Once upon a time, when D&D had a THAC0 table, there were the classic 4. The classic 4 were the staple classes of many early D&D campaigns and included a Thief (Rogue), Cleric, Magic User (Wizard), and a Fighter. They all had their roles to play and each class was made to feel useful.
Ofcourse, the classic 4 is now well and truly an anachronism and it is entirely possible to have a functional and capable party without any of these classes. What I want to know is what you would consider your must have classes if you wanted to be guaranteed of success in surviving a campaign from levels 1 through to 12. So basically, what 4 classes would you pick to guarantee the survival of your party for the full length of the campaign.
I know there are endless combinations you could pick that would work, but if your life depended on it, what 4 classes would you pick that you think would have the greatest chance to succeed and why? Let's assume you are adventuring in any typical Adventure Path campaign without any unusual anomalies to consider.
Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter
Rogue - For traps and locks and such as well as support damage
Cleric - Works as a secondary tank and can heal and buff and has some damaging spells
Wizard - More versatility than a Sorcerer. Tons of utility in a wizard between damage, illusions, debuffs etc...
Fither - Versatile and highly customizable. Someone has to take the hits and keep the baddies off the softer characters.
I think the classic 4 pretty much makes the perfect party.
Hmmm...
This is an interesting thread. (And ironically my best friend and I were discussing this very thing a couple days ago).
Since you mentioned an AP, let's say Paizo has finally written/produced/published an Irissen Witches vs. Linnorm Kings Vikings Adventure Path.
I think the iconics for that AP should be Amiri (the iconic barbarian for those not in the know), Lini (the iconic gnome druid), Feiya (the iconic witch, from the APG), and Harsk (the iconic dwarf ranger).
Although as an intriguing aside, I also thought of replacing Harsk with Imrijka (the female half-orc inquisitor) and realized that would be an all female group in an AP.
But, I think either combo would be very interesting, and have good survivability. (With Lini and Feiya you have two full 1st through 9th level spellcasters), you have Amiri for the "tanking", and either Harsk for a decent second-string fighter (with some spellcasting ability at higher levels) or Imrijka (again with decent combat ability and spellcasting).
But, this group is for a very specific (and hypothetical) Adventure Path (and one that may or may not come to pass).
But, this would be my dream group of iconics for an Irissen-based AP.
Dean
Once upon a time, when D&D had a THAC0 table, there were the classic 4. The classic 4 were the staple classes of many early D&D campaigns and included a Thief (Rogue), Cleric, Magic User (Wizard), and a Fighter. They all had their roles to play and each class was made to feel useful.
Ofcourse, the classic 4 is now well and truly an anachronism and it is entirely possible to have a functional and capable party without any of these classes. What I want to know is what you would consider your must have classes if you wanted to be guaranteed of success in surviving a campaign from levels 1 through to 12. So basically, what 4 classes would you pick to guarantee the survival of your party for the full length of the campaign.
I know there are endless combinations you could pick that would work, but if your life depended on it, what 4 classes would you pick that you think would have the greatest chance to succeed and why? Let's assume you are adventuring in any typical Adventure Path campaign without any unusual anomalies to consider.
Assuming 20 point buy.
Rogue-Party face and skills dude. The druid and fighter can take care of combat if I need it.
Fighter-not sword and board, unless TWF. Sometimes a sharp piece of metal solves a lot of problems
Wizard(but Sorcerers work too)-the improved familiar buddy can UMD for us if we need cleric spells. They tend to be very useful.
Druid-My party does not get beat up a lot so the channeling of the cleric is not so necessary. I can not speak for other people's games though.
PS:I am assuming no MC'ing was the intent of the question.
Although! A group of 3 Rogues and a Bard would probably do pretty well.
Lots of skills so people can specialize more.
They can sneak past a lot of encounters.
The ones they do have to deal with, if it's a trap can be disarmed, if it's a combat they get a lot of flanking bonuses with sneak attack.
If one of them specializes in trapmaking then they can set up ambushes pretty well.
The Bard can provide buffs, healing, knowledge, party face and hold his own in a fight alongside the 4 rogues.
a brawler
a divine caster
an arcanist
a face
Although
I have been pondering running a religious based game all members of the same deities church in some fashion aside from the obvious potential no arcanist. Could a viable 4 man party be built using classes associated with divine casting or religions only?
I personally like the iconic 4 + the bard as face guy. It covers all the major bases and has limited niche overlap (beyond the bard). The Bard functions as backup to all the other roles plus he/she makes the whole team better.
Sure other combos are possible better but I grew up with the iconic 4 so games without them seem just a little bit wrong.
If my life depended on it ?
Summoner, Druid, Ranger Beast Master, Cleric of Erastil (maybe i miss spelled the name of the god, its 5:30 am here)
You can see a pattern here.
Practically it goes like this, 3 AC's and an Eidolon.
Summoner - Eidolon plus arcane buffs for all involved.
Druid - combat oriented with divine buffs and no save battlefield control like walls, etc. and Animal Companion plus some nice summoning.
