Well the party doesnt need more divine magic thats for sure. If the wizard goes you pobably want to be some kind of caster, maybe a bard to buff the paladin and oracle, or maybe a straight wizard. You could even go summoner, who have very good area control spells and can make your eidolon extra skilled/sneaky to fill the gap in terms of stealth and any missing skills.
You have:
- Paladin (melee)
- Cleric (melee)
- Oracle (no combat role) with barbarian (melee)
- Unknown (former monk)
I suggest:
- Contact your monk friend and find out what's coming.
- Don't play another archer.
- Unless there's a reason not to make an arcane caster. I suggest a sorcerer or wizard, but a witch or lesser caster would be reasonable.
Because:
- It's always easier to decide what's needed when you know what's already at the table.
- You're already playing one kind of archer.
- It's hard to overestimate the usefulness of having at least one full arcane caster in a party.
Was going to post some advice, but I see Blueluck has already posted it. :)
If anyone I game with sees this they are going to groan at me but oh well. I love wizards but I hate having to have 2 opposition schools. I was recently thumbing through the UM and there is a type of wizard that you can be that is a 5 elemental wizard and the "Wood" specialization. The spells you lose are't that big of a deal IMO but there is an arcane discovery that you can take so that you don't take the penalties of one of your opposition schools and because you only have one you gain access to every spell in the game for a single feat (That has to be taken at 9th level or higher). What I love about the class though is one of the abilities that you get at 1st level is you get a +1 enhancement bonus to your Wis, Dex, or Con that you can change on a daily basis. That scales all the way to +5 at 20th level. You'll also get a handful of druid spells added to your list.
And to answer your question about the witch the hexes can make up for the loss of spells but at the same time they can be completely useless. I was recently running an AP and in one of the books you fight nothing but undead. Undead are immune to mind affecting abilities and how this guy made his witch (one of the more effective ways to make it) he was useless for the entire AP. So in some situations they rock in others they suck ass. I played a witch in a campaigns and I was awesome. The wizard would be running low on spells and I had only cast 3-5 spells after 4-7 fights because the sleep hex is godly. Witches are good in some campaigns and others not so much. This is just how I've seen the witch play out at least in the 2 games where one has been used.
That's some pretty good advice. Thanks, and now that I think about it I don't really trust our monk player to do an arcane caster...well. So with that said I suppose my options are summoner, bard, sorcerer, wizard, or witch.
That sounds like a good plan.
I'm not too hot about spotaeneous casters simply because I'd like to use metamagic stuff if I were to play a caster.
Spontaneous casters use metamagic feats slower, but can apply those feats. . . spontaneously, which is an advantage. For example, imagine a sorcerer and a wizard, each who have the feat Silent Spell. To benefit, the wizard has to go around with a metamagiced spell memorized all the time taking up a higher level slot, while the sorcerer can just ignore the feat until someone casts Silence on him, then apply his feat to just about any spell he knows. So, who's better at using metamagic? With rods they're equivalent, with feats you have a choice between speed and flexibility.
The choice between memorized and spontaneous casting is largely a matter of taste. Pick whichever style will be more fun for you, and make the most of it.
Question though, why is a witch considered a lesser caster when she has full arcane progression? Do the hexes not make up for the limited spell list?
I intentionally didn't put the witch in the "lesser casters" group. The reason I don't recommend a witch for this party, although I like witches, is that they use a mix of (traditionally) arcane and divine magic. Since your party already has three divine casters, the witch's divine magic would be wasted.
* Recommended (sorcerer, wizard) vs. reasonable (witch, lesser casters)
* Full casters (sorcerer, wizard, witch) vs. lesser casters
This very similar sentence would have put the witch in the group with lesser casters, "I suggest a sorcerer or wizard, but a witch or other lesser caster would be reasonable."
I'm not sure how I misunderstood that.
No worries. We're probably all skimming rather than studying. This is a discussion about a game, of course, not the manual for a nuclear weapon. It's my personal belief that anyone willing to say, "Oops, I must have had that wrong" is someone worth having a discussion with.
Admixture will be fun! Not only do your blasty spells deal extra damage, but they work against nearly every target. An elf wizard with the right feats can really blast the heck out of enemies, cutting through saving throws and SR.
Magical Lineage (trait)
Spell Focus Evocation (and greater)
Spell Specialization (and greater)
Spell Penetration (and greater)
Spell Perfection
So update, apparently the cleric died. So now replacing the cleric is a sorcerer, and replacing the monk is a healing witch. I guess that fills up the backline rather well, and leaves me with a lot of options to play around with. Would a more melee oriented character be suitable with the current composition?
