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

PaizoCon 2014!

Not sure what might complement this party...


Advice


So, I was playing two games a week (GMing Jade Regent and playing in Skull and Shackles). The Skull and Shackles group pretty much fell apart completely, so I've now got the option of joining a new group (one that doesn't play any published material as far as I am aware).

Their party is currently level one, and the make-up is as follows:

Tiefling Blackblade Magus (dex build)
Elf Ranger (switch hitter build)
Kitsune Bard (more of a skill monkey)
Dwarven Cleric of Sarenrae
Orc Barbarian

The GM and I both seem to think that a dedicated arcanist would benefit this group well (Wizard, Sorcerer or Witch).

On a side note, I am a bit worried about joining this group, I have played in a large group before and it made it difficult for everyone to get an edgewise in and out of combat. It's also weird having an orc in the group, I haven't really found out why that race is allowed as of yet. In any case, what class might do well here? Btw, he has banned some of the Witch hexes, so Witch is a bit of weaker option in this case.


a tiefling teleportation subschool conjurer, ban enchantment (bard is the face) and necromancy (most necromancy spells tend to be banned, at least among DM's i know) take battlefield control spells, some buffs, and a fair portion of utility.

an aasimaar (standard) life oracle of the dawnflower, focused on healing, condition removal, and a hint of battlefield control.

an angelkin (variant aasimaar from blood of angels) metal oracle of Gorum clad in plate with a solid steel shafted glaive. combat reflexes, secondary tank, secondary healing, etc.

a tiefling rogue/teleportation subschool conjurer/arcane trickster who provides utility and skills. think batman or mcguyver, you offer creative solutions to problems, but you don't personally dominate them. dump cha down to 5 and roleplay a shy little devil with OCD if you wish.


You could also do well as a spell-casting Druid. They get some good spells, similar to a devoted arcanist, and as you gain levels, wild shape will be super useful.

Summoning is also powerful, but I'd be careful making a large group larger, unless I knew that I was prepared, and that the group could handle it.

And, pirates have always been a band of misfits. Why does Orc bother you more than tiefling?


rkraus2 wrote:

You could also do well as a spell-casting Druid. They get some good spells, similar to a devoted arcanist, and as you gain levels, wild shape will be super useful.

Summoning is also powerful, but I'd be careful making a large group larger, unless I knew that I was prepared, and that the group could handle it.

And, pirates have always been a band of misfits. Why does Orc bother you more than tiefling?

i could provide a guess

tieflings are (on a genetic level) closer to humans than orcs are. and on a mechanical level. they aren't as absurdly OP. Orcs get +4 to strength for -2 to 3 mental stats and a slightly better diehard for free, 2 of which, tend to be frequently dumped by "minmaxed" builds. the penalty to Wis doesn't balance the value of the extra +2 to Str, and the int/cha penalties are irrelvant on a race intended to do little else besides maximize physical stats and fight to the death. and orcs were intended to be an NPC race.


dotting.


Lumiere echos my sentiments exactly about tieflings versus orcs. I initially was actually considering playing an Arcane Trickster because I had been thinking about that sort of build before I had this opportunity. The guides for the class are wonderful at explaining how I get towards the AT levels and how to play one in general.

Would there be another race that would suit AT well enough other than Elf or Tiefling? I like to play a totally different character to add a lot of diversity to the party. Then again... there already is a lot of diversity, lol.
I liked all of the build ideas though. Never played an Oracle or a Druid (although I'll have to pass on that as I don't think my GM could handle the bigger party).


a sylph could work for arcane trickster too.

remember the like the wind, breeze kissed, and weather saavy alternate racials from the ARG.

35 foot base speed, the ability to predict the next 24 hours of weather as a full round action at will, and +2 ac versus projectiles.

or you could play a ratfolk, human, or half orc too.

for half orc, i recommend the combo that trades ferocity for darkvision 90Ft and skilled.

for human, i recommend the scaling free skill focuses if your campaign is to reach higher level.

and for an elf, i recommend the darkvision alternate racial.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


for human, i recommend the scaling free skill focuses if your campaign is to reach higher level.