Ranger Beast Master - 1 level into 1 animal companion for "scouting" to kill off traps and such, Boon Companion and all other levels into another animal companion for combat or what have you - maybe even Roc if campaign is anything near as open/nature as Kingmaker, of course archer route.
Cleric of Erastil - Animal and Community Domains. Again Boon Companion for Animal Companion and Community is there so whole party (including Animal Companions if i am not wrong) can use clerics saves instead of their own.
That or you could skip Ranger and hope that druid summons at right time to set off traps and get Bard instead for some song and extra buffs, again archer route.
a brawler
a divine caster
an arcanist
a faceAlthough
I have been pondering running a religious based game all members of the same deities church in some fashion aside from the obvious potential no arcanist. Could a viable 4 man party be built using classes associated with divine casting or religions only?
A witch could fill the arcanist spot -- they have a patron after all. Also if the deity in question was Nethys then I think you would have an easier time.
You could use:
Inquisitor
Cleric
Bard(sandman or magician)
Witch
Wizard
All very easily in that case.
A wizard, a cleric, a melee PC and a backup of one or more of those three.
a brawler
a divine caster
an arcanist
a faceAlthough
I have been pondering running a religious based game all members of the same deities church in some fashion aside from the obvious potential no arcanist. Could a viable 4 man party be built using classes associated with divine casting or religions only?
I think if you allowed multiclassing and prestige classes into it, then it could work well if you incorporated something like the Shadowbane Inquisitor (a rogue/paladin) and Shadowbane Stalker (a rogue/cleric) from 3.5 Complete Adventurer.
Hell if it was a Deity of Magic an arcanist would make sense.
Really though a party of 4 clerics would probably do fine. Even if they bumbled through some things they'd come out ok in the end because of the amount of healing available.
A witch could fill the arcanist spot -- they have a patron after all. Also if the deity in question was Nethys then I think you would have an easier time.You could use:
Inquisitor
Cleric
Bard(sandman or magician)
Witch
WizardAll very easily in that case.
True that's not a bad option at all. Although the idea of not having arcane casters in party might have some RP/plot merit, i am not that far developed yet
PS:I am assuming no MC'ing was the intent of the question.
To be honest, I totally forgot about multiclassing and prestige classes. I guess if your life depended on it you'd take those into consideration as well.
My 4 would be Druid (Lion Shaman) with tiger animal companion; witch (buff / debuff hexes plus wizard like casting); Monk (Zen Archer - only optimal monk archetype IMHO); and summoner with large, ugly pouncing eidolon combat beast. I think each in their own right are incredibly powerful but not sure how well they would gel together from a class synergy point of view.
Fighter, Black Mage, White Mage, Red Mage. :)To make a serious attempt, this Final Fantasy party would translate to Fighter, Wizard, Oracle, and Bard.
Your answer made my morning. I'd translate that as Kain Highwind, Lulu, Rosa, and a generic red mage ;)
My honest answer is a fighter, a wizard, a cleric, and a bard. Lots of magic, combat power, support--all the stuff you could ask for except trapfinding.
|
Fighter, Black Mage, White Mage, Red Mage. :)To make a serious attempt, this Final Fantasy party would translate to Fighter, Wizard, Oracle, and Bard.Your answer made my morning. I'd translate that as Kain Highwind, Lulu, Rosa, and a generic red mage ;)
My honest answer is a fighter, a wizard, a cleric, and a bard. Lots of magic, combat power, support--all the stuff you could ask for except trapfinding.
How could you forget about Edward!? -=)
How could you forget about Edward!? -=)
Well, he is just a spoony bard. And whiny. ;)
Arcane Duelist Bard, Magician Bard, Court Bard, and Sandman Bard.
5th wheel? I guess a Bard.
But you said optimal party, and that means all casters.
I was under the impression that the power gap between casters and non-casters did not become noticable until later levels. Maybe I'm wrong. Roughly, at what level do you think the power gap between casters and non-casters can no longer be ignored from an optimization point of view?
My ideal party would be made up of some of the class variants presented in the APG.
Ranger - Possible trapfinding, skill monkey, magical support, front line fighter
Bard - Possible trapfinding, knowledge base, skill monkey, strong combat buffs, magical support, archer
Druid - Healing, summoned minions to reduce damage, battlefield control, magical support
Witch - Healing, strong battlefield control, buffs/debuffs, magical support
With the variety of APG variants you can get a ranger or bard w/ trapfinding, and they both have the skills to spare for perception & disable device. I love classes that have their own defined role, and yet bump and nudge against other roles. Why have a strong arcanist when you can have a strong arcanist with access to some of the better divine healing magic? Why have a stealthy trapfinder when you can get the same with a better BAB and spells?
Pretty sure the google thing was a joke....
Summoner (Tank Eidolon/Buffer)
Rogue/Sorcerer (Skills and Face: Rogue just for skill trainings, then all sorc)
Oracle or Cleric or Druid
Wizard
Not sure what that fails to cover.
