Party Composition


Rise of the Runelords


So a few of my friends and I are going to play Runelords starting Monday (Dec 22, I think). We so far have a human rouge that's TWF and looking towards playing an assassin, a gnome sorcerer (draconic), and a druid (race unknown). Normally I GM but someone else wanted to try so we're giving it a go. He wants core only, except for traits, and he's given us a 22 point buy. He's against min-maxing (but he knows I do anyways so he's okay with some) so we can't buy the '7' stat (so the lowest stat we can have before race is 8, and lowest after race is 6). He also dislikes having too many small races for some reason (maybe because gnomes and dwarves have bonuses VS goblins, and we know we're facing goblins because of the player guide), but I can try to negotiate with him on that. My question then is what character should I make? I was thinking about a bard looking into the arcane archer seeing as we lack a ranged character and the druid animal companion is like a mini fighter. I am the most experienced player in the group so while I'm okay with playing a simple class like a barbarian with a great-sword I would prefer to have spells. Thoughts?


Dwarven Ranger. Technically not a "small" race, and well suited for Runelords.


Tangent101 wrote:
Dwarven Ranger. Technically not a "small" race, and well suited for Runelords.

Hmmn, that sounds pretty good. The only problem might be that dwarves get bonuses vs goblins and he might say that's too overpowered. I think I can convince him though because it's a bit unfair to restrict races based on what's good to play. Ranger helps fill out the group quite nicely though, if I make a switch hitter will I still be stealing some of the rogues thunder? I know rangers can be quite roguish. The rouge is a new player so I'm not sure what skills he's planning so who should handle the knowledge skills?


One question might be - how experienced are the other players? Maybe I'm a purist, but I don't have much confidence in a druid's animal companion handling the meat shield role. "Mini-fighter" is an exaggeration in my opinion. A group of experienced players could make it work as well as an experienced GM and it seems that may not be the case here. One possible (probable?) outcome here: you'll take the bard and it'll work fine until the encounters notch up around 3-4th level and then someone will die and have to take a fighter type as a new character any way. Hopefully, that wouldn't lead to a TPK or discouragement from continuing, etc.

Tangent is on the right track - that composition calls for a warrior of some sort and Ranger is a great fit for RotRL (dwarven or otherwise.) Paladin also works and meets your spell-casting requirement but I assume if that had appeal, you'd have gone there already. Maybe you should discuss this with the GM - I can understand his KISS approach but there are other classes outside "core" that might get you want you want and give the group some, er... backbone. Whatever you pick, he has to live with the holes (tactical gaps) in party composition as much if not more so than the other players.


Alright, I okayed being a dwarf with my GM, and the druid is planning on being a half-elf. Still, does a ranger impede on the rogue too much, or can he fill his own niche?


Latrecis wrote:

One question might be - how experienced are the other players? Maybe I'm a purist, but I don't have much confidence in a druid's animal companion handling the meat shield role. "Mini-fighter" is an exaggeration in my opinion. A group of experienced players could make it work as well as an experienced GM and it seems that may not be the case here. One possible (probable?) outcome here: you'll take the bard and it'll work fine until the encounters notch up around 3-4th level and then someone will die and have to take a fighter type as a new character any way. Hopefully, that wouldn't lead to a TPK or discouragement from continuing, etc.

Tangent is on the right track - that composition calls for a warrior of some sort and Ranger is a great fit for RotRL (dwarven or otherwise.) Paladin also works and meets your spell-casting requirement but I assume if that had appeal, you'd have gone there already. Maybe you should discuss this with the GM - I can understand his KISS approach but there are other classes outside "core" that might get you want you want and give the group some, er... backbone. Whatever you pick, he has to live with the holes (tactical gaps) in party composition as much if not more so than the other players.

The rogue and the sorcerer are brand new, and the druid has played once or twice but like to optimize. The ranger is holding appeal for me, as it has spells later in the game. The question though is can a ranger be an effective replacement for front line?

Grand Lodge

As long as you don't make a rogue yourself, you'll still inadvertently steal the rogue's thunder. That said the rogue needs somebody to flank with and you're short on front-liners if the druid is casting-centric.

A paladin could definitely bring something to the table with this group.

EDIT: And honestly, if the GM is going to nitpick about the dwarfen racial hatred against goblins, ask him to let you take an alternate race trait that replaces it.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:

As long as you don't make a rogue yourself, you'll still inadvertently steal the rogue's thunder. That said the rogue needs somebody to flank with and you're short on front-liners if the druid is casting-centric.

