isn't actually anything the party can't handle.

    Meh, you could always just pull a Shadows of the Crypt. Hordes of Skeletons and Zombies lead by something like a Skeletal Champion and/or Zombie Lord.

    Or even a Magus Zombie or some sort of Magus Skeleton(if possible).

    If you can do the above, you'll be able to handle any encounter. As well as a class specifically designed to shine in a given encounter? No. But that is what shining is


    ciretose wrote:
    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    I'm a bit more concerned with the shadows and stuff that hurt strength etc, or haunts. I've not used much undead so I'm not familiar with them, and yes, I might find, if I started looking at them intending to build an encounter, that there isn't actually anything the party can't handle.

    Meh, you could always just pull a Shadows of the Crypt. Hordes of Skeletons and Zombies lead by something like a Skeletal Champion and/or Zombie Lord.

    Or even a Magus Zombie or some sort of Magus Skeleton(if possible).

    If you can do the above, you'll be able to handle any encounter. As well as a class specifically designed to shine in a given encounter? No. But that is what shining is

    What?

    Andoran

    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    ciretose wrote:
    Azaelas Fayth wrote:
    Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
    I'm a bit more concerned with the shadows and stuff that hurt strength etc, or haunts. I've not used much undead so I'm not familiar with them, and yes, I might find, if I started looking at them intending to build an encounter, that there isn't actually anything the party can't handle.

    Meh, you could always just pull a Shadows of the Crypt. Hordes of Skeletons and Zombies lead by something like a Skeletal Champion and/or Zombie Lord.

    Or even a Magus Zombie or some sort of Magus Skeleton(if possible).

    If you can do the above, you'll be able to handle any encounter. As well as a class specifically designed to shine in a given encounter? No. But that is what shining is
    What?

    Basically if a Paladin is fighting an Evil creature and uses smite, he should be better than a fighter/barbarian/etc...it is his moment to shine.

    Similarly if a cleric is fighting undead, they will generally be better than other classes, because that is a moment where they shine.

    That isn't to say a group that doesn't have a cleric, but does have all of the above listed abilities won't be able to deal with the undead just fine.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    @ciretose: Okay now it makes sense.

    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / What needs to be done All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.