What are you referring to?

@DraconicBlessing:

What style of Wizard/Sorcerer would you like to play?

What Hexes were banned & do you know why?


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


for human, i recommend the scaling free skill focuses if your campaign is to reach higher level.

What are you referring to?

@DraconicBlessing:

What style of Wizard/Sorcerer would you like to play?

What Hexes were banned & do you know why?

there is an alternate racial ability for Humans in the ARG, where instead of their bonus feat, they receive skill focus in up to 3 skills of their choice. the 1st choice is at 1st level, the 2nd is at 8th, and the 3rd at 15th.


I was going to suggest rogue for your party, but as your GM said arcane, your AT sounds perfect, just to back you up. No concrete suggestions more than that.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


there is an alternate racial ability for Humans in the ARG, where instead of their bonus feat, they receive skill focus in up to 3 skills of their choice. the 1st choice is at 1st level, the 2nd is at 8th, and the 3rd at 15th.

I missed that Alternate Racial Ability...


Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, or Human Sorcerer/Rogue/AT is pretty good.



Human

look for focused study.


Human(Focused Study) Bard or Rogue just became more of a skill monkey...


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
rkraus2 wrote:

You could also do well as a spell-casting Druid. They get some good spells, similar to a devoted arcanist, and as you gain levels, wild shape will be super useful.

Summoning is also powerful, but I'd be careful making a large group larger, unless I knew that I was prepared, and that the group could handle it.

And, pirates have always been a band of misfits. Why does Orc bother you more than tiefling?

i could provide a guess

tieflings are (on a genetic level) closer to humans than orcs are. and on a mechanical level. they aren't as absurdly OP. Orcs get +4 to strength for -2 to 3 mental stats and a slightly better diehard for free, 2 of which, tend to be frequently dumped by "minmaxed" builds. the penalty to Wis doesn't balance the value of the extra +2 to Str, and the int/cha penalties are irrelvant on a race intended to do little else besides maximize physical stats and fight to the death. and orcs were intended to be an NPC race.

I didn't get that argument in 3.0 and I don't get it now.

Int and cha are never irrelevant for a roleplayer. Only for a powergamer.


This group is solid on damage and solid on buffs. What it needs is control.

Thankfully you have options there. Druids would do just fine if that strikes your fancy.

However if you and the gm both agree the group needs a wizard go with that. I'd stick to a control focus laying down spells like grease and color spray and what not. You won't have to expend too many resources as your damage dealers should be eating the bad guys alive. Damage is not your goal nor should it be you have three characters perfectly capable of laying down the beats and two capable of laying down the buffs. You just need to lay down the control.

I honestly would not bother with AT. It just gets in the way of being a better wizard.


TarkXT wrote:

This group is solid on damage and solid on buffs. What it needs is control.

Thankfully you have options there. Druids would do just fine if that strikes your fancy.

However if you and the gm both agree the group needs a wizard go with that. I'd stick to a control focus laying down spells like grease and color spray and what not. You won't have to expend too many resources as your damage dealers should be eating the bad guys alive. Damage is not your goal nor should it be you have three characters perfectly capable of laying down the beats and two capable of laying down the buffs. You just need to lay down the control.

I honestly would not bother with AT. It just gets in the way of being a better wizard.

the AT might not be a pure wizard, but it offers skills as well. the sneak attack would be worthless. but it offers skills that allow the conserving of spell slots and the conservation of the bard's skill points. nothing stops them from taking control spells.

but a wizard who can contribute those same skills works just fine. and it is easy to turn a wizard into a skill monkey.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

This group is solid on damage and solid on buffs. What it needs is control.

Thankfully you have options there. Druids would do just fine if that strikes your fancy.

However if you and the gm both agree the group needs a wizard go with that. I'd stick to a control focus laying down spells like grease and color spray and what not. You won't have to expend too many resources as your damage dealers should be eating the bad guys alive. Damage is not your goal nor should it be you have three characters perfectly capable of laying down the beats and two capable of laying down the buffs. You just need to lay down the control.

