Although I have been reading some stuff for Pathfinder 2nd Edition (still wouldn't consider myself Trained, yet), my main liking is still for Pathfinder 1st Edition, and within that, my mind has recently been drifting back to the challenge of making a viable party with no (or at most only one) full caster. This came up in an old discussion thread, although unfortunately it was partially derailed by an extended argument about the functionality and worthiness of the Black Market Connections Rogue Talent, so rather than perform Necromancy on that thread, I'm starting a new one. Another reason for starting a new one is that Pathfinder 1st Edition was around for long enough after that thread that some stuff (Quick Runner's Shirts, for instance, if I remember correctly) got NerfSledgeHammered since then, while significant new stuff also became available since then.
Some definitions are in order (copied and pasted and slightly edited from my old post in there), notably a suggested letter tier scheme (trying to be roughly consistent with what was discussed before it in the old thread, but adding numbers corresponding to the size of the parties). (In the definitions below, Bard/Skald substitute refers to someone other than a Bard/Skald having Bardic/Skaldic abilities -- this usually means an archetype that adds Bardic/Skaldic abilities to something else, but could alternatively be VMC Bard -- unfortunately no VMC Skald was ever released -- or a prestige class like Battle Herald, or even a combination thereof.)
A4 team: Has 1 arcane 9/9 caster + 1 divine 9/9 caster + 1 primary damage dealer + 1 skill monkey; A4+ if the skill monkey is a Bard/Skald or Investigator and/or the party otherwise has a Bard/Skald substitute (such as the 9/9 divine caster being an Evangelist Cleric); A4- if the 9/9 casters have small but noticeable defects in synergy/division of labor and/or if one of them has delayed progression (multiclass/prestige class, such as a pre-(SLA FAQ nerf) Mystic Theurge); A5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for A4, except that Bard/Skald or substitute thereof adds more to A5 than to A4).
B4 team: Like A4 but 1 of the 9/9 casters is replaced by a 6/9 caster; B+ if the replacement 6/9 caster is a Summoner or the remaining 9/9 caster has highly optimized to cover the bases left open by the replacement (for instance, Witch very carefully built to cover the most glaring loss of divine spellcasting and/or rapidly weaken enemies so that they can't do anything that would require the highest level divine spellcasting services); B4- if the 6/9 and 9/9 casters have small but noticeable defects in synergy/division of labor as noted above for A4-, or if the 6/9 caster uses truncated 9/9 spellcasting (Warpriest, and at higher levels also Hunter) or is an extract user (personally strong, and a great addition to a party that has other members to cover actual spellcasting, but not so great for the party if you have to be a substitute spellcaster); B5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for B4, except that Bard/Skald or substitute thereof adds more to B5 than to B4).
C4 team: Like B4 but the other 9/9 caster is replaced by a 6/9 caster, or alternatively the 6/9 caster that replaced a 9/9 caster is replaced by a 4/9 caster (only works if class choices and builds are adjusted to compensate -- for instance, Witch + Paladin); C+ if one of the 6/9 casters is a Summoner or the skill monkey is an Investigator; C4- in case of synergy/division of labor defects or if one of the 6/9 casters uses truncated 9/9 spellcasting or is an extract user (as noted for B4-); C5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for C4, except that Bard/Skald or substitute thereof adds more to B5 than to C4).
D4 team: Like C4 but now we're replacing 1 of 2 of the 6/9 casters with a 4/9 casters (alternatively, the 6/9 caster was previously replaced with a 4/9 caster, and now we're replacing the remaining 9/9 caster with a 6/9 caster); D4+ if the remaining 6/9 caster is a Summoner or Bard/Skald; D4- in case of synergy/division of labor defects (which will now require extra teamwork effort to work around) or if one of the 6/9 casters uses truncated 9/9 spellcasting or is an extract user (as noted for C4-); D5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for C4, except that Bard/Skald or substitute thereof and/or especially good teamwork add more to B5 than to C4).
E4 team: Like D4, but no casters higher than 4/9, or a single 6/9 caster but no other spellcasters; E4+ if the party has some kind of spellcasting substitute (party member with significant spell-like and/or supernatural abilities that synergize with the rest of the party) or if using the single 6/9 caster option with a Summoner; E4- in case of synergy/division of labor defects (which will now require even more extra teamwork effort to work around) or if using the single 6/9 caster option with a spellcaster that uses truncated 9/9 spellcasting or is an extract user (as noted for D4-); E5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for D4, except that Bard/Skald or substitute thereof and/or especially good teamwork add more to B5 than to D4).
F4 team: Like E4, but no more than a single 4/9 spellcaster (not even a 6/6 extract user); F4+ if if the party has some kind of spellcasting substitute (as noted above for E4+); F4- in case of synergy/division of labor defects (which will now require even more extra teamwork effort to work around) or if the party has no spellcasting (better have some kind of spellcasting substitute); E5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for E4, except that a Bard/Skald substitute (by definition, can't have an actual Bard/Skald in an F-series team) and/or especially good teamwork add more to F5 than to F4).