I think the rogue is not really needed to successfuly play most published adventures. For social encounters a CHA based caster will often be better suited, effects of traps are often very minor and negated by a few channel energy uses or other healing magic. Sneak attack is nice, but a well-built Fighter will always deal out more damage than any rogue.
A rogue can do a lot of things, but either he is not the best at a specific task, or it is not totally central to party survival.
You absolutely NEED healing magic, arcane magic and someone who can suck up and dish out melee damage. Everything else is nice to have but not essential - and so is the rogue.
IMO, the "all-grounds covered" Classic 4 group function best in a classic type of adventure (incidentally designed for a group composed of the classic 4 classes).
As the styles of adventures have evolved, so have the need to hold to such a group.
Ultimately, the best group (both in terms of character's efficiency and player's satisfaction) will always be the one for which the adventure is designed for.
Even if most modern adventure have broaden their focus, they usually will require some kind of meat shield, some kind of skill monkey, some kind of healer and some kind of spellcaster able to provide magical answers to both mundane and magical challenges. Obviously, being able to kill things is usually encouraged in most adventures.
I think that this can be done with a variety of combination of classes but personally, I prefer thematic groups that are slightly more specialized in one domain, and as a DM provide adventures that fit those characters.
I'm not a big fan of neither hyper-specialized nor of super-generalists groups.
'findel
Posts removed. Let's keep this thread on-topic please.
I'd definitely go with the classic Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. But, I'm also old school. If I was designing a party however...
Instead of Fighter, I'd pick Paladin. The extra healing and the smite evil are fun and useful. Although, Pathfinder as so many cool fighter feats now... I'd be tempted to go that route.
Instead of Rogue, I'd choose Bard. I know Bard is technically a weaker class, but I have found Lore to be indispensable in most games, and it matches my play style better.
Cleric, I'd go with cleric over oracle, because I prefer prepared casters vs spontaneous ones.
Wizard. General School. Although, if it was a more social game, I'd choose the Controller school from the AGP.
Overall, the group does have some trouble with traps at low levels, at least until the cleric gets Find Traps. The group does have enough healing, between the bard paladin and cleric, to just take the trap hits and heal them. This does require the group being a little careful, but between summons from the wizard (or charms, charming a monster who lives in an area is a great way to bypass the traps), the extra healing, etc... I'd be confident with the party surviving.
If someone had a gun to my head and demanded I run through the game and I wasn't playing for any kind of enjoyment...
Melee Sorcerer (All buffs and maybe a summon or two), Wizard (Charm and Summoning specialization), Cleric, Summoner.
Still has trouble with Traps, but at low levels the Summoner summons a pony and lets it run through suspicious areas, since the pony lasts a minute per level.
The goal of this party is not to get into any fights at all. Let summoned and charmed monsters take all the risk.
And for the record, Fighter, Black Belt, White Mage, Black Mage. ^_^
I think the 'classic 4' is a classic for a reason. Arguably, the majority of the other classes are just hybrids of them anyway.
It also appeals to the old school part of my soul - the part that still think it's playing Basic D&D and wants to have 'Elf' as a class.
Haha. Even when I was playing basic D&D I thought Elf as a class was a stupid idea. It grated at my logical mind. lol
Admittedly these classes are my favorites:
Fighter
Sorcerer
Druid
Rogue
I just don't think there's anyone who can do the rogue's job as good as a rogue or the fighter's job as good as a fighter.
As far as specifics go, I would have a two-handed fighter, a sorcerer specializing in enchantment and transmutation with one or two blasty spells, a druid with the excellent storm substitution domain from the APG that prevents people within 30 ft from taking a five foot step, and a good old boy two-weapon fighting rogue.
|
Haha. Even when I was playing basic D&D I thought Elf as a class was a stupid idea. It grated at my logical mind. lolI think the 'classic 4' is a classic for a reason. Arguably, the majority of the other classes are just hybrids of them anyway.
It also appeals to the old school part of my soul - the part that still think it's playing Basic D&D and wants to have 'Elf' as a class.
I hated it at first, but now that it's gone I'm warming up to it. I mean, we don't think twice about giving a pit fiend 20 levels in 'Devil', do we? Those super-ancient dragons have nothing but a bunch of levels in dragon. And don't get me started on how many levels in 'giant' a 3rd-edition true giant needed.
Maybe humans survive in your game world by being the most adaptable of all races, so they are the only ones who can actually choose their own profession.
If different races have their own classes, then those classes can also be individually tailored to very specific and varied needs, too.
|
Slight tangent, but I think every monster should have been designed using a 20 level progression.
Why, you ask? One, you can have a particular monster at any level of the game. Two, monsters as PCs is already worked out. Three, abilities have a defined level they are appropriate for.
Not economically feasible for publishing, and harder than reading a statblock, but there it is.
Fighter
Wizard
Druid
Bard
As an edit to my earlier post I would MC rogue with bard or ranger as opposed to straight cleric.
