Pathfinder is based on the idea of a four+ man group, but on sometimes you wind up with only three. My question to you is this:
What combination of characters makes up the best three man party? Assume a modest level 5, if that in any way effects your judgement.
From what everyone tells me a Paladin is always a good choice.I personally would want a rogue in there.And then of course a wizard.
|
Lord Twitchiopolis, a 3 man team? i think it can be done.
For starters as you know we have 4 basic food groups when it comes to an adeventuring party. first there is the "meat shield" or warrior type. then the "trap finder and disarmer. Next the Arcane magic wielder, and finally your Divine magic wielder.
These rolls can be filled by a variety of roles. Now since we are going to cover 4 roles with three characters, we are going to need some versatility.
I dont think the levels matter too much.
Here is my suggestion. 1 Cleric. 1 Alchemist, and 1 Magus.
I am sure there are better suggestions.
All three classes have d8 hps. All three classes have the medium BAB.
The cleric can fill the roll of "meat shield" and Devine magic wielder (healer)
The Alchemist can fill the roll of "Trap finder and Disarmer" He can also fill the role of "arcane caster" with his bombs and Extracts ( spells that he activates by drinking a vial of alchemical fluid) poton. The alchemist can also heal in a pinch.
The Magus- being a hybrid class the Fighter-Mage, the Magus could cover the role of Meat shield and Arcane spell caster.
I hope this helps. I am sure there are lots of other combinations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many times we were reduced to three. It's hard to say which combos stood out best on their own because as DM/GM, I would be careful to more closely tailor the adventure to even out the challenge for the class types available.
But in more general situations, I remember the Cleric/Wizard/Fighter combo doing well. The wizard was very universal, the cleric could buff really well, and the fighter was very straight-ahead. Maybe they did so well because simple is better. None of these were multiclass or fancy at all.
Also, in our groups, the rogues very rarely did many roguish things. They were more about sneak attacks than checking for traps. So the loss of the rogue did not affect these players much. They'd much rather smash the door in than pick the lock.
Also, don't discount divine might. On occasion, we'd be reduced to two players taking a cleric/druid and a paladin. Overwhelming divine power can go a long way.
And finally, the other two-man group that worked really well was a wizard (same wizard as my first example) and a very finely-tuned ranger (with spells).
To clarify, this is merely a question of other's opinions. I'm not in a "need advise" state. A friend and I had this conversation years ago in 3.0 DnD.
My vote was for Cleric, Cleric, Cleric. With enough variances in available domains, your bases were always covered. One goes full tank, another goes blaster, and the last goes support.
His was cast for Bard, Paladin, Druid. He argued that everyone has some form of heal, Bard does all the support work, Paladin tanks, and Druid plays the role of blaster.
I always found the question interesting, as was mentioned that the archtypes of Tank, Blaster, Support, and Healer were always the cornerstones of a good party. It's always interesting to hear different people's takes on it.
|
The best possible party with only three characters is quite probably three clerics, if you're playing on a competitive level. This is because clerics are more powerful than the other classes. They can cast almost as well as the wizard, fight almost as well as the fighter, and heal better than anybody else in the game. The only thing they can't do is deal with traps or have lots of points in skills.
Then they get spells like Find Traps, Enthrall, and Calm Emotions, which kind of lessen the need to do those things anyways.
My favorite combo would probably be rogue, bard, and ranger. This is because I love skills. Rogues, bards, and rangers can do pretty much anything in the game, so long as they get their hands on the right equipment.
But I hate being competitive, and I am very glad that Pathfinder (unlike Starcraft) is not a sport. I suck at sports, but I'm pretty good at Pathfinder.
I've played in several 3 PC parties.
One was druid (me), arcane trickster, fighter. It went from level 1 to 16. The arcane trickster had some fighter levels, the fighter had some mystic levels (spontaneous divine caster from Dragonlance). Most characters were built for versatility--my druid especially. The druid managed to be good at pretty much everything without quite stepping on the toes of the other players. And with animal companion and spontaneous summons, there were usually enough hit points to go around. The arcane trickster mostly did 2 weapon fighting in melee, dabbled in magic, then dabbled in fighter, then arcane trickstered, and began to wow us with the occasional disintegrate! The fighter was khopesh and board, and mostly just stood there and swung his blade and soaked up hits. Very effective face, though mostly through role-playing and not mechanically, not that that is a bad thing!
Another was scout (me), aristocrat-bard, wizard-truenamer. This aristocrat bard has a gnome cleric-rogue from Leadership. This campaign went from 1 to ???? I left it after 12th level-ish. It also got an uber-paladin around level 7 or 8... My scout had tanked until the arrival of the paladin, and then I became even more of a skirmisher. He was a versatile combatant, mixing it up with longspear, handaxe, or longbow, depending on my mood and the battlefield. Probably my most fun character, mechanically, for my style of play.