I honestly would not bother with AT. It just gets in the way of being a better wizard.

the AT might not be a pure wizard, but it offers skills as well. the sneak attack would be worthless. but it offers skills that allow the conserving of spell slots and the conservation of the bard's skill points. nothing stops them from taking control spells.

but a wizard who can contribute those same skills works just fine. and it is easy to turn a wizard into a skill monkey.

Most of those skills are already pretty well covered by the bard and ranger.

There really is no good reason to play an AT in thsi group.


Umbranus wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
rkraus2 wrote:

You could also do well as a spell-casting Druid. They get some good spells, similar to a devoted arcanist, and as you gain levels, wild shape will be super useful.

Summoning is also powerful, but I'd be careful making a large group larger, unless I knew that I was prepared, and that the group could handle it.

And, pirates have always been a band of misfits. Why does Orc bother you more than tiefling?

i could provide a guess

tieflings are (on a genetic level) closer to humans than orcs are. and on a mechanical level. they aren't as absurdly OP. Orcs get +4 to strength for -2 to 3 mental stats and a slightly better diehard for free, 2 of which, tend to be frequently dumped by "minmaxed" builds. the penalty to Wis doesn't balance the value of the extra +2 to Str, and the int/cha penalties are irrelvant on a race intended to do little else besides maximize physical stats and fight to the death. and orcs were intended to be an NPC race.

I didn't get that argument in 3.0 and I don't get it now.

Int and cha are never irrelevant for a roleplayer. Only for a powergamer.

when a player asks "May i play an Orc?" there is only one reason i think he would ask. and it is pretty obvious. he wishes to Dump his mental stats down to the abyss and raise his physical stats up to celestia and play a barbarian. a player like that wouldn't care about int and cha, as long as they kill things, but would complain the moment they have to make a will save.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


when a player asks "May i play an Orc?" there is only one reason i think he would ask. and it is pretty obvious. he wishes to Dump his mental stats down to the abyss and raise his physical stats up to celestia and play a barbarian. a player like that wouldn't care about int and cha, as long as they kill things, but would complain the moment they have to make a will save.

Hence why my campaign has Savage and Civilized Orcs.


TarkXT wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
TarkXT wrote:

This group is solid on damage and solid on buffs. What it needs is control.

Thankfully you have options there. Druids would do just fine if that strikes your fancy.

However if you and the gm both agree the group needs a wizard go with that. I'd stick to a control focus laying down spells like grease and color spray and what not. You won't have to expend too many resources as your damage dealers should be eating the bad guys alive. Damage is not your goal nor should it be you have three characters perfectly capable of laying down the beats and two capable of laying down the buffs. You just need to lay down the control.

I honestly would not bother with AT. It just gets in the way of being a better wizard.

the AT might not be a pure wizard, but it offers skills as well. the sneak attack would be worthless. but it offers skills that allow the conserving of spell slots and the conservation of the bard's skill points. nothing stops them from taking control spells.

but a wizard who can contribute those same skills works just fine. and it is easy to turn a wizard into a skill monkey.

Most of those skills are already pretty well covered by the bard and ranger.

There really is no good reason to play an AT in this group.

a wizard could cover some of those skills too, the only thing you are really missing, is a cheap way to disable magical traps.

Good Wizard Races are

Human
Half Orc
Half Elf
Elf
Ratfolk
Tiefling
Sylph
Emberkin (Variant Aasimaar from blood of angels)
Elan (psionics unleashed)
Blue (psionics unleashed)

and a lot of the good wizard races are also good AT races. so either route works.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


a wizard could cover some of those skills too, the only thing you are really missing, is a cheap way to disable magical traps.

Pretty much the only reason I agreed with the OP on AT vs the DM on arcane caster. One level rogue, the rest wizard, and keep pumping points into Disable Device and Perception, but otherwise be the arcanist. Not optimal, but perhaps balanced with and complementary to your party as is.