A paladin could definitely bring something to the table with this group.

And honestly, if the GM is going to nitpick about the dwarfen racial hatred against goblins, ask him to let you take an alternate race trait that replaces it.

I resolved the issue with the dwarf (whew) [he didn't want more than one member of each race, so the druid chose half-elf so that I could be a dwarf]. When you say "As long as you don't make a rogue yourself, you'll still inadvertently steal the rogue's thunder." what do you mean? Also, should I do a paladin or a ranger?


My responses are too slow here... But I think you might still have a problem though not on the skill side but rather on the combat side. A ranger that does TWF will be better at it than the rogue and better faster. So if that's the rogue's plan, you might step on his toes unless you went ranged. But then you have a new problem - that TWF rogue needs someone to pin enemies down so he can flank and your ranger won't be doing that with a bow in his hand. Maybe the druid and companion can fill that role... Again some of this comes down to experience and playstyle of players and GM. Crazy idea - if the rogue player is really interested in TWF maybe he should be the ranger? Don't like messing with people's character concepts but if he's new... Does he want to be a thief or does he want to wield two weapons?

Yes, a ranger would be a fine warrior, front line character. I'm running on about something that may not be even possible but I like the party lineup of TWF Ranger, druid, sorceror, bard way more than I like TWF Rogue, sorceror, druid, missile ranger (or bard.) Double especially for new players/GM.

I'm not a big fan of the "rogues are useless" threads you can find out here but if it's do without a rogue or do without a capable melee combatant, the rogue goes every time. Again, I'm way out of bounds here - if a new player wants to play a rogue, that should trump any party composition dialogue. And if you're going to have a TWF Rogue, you need a melee combatant for him to work off and a TWF Ranger will likely steal his thunder. A paladin would never steal a rogue's thunder but paladin is a you-have-to-be willing class.


Latrecis wrote:

My responses are too slow here... But I think you might still have a problem though not on the skill side but rather on the combat side. A ranger that does TWF will be better at it than the rogue and better faster. So if that's the rogue's plan, you might step on his toes unless you went ranged. But then you have a new problem - that TWF rogue needs someone to pin enemies down so he can flank and your ranger won't be doing that with a bow in his hand. Maybe the druid and companion can fill that role... Again some of this comes down to experience and playstyle of players and GM. Crazy idea - if the rogue player is really interested in TWF maybe he should be the ranger? Don't like messing with people's character concepts but if he's new... Does he want to be a thief or does he want to wield two weapons?

Yes, a ranger would be a fine warrior, front line character. I'm running on about something that may not be even possible but I like the party lineup of TWF Ranger, druid, sorceror, bard way more than I like TWF Rogue, sorceror, druid, missile ranger (or bard.) Double especially for new players/GM.

I'm not a big fan of the "rogues are useless" threads you can find out here but if it's do without a rogue or do without a capable melee combatant, the rogue goes every time. Again, I'm way out of bounds here - if a new player wants to play a rogue, that should trump any party composition dialogue. And if you're going to have a TWF Rogue, you need a melee combatant for him to work off and a TWF Ranger will likely steal his thunder. A paladin would never steal a rogue's thunder but paladin is a you-have-to-be willing class.

All very good points, but yes, the rogue is a roleplayer and has his heart set on rogue so I feel my job as the more experienced gamer is to make the party work. I am willing to play any class, regardless of its spells or other features, I merely prefer to play full caster (which we clearly don't need). If I do a switch hitter ranger, would that work?

The Exchange

Could work, but nothing beats pallies for sheer tankage (swift action heals rock). I'd also suggest that the druids animal companion takes improved iron will and so should you. Animalcompanion Iin core cannot learn flank, which means the druid has to make a dc 25 push check yoto get his animal companion to be the rogues flank buddy.

Usually at higher levels animal companions have to hit issues(maybe not in this mod). You may also need to dip fighter/take heavy armor profeciency to stand in front. Though I notice animal companions can get some pretty good AC themselves.

Grand Lodge

magispitt wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

As long as you don't make a rogue yourself, you'll still inadvertently steal the rogue's thunder. That said the rogue needs somebody to flank with and you're short on front-liners if the druid is casting-centric.

A paladin could definitely bring something to the table with this group.