Another is a dragon shaman (me), ranger archer, and dragonblood battle sorcerer. Started at level 1 and is currently level 10 or 11. This is a neat party because my guy is the meat shield, the ranger and her wands is the healer (at least until I got touch of vitality), and the battle sorcerer can melee and blast (wraithstrike + pounce + 4 natural attacks + holy vicious amulet is DEADLY!), but is a bit of a paper tank. The dragon shaman is a gnome, so slow and does low damage, but is an effective buffer and will intentionally provoke AoOs so the BBEG can't use them against his more fragile allies. The ranger almost never gets hurt, since she is ranged.
Occasionally there is a DMPC (usually a healer), and sometimes I play a pathfinderized ninja from Complete Adventurer (not the new archetype). Sometimes the battle sorcerer (Unearthed Arcana) plays a druid if the ranger can't make it. The ninja is a paper tiger, but has learned to be a very effective sniper (uses Sudden Strike instead of Sneak Attack).
Maybe not the best, but this covers pretty much all your bases:
Barbarian
Rogue
Cleric/Sorcerer (arcane)…Mystic Theurge
right now we are running a 3 man time with A rogue an Alchemist and A rotating fighter type (ranger, paladin, fighter) my player are inconsistent so I just play with what we have.
But for an Ideal party of three, I can't say for sure, it more a matter of tactics, and Gamemastering. But a Clerics really can't be beat, Rouge or other skilled PC an then it is just a matter damage dealing, I would not go with full spell arcane because they just don't have the HP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Druid
Summoner
Paladin
Party of 5, no waiting.
My previous group ran 75% of Stolen Lands (kingmaker 1) with a Sorcerer, Ranger, and Bard with no trouble. I was surprised.
two clerics and a druid
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing in a 3 man party in Council of Thieves.
Paladin - Scimitar and Shield (not TWF)
Urban Ranger - Takes care of traps and other skills, also has an AC with Boon Companion
Wizard - buffer
Fights can be hard, but we manage it.
Wizard
Barbarian/Fighter (multiclass)
Healing Domain Inquisitor (skills are nice) or Oracle or Cleric
OR
Magician Bard
Oracle or Cleric
Inquisitor or Paladin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druid
Paladin
Summoning based Wizard
|
|
Pathfinder is based on the idea of a four+ man group, but on sometimes you wind up with only three. My question to you is this:
What combination of characters makes up the best three man party? Assume a modest level 5, if that in any way effects your judgement.
Cleric (need heals), Druid (summoned bears are good improvised tanks)...and at 5th level...probably a sorcerer.
For Pathfinder including the APG, I'd probably go with:
Druid (animal companion, some buffs, healing, summons, Wild Shape)
Paladin (combat, Diplomancer, minor buffs and healing; great against "team evil," especially undead)
Witch (battlefield control, some buffs and healing, good versatility; patron selection is very important, as certain spells like haste or invisibility can only be gained from a specific patron)
These three characters have enough overlap that they can support/fill in for each other in many cases (all have buffing and healing capability, etc.), while retaining distinct areas in which they shine. As long as one character invests in Disable Device as well as Perception (possibly the witch, since it's an Int-based class, although the druid can also work with 4+Int mod Skill Ranks and Perception as a class skill), they should be able to deal with just about anything a 4-character party can. Alternately, a cleric and/or oracle in place of the druid and/or paladin can also work, with a bit more effort in domain/mystery selection.
Core Rulebook only, I'd go with Cleric, Druid, and Wizard for sheer magical power. These three classes can prepare and cast 95+% of the spells in the game with few restrictions.
I played in a group as a Ranger, with a Cleric and a Druid. Everyone had the animal companion (the ranger was also a beastmaster), I took the archer style but I used the other feats to become a two-weapon master with shield and scimitar; druid was an eagle shaman specialized in perception checks which made the party always alert at danger, just as if we all had uncanny dodge; cleric had all sort of debuffs ready and remove conditions spells with just a few feats like power attack and combat reflexes ready. All the 3 animals focalized more on obstaculating foes with the advantage of natural reach, improved with combat patrol feat lol On top of that, all of us had cures and remove conditions spells, revivification-like spells, cleric's find traps spell, divination, survival skills and social skills this thx to cleric plus the ability to query animals and plants...
Druid and Paladin for sure. Third man? Bard maybe. Summoner would probably be a better addition. Either way you get a variety of skill sets and a healthy mix of martial and magical prowess, along with the pets to round out the front line. Every class involved is self sufficent to some degree for healing and buffs as well.
The best possible party with only three characters is quite probably three clerics, if you're playing on a competitive level. This is because clerics are more powerful than the other classes. They can cast almost as well as the wizard, fight almost as well as the fighter
This is a common claim made on these boards, but I just don't see it. I think what you mean to say is that a cleric who is given several rounds to just sit and cast spells on herself can fight almost as well as a fighter.