For the Witch, Evil Eye and Slumber have been banned, the GM seems to be rather fearful of the debuffing capabilities of the class. I imagine other hexes have been banned as well, like perhaps the Flight Hex.

@Azaelas: If I were to choose between playing a wizard and a sorcerer, I'd be more likely to go wizard as I like playing scholarly book worm types more. Dealing damage would definitely not be my priority, it would certainly be all about the control.

@Lumiere: the player who chose to be an orc actually very likely did chooe it for that reason specifically. I've come to find out that he is quite the power gamer. I expect some sort of confrontation with his character, I can't put my finger on it... but it seems likely.

@Tark: I can understand the reasoning for not going for Arcane Trickster. It was a build that I was incredibly curious about trying though and I feel doubtful that I'll get many chances to test out my ideas with the people around here who I can manage to get games with.


"Play the character you want to play." If you wanna build an Arcane Trickster then build an Arcane Trickster.

I say a Bard, Rogue or Ninja with Wizard and then going Arcane Trickster would be wonderful in this Party.

Especially a Ninja/Wizard/AT.

Nothing says Control like appearing where you aren't expected.


Dang. Just found out that my GM isn't allowing traits so I won't be able to get Magical Knack... that kinda gimps me a lot if I were to go AT. I think I might just go straight Wizard in that regard, or will it still be something viable without it?


Magical Knack is nice but isn't necessary. After all Arcane Tricksters have been in existence since before Magical Knack came into existence.


Oh nvm, he allowed me to have Magical Knack for the sake of the build. I can't wait for this to kick off! My first interesting build, and my first Elf!


So how did you convince him of that?


I told him Magical Knack would be a huge help to my build, so it wouldn't be a huge issue to go full Wizard. He wants me to be able to rock my concept so he's allowing it.


Nice! Maybe count it as a Feat or even upgrade it a bit to increase it to Feat power.


The best magical knack upgrade would be if he allowed esoteric training from inner sea magic. Then you would pretty much be equal to full wizard with even better skills than any wizard skill monkey could hope for.


Hmm... Combine the two into a hybrid effect feat.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Umbranus wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
rkraus2 wrote:

You could also do well as a spell-casting Druid. They get some good spells, similar to a devoted arcanist, and as you gain levels, wild shape will be super useful.

Summoning is also powerful, but I'd be careful making a large group larger, unless I knew that I was prepared, and that the group could handle it.

And, pirates have always been a band of misfits. Why does Orc bother you more than tiefling?

i could provide a guess

tieflings are (on a genetic level) closer to humans than orcs are. and on a mechanical level. they aren't as absurdly OP. Orcs get +4 to strength for -2 to 3 mental stats and a slightly better diehard for free, 2 of which, tend to be frequently dumped by "minmaxed" builds. the penalty to Wis doesn't balance the value of the extra +2 to Str, and the int/cha penalties are irrelvant on a race intended to do little else besides maximize physical stats and fight to the death. and orcs were intended to be an NPC race.

I didn't get that argument in 3.0 and I don't get it now.

Int and cha are never irrelevant for a roleplayer. Only for a powergamer.
when a player asks "May i play an Orc?" there is only one reason i think he would ask. and it is pretty obvious. he wishes to Dump his mental stats down to the abyss and raise his physical stats up to celestia and play a barbarian. a player like that wouldn't care about int and cha, as long as they kill things, but would complain the moment they have to make a will save.

Just want to chime in on this comment as a player of an orc barbarian. I chose the race for a specific concept, which the orc race best fit. I currently play with a bonus in both wisdom and charisma (would have gone for intelligence and wisdom, but the hybrid roll/point buy my DM was using didn't go my way on that). I frequently find myself wanting for more skill points and the extra feat, and with how absurd my strength is already the additional +2 I got from going orc over human doesn't matter much, especially considering the loss of the superstition bonus from the human favored class. I chose orc because it fit the concept better. Plus, ferocity has saved my bacon as I've gone into negatives every session of play.

Just wanted to let you know we do exist. [/derail]

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Advice / Not sure what might complement this party... 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.