So, having gotten through that wall of text, what I'd like is proposals for and discussion of actual party/character builds to make this work (bonus points for having an eye towards specific campaigns and even more bonus points for keeping magic item dependency other than consumables to a minimum(*)).
(*)One of the things I DON'T like in Pathfinder 1st Edition is how the default rules have the potential to gain new abilities depend heavily upon magic items that boost ability scores. If I ever got the chance, I would house rule that magic item bonuses DON'T net you abilities (bonus spells, spell level access, feats, etc.) you wouldn't otherwise qualify for, but just make you better at using them when you do qualify; in exchange, I would raise the default point buy from 15 to 20 (but NPCs get the the same treatment). At any rate, the builds I have posted will work without such magic item bonuses, but can still make use of them under Rules As Written.
So here's my shot at a D4 team, partially fleshed out:
The Only 6/9 (Arcane) Spellcaster, Battlefield Controller, and Secondary Tank (Anvil and Hammer)
Option for campaign with a lot of Medium Humanoid opponents, like Ironfang Invasion: Dwarven Tank Magus, but try to figure out how to squeeze Weapon Trick (Weapon and Shield) for this purpose. This option can actually become the primary tank once the Magus ability Medium Armor comes online.
Option for campaign with frequent (not necessarily numerous) flying opponents that might otherwise prove troublesome (Iron Gods?): Human Switch-Hitter Magus with Gunslinger (or something) dip (see posts below that one) -- 1 level of vanilla Gunslinger, Bolt Ace Gunslinger, or Hooded Champion Ranger makes Myrmidarch's Ranged Spellstrike actually usable by way of the Deadeye Deed or equivalent (especially once you get an enchanted ranged weapon), and Myrmidarch's Weapon Training (Weapon Group containing your primary ranged weapon) gets you Ace Trip and Spell Blending gets you Staggering Fall (eventually Persistent Staggering Fall) so that you can shoot things out of the air and give everybody (including yourself) the opportunity to whack on them in melee.
The Striker and Skill Monkey (Hammer and Utility, and Secondary Face)
This Human Scout Unchained Rogue(*)/Free-Style Fighter/Snakebite Striker Brawler, but the Dancing Scarves part is completely optional and probably should be left out in most circumstances. Note: Once you get Circling Mongoose online, you get to flank with yourself on the 2nd and following attacks of each round, thereby reducing the need for Holy Tactician's Guide the Battle (see below).
(*)(*)In a campaign with a LOT of big opponents it might be worthwhile to choose Vexing Dodger instead; both of these trade out Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge, which hurts, but with your Fighter and Brawler dips, Improved Uncanny Dodge is going to be painfully under-leveled anyway.
The Divine Champion (Arm, Hammer, and Primary Face)
Human Combat Medic Paladin (by default no archetype, but I'm tempted to specify Holy Tactician instead to be able to hand out Teamwork Feats all day)
Human with Powerful Presence alternate racial trait (scroll about 2/5 of the way down to find it) -- lets us rush Ultimate Mercy while keeping Charisma investment from needing to be outrageous.
15 point buy version: STR 14 / DEX 12 / CON 12 / INT 12 / WIS 09 / CHA 16; increase Charisma at levels 4 and 8 and Strength at all other 4n levels
20 point buy version: STR 15 / DEX 12 / CON 12 / INT 12 / WIS 10 / CHA 17; increase Charisma at level 4 and Strength at all other 4n levels
Traits: Dangerously Curious (we need Use Magic Device in class), Princess (we need Diplomacy in class) -- if Campaign Trait also needed, add a Drawback to get another Trait slot.