And honestly, if the GM is going to nitpick about the dwarfen racial hatred against goblins, ask him to let you take an alternate race trait that replaces it.

I resolved the issue with the dwarf (whew) [he didn't want more than one member of each race, so the druid chose half-elf so that I could be a dwarf]. When you say "As long as you don't make a rogue yourself, you'll still inadvertently steal the rogue's thunder." what do you mean? Also, should I do a paladin or a ranger?

I mean that your rogue is going to feel inferior to everyone else no matter what. Their class features aren't that good, and they're a 3/4 BAB class, which makes Two-Weapon-Fighting very hard to get decent hit and damage bonuses, even with all the feats that will be invested. They also only get one good save, reflex, which generally is slightly safer to fail than fortitude or will saves. They also have no way to get better ability score synergy. The rogue will be outdone in TWF by a ranger, outdone in stealth by a druid wildshaping as a tiny creature, outdone in bluff/diplomacy by a sorcerer.

The sum of a party's components is better than the total effort of a rogue.


Just a Mort wrote:

Could work, but nothing beats pallies for sheer tankage (swift action heals rock). I'd also suggest that the druids animal companion takes improved iron will and so should you. Animalcompanion Iin core cannot learn flank, which means the druid has to make a dc 25 push check yoto get his animal companion to be the rogues flank buddy.

Usually at higher levels animal companions have to hit issues(maybe not in this mod). You may also need to dip fighter/take heavy armor profeciency to stand in front. Though I notice animal companions can get some pretty good AC themselves.

Paladin is another good option, and one that I am strongly considering. Right now my choices seem to be between a paladin pure tank and a ranger switch hitter. On one hand the paladin is the far better melee combatant, on the other hand a switch hitter can handle ranged if needed. I think the DM will be lenient about the animal companion because he doesn't understand it too well, but I'll pass that information on, thank you for bringing it up. Back to you guys though, what do you think will work with the party better though, a paladin tank? A ranger switch hitter? Something not yet mentioned?


Ms. Pleiades wrote:
magispitt wrote:
Ms. Pleiades wrote:

As long as you don't make a rogue yourself, you'll still inadvertently steal the rogue's thunder. That said the rogue needs somebody to flank with and you're short on front-liners if the druid is casting-centric.

A paladin could definitely bring something to the table with this group.

And honestly, if the GM is going to nitpick about the dwarfen racial hatred against goblins, ask him to let you take an alternate race trait that replaces it.

I resolved the issue with the dwarf (whew) [he didn't want more than one member of each race, so the druid chose half-elf so that I could be a dwarf]. When you say "As long as you don't make a rogue yourself, you'll still inadvertently steal the rogue's thunder." what do you mean? Also, should I do a paladin or a ranger?

I mean that your rogue is going to feel inferior to everyone else no matter what. Their class features aren't that good, and they're a 3/4 BAB class, which makes Two-Weapon-Fighting very hard to get decent hit and damage bonuses, even with all the feats that will be invested. They also only get one good save, reflex, which generally is slightly safer to fail than fortitude or will saves. They also have no way to get better ability score synergy. The rogue will be outdone in TWF by a ranger, outdone in stealth by a druid wildshaping as a tiny creature, outdone in bluff/diplomacy by a sorcerer.

The sum of a party's components is better than the total effort of a rogue.

Very true, I don't hate on rogues but I do agree that what they do can be handled better piecemeal by the party. I did recommend the to the rogue player that he play a ranger instead but he really likes the rogue and I don't want to mess with his having fun with the fluff. So yes, he will most likely be outshone by the rest of the group, which is unfortunate, but so long as he is having fun and not bringing down the group I'm okay with it.

Grand Lodge

Technically you never "tank" as anything in Pathfinder, although survivability is a strong suit of Paladins.

You could consider investing in Extra Mercy, Greater Mercy and Ultimate Mercy feats in order to make your Lay-on-Hands the ultimate cure-all.

EDIT: Scratch that, Greater Mercy and Ultimate Mercy aren't Core Rulebook, they're in Ultimate Magic. Extra Mercy is still Core Rulebook though.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:

Technically you never "tank" as anything in Pathfinder, although survivability is a strong suit of Paladins.

You could consider investing in Extra Mercy, Greater Mercy and Ultimate Mercy feats in order to make your Lay-on-Hands the ultimate cure-all.

