Hello!
I was thinking of writing a story based around a Pathfinder game (the characters AND the players), and I was wondering what your opinions would be on what would make a good, balanced cast of characters.
I was going to loosely base the characters off of my current party, which contains...
A dwarf barbarian, a human (str) magus, a human Druid, (with a dinonychus familiar) a half-elf ranger, and a gnome bard, but the bard would be replaced by a gnome (luck) cleric right at the beginning.
Do you think any of these classes should be switched to make the party more varied/balanced?
Any feedback is helpful. :)
I was thinking about the opposite:
How about classes with archetypes that are often the least popular game mechanic wise. A group of PCs put together who had no idea about balance and just chose flavor, not realizing that they were making the bad party composition. However, some how they still pull through the situations!
Underdogs!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking about the opposite:
How about classes with archetypes that are often the least popular game mechanic wise. A group of PCs put together who had no idea about balance and just chose flavor, not realizing that they were making the bad party composition. However, some how they still pull through the situations!
Underdogs!
Yeah, that does sound pretty cool, but the main conflicts in the story are going to be real-life ones that the players have to go through. It's not that the campaign isn't important to the story, it just isn't important enough to be the main supply of crises.
My idea was that a few of the players were veteran players, and a few were new.
Well, hunters are sort of more balanced druids.
Well, hunters are sort of more balanced druids.
Yeah? :o
I figured the party had too many casters...What does a hunter do?
They're a sixth-level caster that focuses on fighting alongside their animal companion. They get teamwork feats as bonus feats and can share teamwork feats automatically with their companion, so there's some fun to be had.
|
Frankly - especially if the main focus is going to be OOC - I'd stick with the 4 classics - Fighter (maybe barbarian) /Cleric/Rogue/Wizard - the 5th being either bard or archer ranger. That way people who haven't gamed since 1st ed actually know what you're talking about. If you want - you could have the 'noobs' playing the fighter/rogue - chosen despite the 'warnings' of the veteran players.
Heck - people who have never played a tabletop RPG understand those 4 standard classes from video games etc.
The iconics already have their own stories and they're as balanced as one can get. What would catch my interest would be a group of non-standard classes. I'd keep the druid but drop the rest. Put in gunslingers, alchemists, magi, samurai and the like.
Just my two cents of course. Best of luck with it!
|
Could go with the four classic classes but with odd spins. A wizard that almost exclusively casts abjuration spells, whip focused swashbuckly rogue, spetznaz knife fighter, and an archer cleric. Make the 5th something like a Melee Summoner with a completely knowledge focused eidolon. Oradins are also a great mechanical concept that doesn't get much representation on the story side of things.
Edit: all that aside your original party layout is perfectly fine. Balanced enough to handle a typical home table, and downright steamrolly against the standards of early/mid season PFS.
I was hoping to include some classic classes (barbarian, claric) alongside some less-than-classic ones, (magus, maybe a swashbuckler later on,) and of course all of the classes would be (briefly) explained in the comic. I'm just a little worried that with a cleric, a magus, AND a Druid in the party, it might be too many magic-oriented characters. :/ Don't want our ranger falling into the background...although I could make him an arcane archer. :I
Anyways...Thanks for all of your input! There seem to be some conflicting opinions, though. ^^'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Conflict drives stories, an all magic team with the annoying magicless ranger that the party has to takes turns supporting. The idea of savage vs civilized works as well, in the city a Druid sticks out, and his companion might be a healthy source of trouble (Hey! your lizard ate my chickens! pay me for them or I'm calling the guards!)
Meanwhile in the forest, the wizard and cleric might be lost as to what is edible, or not solid ground (mud and traps!).
Balanced is boring too, half the fun for a party is overcoming challenges the GM puts down, challenges usually chosen after the parties weaknesses. By having a sub optimal party, it will be easier (as a writer) to include challenges as there will be more (and varied) options to choose from for any particular scenario.
Sounds like a fun project.
Conflict drives stories, an all magic team with the annoying magicless ranger that the party has to takes turns supporting. The idea of savage vs civilized works as well, in the city a Druid sticks out, and his companion might be a healthy source of trouble (Hey! your lizard ate my chickens! pay me for them or I'm calling the guards!)
Meanwhile in the forest, the wizard and cleric might be lost as to what is edible, or not solid ground (mud and traps!).Balanced is boring too, half the fun for a party is overcoming challenges the GM puts down, challenges usually chosen after the parties weaknesses. By having a sub optimal party, it will be easier (as a writer) to include challenges as there will be more (and varied) options to choose from for any particular scenario.
Sounds like a fun project.
Thanks. :) You're probably right!
Still, the main conflicts in the story aren't going to be in-game. My idea was that it would be a sort of coming-of-age story (for lack of a better term) for the main player, with the Pathfinder quest going on in the background and sort of mirroring real life in terms of making tough decisions and choosing what the next step is, etc.I guess, now that i think about it, the most important part of the story is that the players suit their characters. :o I should probabaly keep them as perfectly imperfect. :)
Thanks again! :D