Skills to max (hence the Cunning feat below, and hence the INT 12): Diplomacy, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge (Religion), Use Magic Device
Other Skills (low investment but need to be non-0): Climb (1 point), Knowledge (Planes) (can leave for later, but eventually needs to be significantly more than 1 point), Perception (1 point), Sense Motive (eventually needs to be significantly more than 1 point), Spellcraft (1 point), Swim (1 point)
Skill Ranks per level: 2 for Paladin, 1 for being Human, 1 for Favored Class Bonus (all of this goes here), 1 for INT 12, 1 for Cunning feat
01: Level 1 character feat = Cunning (we need more skill ranks -- see above); bonus feat from Human Powerful Presence alternate racial trait = Persuasive (bonuses to Diplomacy and Intimidate)
02: (Lay on Hands comes on line, and we get 4 uses)
03: Level 3 character feat = Extra Lay On Hands (gets us up to 6 uses) (if choosing the Holy Tactician archetype, Tactical Acumen, the first Bonus Teamwork Feat, and Battlefield Presence come online; otherwise, Divine Health, Divine Bond, and Aura of Courage come online; either way, Mercy comes online)
04: (Ability score increase goes to Charisma, giving us 7 uses of Lay On Hands on 15 point buy or 8 uses on 20 point buy, and either way we qualify for Ultimate Mercy, because Powerful Presence deducted 2 from the normal Charisma requirement of 19)
05: Level 5 character feat = Greater Mercy (prerequisite for Ultimate Mercy, but the extra healing is nice to have, especially since we can't fit Fey Foundling into the build)
06: (Uses of Lay on Hands is up to 7 on 15 point buy or 8 on 20 point buy)
07: Level 7 character feat = Ultimate Mercy (we can't yet use it, but need to level it up in preparation for level 8; GM allowing spending of a Hero Point to squeeze out 2 extra uses for this would probably be a reasonable call)
08: (Ability score increase goes to Charisma if on 15 point buy or to Strength if on 20 point buy, getting uses of Lay On Hands up to 10 either way, now making Ultimate Mercy come online -- we now have Raise Dead 1 level before a Cleric can get it; also, if choosing the Holy Tactician archetype, Guide the Battle comes online; otherwise, Aura of Resolve comes online)
09: Level 9 character feat = Extra Mercy or Power Attack (I thought about Selective Channel, but Channel Energy is probably going to be out of combat or applied against Undead, and used sparingly anyway, so probably better to invest in removing yet another bad condition, since the D Team's limited spells won't be very good for this, or otherwise investing in improving combat effectiveness)
10: -
11: Level 11 character feat = Channeled Revival (Breath of Life at range) (if choosing the Holy Tactician archetype, Weal's Wrath now comes online; otherwise, Aura of Justice now comes online)
12: (Ability score increases hereon go to Strength)
The Bard Substitute (Arm, Secondary Hammer, Secondary(?) Face, and Utility)
Sensei Monk(*) or Daring Champion Cavalier/Exemplar Brawler/Battle Herald (not fleshed out yet) -- Inspire Courage, primary or secondary Tactician (depending upon whether Holy Tactician was selected above for Paladin), and other stuff not covered by the other characters and stuff which you really need more than one to cover.
(*)Just looking at this again, even though it isn't listed under Unchained Monk archetypes, technically it seems it should work on Unchained Monk, since (unless I read something wrong), it is replacing abilities that are exactly the same (including levels of occurrence) on both pre-Unchained and Unchained Monk.
Where would a team of four 6/9 caster rate on your scale? From the descriptions, all your teams assume 2 casters and 2 noncasters in the old wizard-cleric-fighter-rogue setup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's nothing with Thread Necromancy.
all your teams assume 2 casters and 2 noncasters in the old wizard-cleric-fighter-rogue setup.
Yeah, the whole thing seems to resolve around party composition concepts that people in the 80's thought were mandatory.
The opening post is build on a lot of false assumptions.
1) Distinct party roles are some outdated concept from D&D that has no place in Pathfinder. It was never a good way to build a party in Pathfinder.
2) The types of casting aren't notably different. 3.X may have had a notable arcane/divine divide, but Pathfinder objectively doesn't.
3) Not all casters of a type are equal. The divine full caster spell lists especially are so different that the concept of "a divine caster" doesn't make sense. *
I'm honestly confused at what the specific party are supposed to look like. It would really have helped if you had just spelled out which amount of casting equates which letter, instead of doing a multi step replacement chain.
*) A Druid is a divine full caster, but the spell list is worse than a Witch when it comes to both cure spells and condition removal spells. So why, exactly, does a Witch need to be "very carefully built to cover the most glaring loss of divine spellcasting", when apparently a Druid fills the spot well enough?
even though it isn't listed under Unchained Monk archetypes, technically it seems it should work on Unchained Monk, since (unless I read something wrong), it is replacing abilities that are exactly the same (including levels of occurrence) on both pre-Unchained and Unchained Monk.
"with the exception of the monk, these classes should work with any of the archetypes from previous books" PU pg. 8
Yeah, the OP is weirdly specific in what it addresses and isn't a good guide to measuring power or adaptability IMO.
The switch hitter looks OK and much better by comparison.
The rogue/etc. is OK if the party is no more than a round away but has no special ability to escape or survive if caught scouting.
The paladin looks fine, assuming your group is OK with paladins.
Some monk archetypes quite intentionally raise the power of the monk since the core monk sucks. I think that's why they specifically disallowed core archetypes on the unchained monk. Not that the sensei is an increase, but they put a blanket ban in place which catches it anyway.
A party consisting of a warpriest, inquisitor, magus and a skald would probably be strong than the traditional cleric, wizard, fighter, and rogue.
Everyone in the party can fight and cast spells. Three out of the four characters have at least some healing. The inquisitor can easily cover the skill monkey role, and the skald adds another character with decent skills. three of the characters have proficiency in martial weapons, and the inquisitor is not far behind. All characters will eventually able to use at least medium armor while still casting spells. All the characters get a lot of useful class abilities.