True, tanks are not a feasible option in pathfinder seeing as the GM can control the enemies more realistically. A durable front line hitter is important however, as is ranged capacity. Based on the party comp, what is the best character (class, execution, etc,) to round out the party?

We've discussed Paladins and Rangers, so it's likely one of those two, but which one?

Grand Lodge

Ranger Switch Hitter, Pick up the Archery Combat Style, and use your normal feats to pick up Power Attack and Cleave to use with a Two-Handed Weapon. You'll also eventually get an animal companion, but they'll be pretty weak, so don't rely on it too much for front-lining. Consider getting a flying animal companion.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:
Ranger Switch Hitter, Pick up the Archery Combat Style, and use your normal feats to pick up Power Attack and Cleave to use with a Two-Handed Weapon. You'll also eventually get an animal companion, but they'll be pretty weak, so don't rely on it too much for front-lining. Consider getting a flying animal companion.

Alright thanks, it's what I was thinking as well but I wanted to see if there was something that I'd missed. BTW, why should I get a flying companion? Is it for the utility?

Grand Lodge

For scouting, and to hit flying enemies. Just have your druid prepare Speak with Animals later on in the game so he can ask your animal companion what it saw while scouting.


Ms. Pleiades wrote:
For scouting, and to hit flying enemies. Just have your druid prepare Speak with Animals later on in the game so he can ask your animal companion what it saw while scouting.

Good thinking, will do.


I just wanted to thank everyone for helping me figure out my character, a dwarf ranger (switch hitter). Answers were prompt and constructive and greatly appreciated. I'll let you guys know how it goes in the campaign, and wish you all a merry christmas (or whatever festive holiday you may celebrate). Thanks!

The Exchange

I prefer talking to the wildshaped druid. I don't expect much from a 3 int animal companion. Probably something like many rocks, many trees..oooh truffle. Was nice truffle :p

Or animal companion doesn't come back, the party finally finds him noming a deer carcass. Was good deer. Now me happy.

Core only, so no boon companion. Any animal companion will be your ranger level -3. Also I get the impression that your gm is new to GMing, so do check how he feels about 2 and not 1 animal companion. It may be too much for him to handle.


Just a Mort wrote:

I prefer talking to the wildshaped druid. I don't expect much from a 3 int animal companion. Probably something like many rocks, many trees..oooh truffle. Was nice truffle :p

Or animal companion doesn't come back, the party finally finds him noming a deer carcass. Was good deer. Now me happy.

Core only, so no boon companion. Any animal companion will be your ranger level -3. Also I get the impression that your gm is new to GMing, so do check how he feels about 2 and not 1 animal companion. It may be too much for him to handle.

I haven't checked with him yet, but I think that he'll let me have a companion as he knows I can play my turn quickly. Would you recommend a bird though? Or is there another companion that would better suit my needs?

The Exchange

I don't think its a good idea to send an animal companion with lv -3 into combat. That being said, you could always get something with scent so you can get him to help you track stuff.

Combat wise, small cats and wolves are the best animal companions. An eagle may be useful in providing the rogue with a mobile 80 ft flying flank buddy provided you manage the dc 25 push check to get your eagle to flank and he does not get splatted by the bad guys, being your ranger lv -3.


Just a Mort wrote:

I don't think its a good idea to send an animal companion with lv -3 into combat. That being said, you could always get something with scent so you can get him to help you track stuff.

Combat wise, small cats and wolves are the best animal companions. An eagle may be useful in providing the rogue with a mobile 80 ft flying flank buddy provided you manage the dc 25 push check to get your eagle to flank and he does not get splatted by the bad guys, being your ranger lv -3.

Alright, thanks for the info, I'll definitely think about something along those lines. Also, as it turns out the druid is going full caster and won't be taking an animal companion, so any problems with having too many companions at once are resolved.

The Exchange

Ask your gm for permission for boon companion from seeker of secrets, since druid isnt taking animal companion.

Statistically, a small cat has a lil more dps then the wolf due to multiple attacks in a full round, and a lil more ac and to hit when you use weapon finesse but when both get to max size, a wolf has 4 con more then a small cat which translates to about 2 more hp per HD.

Wolf attacks have a chance to trip too, so wolves are...more defensive, while small cats are a more offensive based animal companion.

Reduce animal is both on ranger abd druid spell list even in core, so don't feel bad about fluffy becoming too big.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Adventure Path / Rise of the Runelords / Party Composition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Rise of the Runelords
Ruining Rise of the Runelords