.
So your party is now:
- Paladin
- Oracle (with barbarian follower)
- Sorcerer
- Witch
You have 1.5 characters who want to be in melee (counting the cohort as .5) and 3 characters who want to stand back. You have plenty of healing (3 characters), plenty of arcane magic (2 characters), and plenty of divine magic (1 full, 2 partial). That's a pretty tight group!
Since your party doesn't have any gaping holes that need filling, you're pretty free to make whatever you please. If you rule out duplicates (Paladin, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, Barbarian) and near-duplicates (Cleric, Wizard), you're left with these classes to pick from:
- Fighter
- Ranger
- Cavalier
- Monk
- Rogue
- Alchemist
- Bard
- Magus
- Summoner
- Druid
- Inquisitor
My suggestion is to make a character who:
- deals HP damage.
- spends all or some of his time in melee.
My favorite ways to do this would be:
- Ranger - Two-handed weapon specialist with lots of useful skills and enough wisdom to cast Instant Enemy.
- Cavalier - Order of the Sword charging lancer build.
- Magus - Dervish Dance with a scimitar, high crit, Shocking Grasp for everyone!
- Druid - Be a combat animal or summoning specialist, whichever appeals to you. Keep your pet out front in either case.
There's a cool option that's a blend of my first two ideas (melee ranger + lancer cavalier).
Ranger with the Hippogriff Rider archetype gets a great flying mount, and with the chosen fighting style Mounted Combat, you'd get all the great mounted feats for free. (Or you could choose Archery fighting style, and use your regular feats for mounted combat.) Either way, you fly, charge for 3x damage, and have a bow for an excellent ranged option when needed.
|
I like Blueluck's analysis, but here's what the Party Picker says.
(I believe that the oracle is melee based? I could be wrong, but that's how I figured things.)
You are fantastic on healing and melee, with some decent tanks and a butt-load of magic.
You are low on ranged, and that should be your number one priority. You are also low on sneaky guys ( I assume), and a little low on blasty damage. However, range is your biggest concenr, so I would suggest a character that can really knock ranged fighting out of the park.
TG MaxMaxer has a great idea with a Ranged Inquisitor. A gunslinger, ranged fighter, or zen archer would also be grand. For a different feel that would also round out the party, check out Alchemists!
I would avoid order of the sword. It's too mount oriented and gets practically nothing for unmounted combat. You want Cockatrice. Standard action Dazzling Display means you can move into position and then mass intimidate. It's the best caster support option any melee class has. You're also not weapon restricted like it usually is so you can use it on a horse with a lance in your hand or on foot with a sword or at a fancy dress ball that suddenly turns into a war zone.
I chose Order of the Sword because I had a small race in mind. A small cavalier on a medium mount can take his trusty steed into any dungeon his tallfolk friends are foolhardy enough to enter. Unfortunately all of the small races get penalties to strength, making their martial performance suffer.
The character is beginning at 9th level, which means starting with the amazing Mounted Mastery ability. Among other bonuses, it allows the cavalier to add his mount's strength bonus to damage when charging. It's great for small cavaliers, and it can be combined with Beastmaster for some truly stunning damage output.
It wasn't so much a statement of "This is the best build" as "I think this would perform well and be fun to play".
I like Blueluck's analysis, but here's what the Party Picker says.
(I believe that the oracle is melee based? I could be wrong, but that's how I figured things.)
You are fantastic on healing and melee, with some decent tanks and a butt-load of magic.
You are low on ranged, and that should be your number one priority. You are also low on sneaky guys ( I assume), and a little low on blasty damage. However, range is your biggest concenr, so I would suggest a character that can really knock ranged fighting out of the park.
TG MaxMaxer has a great idea with a Ranged Inquisitor. A gunslinger, ranged fighter, or zen archer would also be grand. For a different feel that would also round out the party, check out Alchemists!
For some reason I missed that the oracle does melee. I even wrote "Oracle(no combat)" earlier, and I think I was mixing his oracle up with one from another thread.
I disagree with the Party Picker that a martial character who mainly contributes "ranged damage" is an essential component of a strong party. Since he's playing a Zen Archer in another campaign, I would still avoid any kind of dedicated archer build. Why play two characters with the same basic strategy when you can explore more of the game?
However, with the oracle stepping up into melee, the math does change a bit!
2 melee
2 casters
3 healers
2 arcane spellcasters
That party is perfectly well rounded, and open to just about anything.