This party has no weaknesses and some very strong synergy.
A party consisting of a warpriest, inquisitor, magus and a skald would probably be strong than the traditional cleric, wizard, fighter, and rogue.
Everyone in the party can fight and cast spells. Three out of the four characters have at least some healing. The inquisitor can easily cover the skill monkey role, and the skald adds another character with decent skills. three of the characters have proficiency in martial weapons, and the inquisitor is not far behind. All characters will eventually able to use at least medium armor while still casting spells. All the characters get a lot of useful class abilities.
This party has no weaknesses and some very strong synergy.
Pretty much exactly the party I was thinking.
We played through the first book and a half of Iron Gods with a "D3" team: Bard, Bloodrager, Gunslinger. We had a pretty great division of labour: Bard (buffs buffs buffs ... also skills), Bloodrager (Battlefield Control), Gunslinger (pure damage output).
Towards the end of Book 2 our other player came back from overseas so we added a 4th, we now have a Wizard as well. The Gunslinger also decided to multiclass to Wizard because he wanted more out-of-combat options.
While the current party can certainly do more than our 3-man party with no full casters, I think the original trio were perfectly capable of handling everything that came their way.
A party consisting of a warpriest, inquisitor, magus and a skald would probably be strong than the traditional cleric, wizard, fighter, and rogue.
Everyone in the party can fight and cast spells. Three out of the four characters have at least some healing. The inquisitor can easily cover the skill monkey role, and the skald adds another character with decent skills. three of the characters have proficiency in martial weapons, and the inquisitor is not far behind. All characters will eventually able to use at least medium armor while still casting spells. All the characters get a lot of useful class abilities.
This party has no weaknesses and some very strong synergy.
Make it a Hexcrafter Magus and you can snag the Healing Hex.
Also I'd swap someone for an Occultist - probably the Magus - but really you could make a good party out of virtually any four 6/9 casters.
Where would a team of four 6/9 caster rate on your scale? From the descriptions, all your teams assume 2 casters and 2 noncasters in the old wizard-cleric-fighter-rogue setup.
Maybe I would want to make three or four 6/9 casters in the party have it be rated C++ (make it C+++ if this includes a Summoner). But before committing to this, I'd have to think more about whether getting rid of the talents of the remaining non-casters is objectively less bad than gaining the extra casters is worth.
all your teams assume 2 casters and 2 noncasters in the old wizard-cleric-fighter-rogue setup.Yeah, the whole thing seems to resolve around party composition concepts that people in the 80's thought were mandatory.
The opening post is build on a lot of false assumptions.
1) Distinct party roles are some outdated concept from D&D that has no place in Pathfinder. It was never a good way to build a party in Pathfinder.
I didn't say it was a good way. Even so, it still seems to be a common way, so I thought I had better address it (because I'm sure that if I DIDN'T, somebody would be complaining about my having not done so). Maybe I should have Spoilerized that? Probably too complicated for the introductory post to get the discussion going.
2) The types of casting aren't notably different. 3.X may have had a notable arcane/divine divide, but Pathfinder objectively doesn't.
Well, actually, it does, unless you play a Witch, which blends both, but has some critical pieces missing (*cough* Restoration and its Lesser and Greater versions *cough*) unless you have Healing as your Patron (Mercy and Endurance sort of work, but lack the Lesser version, and Endurance also lacks the middle version, while Mercy also lacks the Greater version). It is also missing some pieces from the arcane side unless you pick the right Patron that ISN'T one of the ones that has Restoration -- not quite as limiting, but still noticeable.
3) Not all casters of a type are equal. The divine full caster spell lists especially are so different that the concept of "a divine caster" doesn't make sense. *
I'm honestly confused at what the specific party are supposed to look like. It would really have helped if you had just spelled out which amount of casting equates which letter, instead of doing a multi step replacement chain.
I'm open to this idea, but quite a lot of talk on the forums seems to disagree, so I wanted to accommodate the opposing point of view.
*) A Druid is a divine full caster, but the spell list is worse than a Witch when it comes to both cure spells and condition removal spells. So why, exactly, does a Witch need to be "very carefully built to cover the most glaring loss of divine spellcasting", when apparently a Druid fills the spot well enough?
Now going back and looking again, I see that Druid is also missing all types of Restoration (I could have sworn it had them, at a higher level or something), so I'll give you that.
But I do mean that a Witch who is going to be taking over both the Cleric and Wizard roles is going to have to be carefully built to avoid running out of spells (you get less than a Cleric or Specialist Wizard, let alone the combination, so make REAL SURE your Hexes can cover as much as possible so that you don't have to cast more than a few spells in the first place, and then get as many Pearls of Power as you can).
even though it isn't listed under Unchained Monk archetypes, technically it seems it should work on Unchained Monk, since (unless I read something wrong), it is replacing abilities that are exactly the same (including levels of occurrence) on both pre-Unchained and Unchained Monk."with the exception of the monk, these classes should work with any of the archetypes from previous books" PU pg. 8
So it really is an explicit disable of the old archetypes -- I wasn't hallucinating after all.
{. . .}
Magi are poor at battlefield control via spellcasting unless they're spending feats on it, which I think your dwarf isn't doing. A magus isn't a very sticky tank as a martial character. A magus who is using standard actions to ready a parry is kind of a screwup. {. . .}
Tank Magus does spend feats on battlefield control -- use Bull Rush and attacks that give Bull Rush to knock Humanoid opponents around the battlefield like bowling pins.
Readying an action isn't something you'd want to do all the time, but it is an option to use if you are up against a Big Bad that does its own nasty things on a hit and can't be Bull Rushed around like the common Humanoids. Just try to have a held charge of your own nasty spell (or something like Vampiric Touch that will give YOU something when it goes off) ready to go when you do your block and attack. (Admittedly, more study of the best way to accomplish this is in order.)
(Edit #1 to fix where I accidentally left out the answer to one of the questions I quoted.)
(Edit #2: Thinking more about the Weapon Trick usage, since it is one feat, and the use might be rather infrequent, maybe that would be a job best reserved for Tactical Adaptation, if you can get your hands on that region-specific spell.)
Bull rush is the opposite of sticky, and barely battlefield control - you're actually freeing up enemies from your own AoOs, and you're not particularly enabling focus fire/cutting off some enemies which would be the main point of battlefield control for this group. The ninepins thing sounds good but it's not really what bull rush does.
I'd meant though that the dwarf wasn't spending any feats to make their spells do battlefield control. Which is possible, including with touch spells delivered via spellstrike as is a maguses wont.
^If you Bull Rush/Shield Slam one of your opponents into a creek or something that will take them time to get out of, they're not helping their allies beat you up, while you beat up their allies. At the very least, you'll deny them a full attack (becomes more of a big deal once their BAB gets past +5, but could be an issue earlier if they have TWF).
For feats to make spells do battlefield control, I thought about Rime Spell (and later Dazing Spell, but you need to be pretty high level for that), but these wouldn't fit into the Dwarven Tank Magus build. Now, the Dwarven Tank Magus can certainly use spells to make feats do Battlefield Control. Big Bad has a high CMD, but is no more than Large (or no more than Huge if I'm Enlarged first(*))? Spell Combat(**) True Strike + Shield Slam means it works anyway, unless they're really above your pay grade. By the way, the text of Shield Slam says that (unlike a vanilla Bull Rush) "opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance" -- in other words, in that case I effectively get a free Trip on them, and if the maximum distance isn't very far, they're even still in range of our AoOs. At higher levels, when you get Greater Bull Rush, you make the Bull Rushed/Shield Slammed opponent take a bunch of AoOs on the way if they were up in your party's ranks when you knock them back, and if you were able to knock them into a nearby tree, they take another set when they try to get up, unless they have some special ability that lets them get up without getting AoO'd.
(*)Even larger sizes are possible at really high levels where it is possible to fit in Poised Bearing and eventually Imposing Bearing. Or use Tactical Adaptation to get one of these (on a temporary basis) earlier if you don't need it for something else first. Although up at those levels, have a backup plan in case their CMD is so insane that the Bull Rush/Shield Slam sometimes fails even with True Strike.
(**)Admittedly, acquisition of Spell Combat is delayed on a Skirnir, so for the first few levels you're going to have to tough it out without this, but at those levels, you'll probably be mostly okay as long as you aren't in something like Giantslayer.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see players' rigid ideas of roles frequently mislead them. I do think there's a lot of value in holding a session 0, where players get together and talk about the characters they want to play and build some sort of teamwork.
I played in one group where we had a new player join some time later on. They had only talked to the GM before joining, who told them the group consisted of 3 rogues and a barbarian. So the new player came in with a shaman, and felt like a bit of a 3rd wheel because they felt they didn't bring anything new to the table.
That's the beauty and the difficulty of pathfinder. Class is not a good judgement of a character's capabilities. Roles like tank, healer, damage, etc aren't very good either because even among players who agree there are set roles disagree on what those roles are. There is also no requirement to split everything into roles in the first place. Building teamwork into a party requires a bit more collaboration than just knowing your "role."
Lets say for example it requires 50hp of damage to defeat an encounter for your group. It makes no difference whether that 50 damage is done evenly by each member of the group, all by one pc, by only half the party, or whatever, it all equals a victory. Same with healing, tanking, talking, or any other role you can come up with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can only speak for the players at my tables, but the "common" way they build parties in PF1 is to pick the characters they want and then play.
Yeah I don't think I've ever had a group that did anything other than just pick what they want. Some players (myself included) might deliberately choose a role that the party doesn't seem to have covered, but there's no expectation that eomeone has to play X ever. If we start the gsme with no magic it's just going to present a different kind of challenge.
I've had groups with one or no full casters, I have one group with no "healer," (the paladin wouldn't be able to wield a wand of CLW until after a few levels) ...
Just FYI: Paladins, Rangers and Bloodragers can all use wands from their class spell list at level 1 with no chance of failure (unless you pick an archetype that replaces spell-casting).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A party consisting of a warpriest, inquisitor, magus and a skald would probably be strong than the traditional cleric, wizard, fighter, and rogue.
Everyone in the party can fight and cast spells. Three out of the four characters have at least some healing. The inquisitor can easily cover the skill monkey role, and the skald adds another character with decent skills. three of the characters have proficiency in martial weapons, and the inquisitor is not far behind. All characters will eventually able to use at least medium armor while still casting spells. All the characters get a lot of useful class abilities.
This party has no weaknesses and some very strong synergy.
Make it a Hexcrafter Magus and you can snag the Healing Hex.
Also I'd swap someone for an Occultist - probably the Magus - but really you could make a good party out of virtually any four 6/9 casters.
Bard (arrowsong minstrel) or magus (eldritch archer), inquisitor or warpriest, investigator (jinyiwei, psychic detective, or questioner), and occultist (Trappings of the Warrior; melee) would be my preference for a "C++" team (I couldn't resist; programmer's joke).
A B++ team could be bard, druid, inquisitor (sacred huntsmaster), and summoner. It's even better if the bard picks up a pet via an archetype, Skill Focus/Eldritch Heritage (Arcane), Nature Soul/Animal Ally, or VMC (druid or summoner). The C++ version would substitute hunter in place of druid.
For a C+ team, consider alchemist (beastmorph vivisectionist), barbarian or inquisitor, bloodrager, and skald.
An "all berserker" D+ team could be barbarian, bloodrager, fighter (viking), and skald.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An "all berserker" D+ team could be barbarian, bloodrager, fighter (viking), and skald.
That sounds awesome!
^Actually, that does sound pretty awesome. Skald works best when the party has a lot of martials in it, so that they can get the best benefit from Raging Song, whereas full casters and most 6/9 casters don't get much net benefit (except that summoning types have their summons benefit), while Spell Kenning lets you cover your bases when you need to get rid of some nasty condition. (Although if somebody offers me a spot in an all-Bard/Skald band party, I'm not going to say no(*).)
(*)Or at least I won't say no once I get past my post-move chores and get a better idea of whether the current pandemic is going to be calling me back to 52 hour work weeks again like it did from the end of March through the end of November . . . and even if it did, I'd be sorely tempted.
On a different but related note, I've been thinking of these kinds of things from the point of view of a potential GM wanting challenging parties to throw AGAINST players. Ones that would give surprising amounts of trouble for their composition, while not giving a great amount of loot if the PCs do manage to overcome them (this is another reason for wanting to reduce the role of magic items like I said in my original post, although that isn't the main subject of this thread).
So here I'm going to come up with an E5+ example (of the variety with 1 6/9 caster and no other casters), although due to current time constraints and lack of suitable already-built party member candidates, it won't be fleshed anywhere near as much as what I put in my original post. Since it seems that everyone (at least in this thread) now doesn't like the Forge of Combat, I'll gladly leave that out (but then if somebody complains, I'm going to do a Homer Simpson).
Hellknight Enforcer Squadron
The purpose of this adversary party is to bring in troublemakers for interrogation and other nefarious purposes, so they try to do non-lethal damage as much as practical, while hindering the ability of their quarry to fight back or escape.
The Squadron Commander
Cavalier (no archetype or Stnndard Bearer; Order of the Ennead Star) 56/Hellknight rest of the way
Invested into Whip Mastery, Trip, and Disarm as much as feat availability permits (but can switch to Lance if needing to do lethal damage); uses Tactician to grant Outflank to the rest of the squadron; uses Mount to charge down any squishy but troublesome opponents such as spellcasters, and/or to run down any escapers; uses Fleet Standard to spur the squadron to move into flanking positions (or positions to cut off escape) exceptionally fast.
The Inquisitor
Inquisitor (no archetype) 6/Hellknight Signifer 1/Inquisitor rest of the way
Silences spellcasters (or anybody trying to get help) in the quarry party and Holds Person on anybody that the others can't get, and Intimidates. Also starting to invest in Whip (if Order of the Rack or Order of the Scourge), but not as far along in it as the Squadron Commander. Also removes bad conditions from squadron members, and puts them on opponents.
The Thugs (3 of them)
Fighter (Armiger) 1/Thug + Underground Chemist Unchained Rogue 4/Hellknight rest of the way
Armed with a Sap and Shield when trying to take opponents alive and with a Longsword and Shield when needing to be lethal. At range, they throw alchemical items such as Tanglefoot bags (or later on, Bolas) to make it hard for opponents to get away; in melee, they use Enforcer and Brutal Beating to beat opponents into submission. Note that Underground Chemist Rogue doesn't lose anything other than the expected Armor Check Penalties to skills by being in Heavy Armor (and they get Heavy Armor Proficiency from the Fighter dip), so these Thugs can be as heavily armored as they want.
An "all berserker" D+ team could be barbarian, bloodrager, fighter (viking), and skald.That sounds awesome!
Wouldn't the Skald be very out of place? If the other party members accept the Skald's Inspired Rage they're unable to use any of their own class features related to rage, such as Rage Powers or Bloodline abilities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can only speak for the players at my tables, but the "common" way they build parties in PF1 is to pick the characters they want and then play.
Most of my players are the same way, but I have one who gets choice paralysis when he is offered "pick what you want". Thinking in roles and looking for gaps (left by the others) is very helpful for him, this way he can narrow down the options to a level he can manage.
The random combinations of concepts can result in fascinating setups. For next campaign we got a "rhomb of death": A barbarian as the only frontliner, both a bard and an inquisitor with reach weapons behind him and a witch as artillery.
I didn't say it was a good way. Even so, it still seems to be a common way, so I thought I had better address it
It's common for people who who refuse to think about party composition. I mean, that's the reason to still cling to such outdated concepts: So that they don't have to think. Everyone who actually evaluates what is required for a functional party must inevitably come to the conclusion that a strict arcane full caster/divine full caster/damage dealer/skillmonkey allocation is not mandatory (nor the best way). So really, your openign post only addresses those with no interest in working on the topic.
2) The types of casting aren't notably different. 3.X may have had a notable arcane/divine divide, but Pathfinder objectively doesn't.Well, actually, it does, unless you play a Witch, which blends both, but has some critical pieces missing (*cough* Restoration and its Lesser and Greater versions *cough*) unless you have Healing as your Patron (Mercy and Endurance sort of work, but lack the Lesser version, and Endurance also lacks the middle version, while Mercy also lacks the Greater version). It is also missing some pieces from the arcane side unless you pick the right Patron that ISN'T one of the ones that has Restoration -- not quite as limiting, but still noticeable.
Yes, Druid and Witch can't do everything other respective full casters can do. That was my point. The differences aren't between arcane and divine casting, they're between spell lists.
This actually supports my argument, you know? My point is that it's not based on the type of casting, but about differences between classes. The terms "arcane 9/9 caster" and "divine 9/9 caster" are overgeneralizations that ignore the differences between spell lists.
Druid is lacking a bunch of condition removal spells (Remove Blindness/Deafness, Remove Curse, Remove Paralysis, Restoration), an Oracle will have even fewer such spells actually known (and is thus unable to remove the conditions unless scrolls are used). So what you presumed with "divine 9/9 caster" only really applies to half of them. Meanwhile, the list of not-full-divine-casters with such spells doesn't stop at Witch. Alchemist/Inquisitor has also more condition removal spells (including Restoration) than a Druid, and a Skald has Spell Kenning to grab Cleric spells. A divine 6/9 caster or possibly even 4/9 caster in the "damage dealer slot" or "skillmonkey slot" can easily compensate for lack of certain spells. Similarily, to adress the arcane side, if you want Haste in your party, do you care whether it's from an arcane full caster, or from a Summoner or Psychic? A Shaman with the right spirit can get any arcane spell, and Clerics can get many arcane spells form domains or deities. Including traditional arcane staples like Greater Invisibility.
And that's why I so strongly disagree on the notion of distinct roles - it doesn't fit the nature of the game. If you know the campign is condition heavy but doesn't allow buying scrolls or hired spellcasting, saying "the group needs a divine caster" doesn't make sense. What you should say is "the group needs classes that can remove conditions".
I see the value of those roles, or as someone described them in another thread "jobs", as a useful tool for developing party balance, synergy, and cohesion. No one has to be "the healer", "the tank", "the caster", "the face", etc. all of the time, in every situation, or even exclusively.
But that's what the concept of roles is all about! The healer does the healing, the skillmonkey handles skill checks, and so on. The whole idea behind the concept is that a specific PC is always and exclusively responsible for the respective jobs. Which is why I'm fighting it so hard. The concept of "jobs", which actually comes from me*, is exactly meant as an alternative that matches actual gameplay. There is a world of difference between saying "at least one PC should be able to handel flying enemies" and "we're lacking a divine caster so you must play one".
*) I presume - I started talking about the concept as an alternative to the roles concept over a year ago, and have been using it ever since.
The word "jobs" was chosen deliberately, because while you can't have two Romeos in the same play, having two construction workers (or more) working on the same building is normal.
Most of my players are the same way, but I have one who gets choice paralysis when he is offered "pick what you want". Thinking in roles and looking for gaps (left by the others) is very helpful for him, this way he can narrow down the options to a level he can manage.
What do you think helps such a player more to narrow the choices down: Saying "we need a damage dealer" or "we could use another melee, some battlefield control would be nice, and we're light on condition removal"? The first was based on party roles, the second was basd on the concept of jobs.
Wouldn't the Skald be very out of place? If the other party members accept the Skald's Inspired Rage they're unable to use any of their own class features related to rage, such as Rage Powers or Bloodline abilities.An "all berserker" D+ team could be barbarian, bloodrager, fighter (viking), and skald.That sounds awesome!
Depends upon whether they need those abilities all of the time. When they do, fire off a few rounds of their own Rage/Bloodrage. When they don't, fall back on Inspired Rage. So when the adventuring day goes past 15 minutes, everybody but the Skald still has some Rage/Bloodrage left.
I can only speak for the players at my tables, but the "common" way they build parties in PF1 is to pick the characters they want and then play.Most of my players are the same way, but I have one who gets choice paralysis when he is offered "pick what you want". Thinking in roles and looking for gaps (left by the others) is very helpful for him, this way he can narrow down the options to a level he can manage.
{. . .}
A Shirren, thrown back in time.
I didn't say it was a good way. Even so, it still seems to be a common way, so I thought I had better address itIt's common for people who who refuse to think about party composition. I mean, that's the reason to still cling to such outdated concepts: So that they don't have to think. Everyone who actually evaluates what is required for a functional party must inevitably come to the conclusion that a strict arcane full caster/divine full caster/damage dealer/skillmonkey allocation is not mandatory (nor the best way). So really, your openign post only addresses those with no interest in working on the topic.
Not necessarily. Could also include those who would have interest, but need a trigger to introduce them to the concept.
I'm actually not completely disagreeing with you, just behind you on (partly) the same path.
What do you think helps such a player more to narrow the choices down: Saying "we need a damage dealer" or "we could use another melee, some battlefield control would be nice, and we're light on condition removal"? The first was based on party roles, the second was basd on the concept of jobs.
Well, your concept of jobs is more finegrained, so naturally it's stronger when it comes to narrowing something down. But this only works if the person understands all the jobs I would be talking about. In the worst case, the player comes from casual MMORPG play, is totally familiar with a "damage dealer", but has no clue what "battlefield control" or "condition removal" is supposed to be. Even "melee" can mean different things for different people.
Classes are obvious choices (they fill chapter 3 of the CRB), roles are less obvious (you might pick them up in some RPG community) and jobs are even more specific (not everyone reads the Paizo forum). Personally, I ask the players "what do you want to play?" and get a class name in return, maybe including archetype. After ~100 sessions of Pathfinder together. Alright. So I ask "what dou you want to do in combat and outside?" - which is basically roles. At the moment I don't see the benefit of formally introducing the concept, though.
{. . .}
Because of this if players identify their characters using combat-related "jobs" they might miss out on other pieces. If those parts of the game don't interest you, so be it. Just don't cry to me later if your barbarian DPR monster spends half the game just sitting around while you sit bored on your phone.
Now I've got this picture in my head of a bored Barbarian sitting down looking at a phone . . . .
I'd like to see some more specific examples of viable low-casting parties, and I'd like to contribute some more myself -- I just can't do it right now (10+ hour day at work).
The last person I saw play a single-classed fighter did so because combat was the part of PF that he found interesting. A certain amount of yelling at him was required when combat started to get him off his phone.
Anyway, what does viable mean? Most Paizo adventures can be run with a party built with a blaster wizard, a wishy-washy cleric, a sword and board fighter and a rogue who mainly contributes out of combat as I understand it (2 full casters isn't the same as high op). If the GM is willing to adjust their campaign's difficulty to match the players and PCs you can play anything - though it helps if the PCs have reasonably matching levels of optimisation.
By viable I mean that the PCs can handle an AP/module/scenario as is without the DM needing to adjust it to compensate for their power level (although given how many things often need to be adjsusted in APs for other reasons, that might be a bit hard to tease out sometimes).
One of our current AP parties (now lvl 6) is:
Underground Chemist Rogue with 1 lvl gunslinger dip
Hexcrafter Magus with 1 lvl rogue dip
Bard
Stalker vigilante
Falconer ranger
That's probably a "D" or even "E" level party by your scheme, but so far it has been perfectly viable.
^Sounds like a solid C5. Two Rougeoids sounds challenging, but on the other hand, they've got a Bard (the real thing, not a substitute, and not dipped), and that helps EVERYBODY in that group fight better.
Keep 'em coming. I'd like to do so myself, but I got back home late from work (again) . . . .
I have to run to work (and will probably get back late again), so I'll try to keep this going with this all-Halfling or all-(Halfling+Dwarf) B5+ team for Giantslayer (has both a 9/9 caster and a 6/9 caster who is a Bard or Skald).
Edit: To convert this party to C5+ or D5+, replace the Witch in the post linked above with a Hexcrafter Magus or Sylvan Trickster Rogue, respectively.