But battles are often over before those all those spells can be cast, and quite often, the cleric would be in the middle of the battle while trying to cast those spells.
Furthermore, if the cleric chose to cast those spells on the fighter instead of on herself, the fighter would be fighting at a level the cleric could never hope to reach.
I believe one of the biggest strengths of the fighter class is the fact that they are ready for battle starting in round one.
|
Depends on the game.
If you are going to be running a 'dungeon' or underdark sort of game, Paladins are rocking, as you won't need to worry about a lot of flying monsters, and your class features aren't dependent on size large critters.
Outside, Druids would be more useful, as you will likely face flying critters, and have more room (and better options to provide food) for those big bears and whatnot.
A single Summoner is decent, but a Druid is better able to provide healing and support to both his companion and to his party, and has a better range of utility options. His animal companion may not be an Eidolon, but he's got stronger spellcasting, and, unlike the Summoner, he doesn't have to choose between his pet and his summons, and can use both at the same time.
A Wizard might have some decent utility, but is *highly* dependent upon the GM / scenario making available spells to fill the spell book. If you run Council of Thieves, for instance, you'll be three adventures in, halfway through the entire Adventure Path, and still have seen not a single wizard scroll or spellbook or wizard-friendly item (wand, bracers, ring, etc.), other than the two spells you gain automatically by leveling. A scenario like World's Biggest Dungeon, or a campaign set in a smaller town (like Sandpoint), or a trek through the wilderness (like the beginning of Serpent Skull), or a sandboxy hex-exploration-based game (like the beginning of Kingmaker), might be even worse, as you won't even be able to buy new spells. Wizards are victims of GM kindness. Without it, they suck hard, and in a smaller party, that suckage can get everyone killed since, with three party members, there's just no leeway for one of them to be useless in an encounter because he's got the wrong spell prepared. Similarly, a bad choice in specialization (enchantment specialist in a scenario involving lots of undead, for instance) can lead to the wizard being as useful as teats on a bull in a particular encounter. If you, the player, get to choose the timing and makeup of every encounter you face, and 24 hours to prepare the perfect spells in advance, from an infinite spellbook that you don't have to pay for or acquire in-game, gosh, the wizard rocks, but that doesn't happen outside of thought experiments, fanfiction and messageboard posts.
Our group of the last decade or so pretty soundly loathes playing rogues. There's never a shortage of clerics or druids, and somebody always wants to play a barbarian/fighter/ranger of some sort, but we've gotten used to 'trapfinding' being 'take damage, get healed, move on.' If the scenario doesn't explicitly require a rogue to survive, trapfinders and arcanists seem to be the most expendable of the four classic rolls.
Bards, while hot patootie in a five or six man group, end up being less of a 'force multiplier' in a three man group. If the other two members of the party have some sort of critter command utility (druid, necromancer, conjurer, summoner, hound master, etc.), that's a different situation, as, once again, those piddly little +1s start adding up when the druid's leopard is pouncing and the conjuror / summoner has just popped out a pack of of celestial eagles.
|
|
This is a common claim made on these boards, but I just don't see it. I think what you mean to say is that a cleric who is given several rounds to just sit and cast spells on herself can fight almost as well as a fighter.
But battles are often over before those all those spells can be cast, and quite often, the cleric would be in the middle of the battle while trying to cast those spells.
Furthermore, if the cleric chose to cast those spells on the fighter instead of on herself, the fighter would be fighting at a level the cleric could never hope to reach.
I believe one of the biggest strengths of the fighter class is the fact that they are ready for battle starting in round one.
I concede your point, that a cleric-buffed fighter is better than a cleric-buffed cleric (self-only buffs can even the score, but take time). I also concede your other point, which is that a fighter is ready to fight on round 1, and is a better combatant at the beginning of round 1 than the cleric is.
However in a 3-cleric party, a fighting cleric could easily be supported by the buffs of 1 or 2 allies, making him a formidable opponent. He will have sufficient strength of arms to win most contests of arms, and he's also a full caster on top of that. In a 3-cleric party, you're unlikely to see all three casting buffs on themselves, but rather all three casting buffs on one cleric, who then fights better than a fighter normally would. Would they be able to deal damage more quickly with a fighter and 2 clerics? Yes. I think so. But the versatility afforded by having 9 levels of spells cannot be ignored, either, and a cleric can be a powerful combatant without any buffs at all.
The 3-cleric party will be able to scale their resource usage to the fight at hand. Simple fights will be dealt with swiftly, no need to cast spells. Long fights will be easy, with all the buffs available. Difficult fights will be made much more possible because any member of the party can heal the other two whenever necessary.
And a 3-cleric party will have so much healing it's not even funny.
I was in a three person campaign for a while. We did pretty well, although we occasionally wished we had another player. We had a sorcerer, cleric and druid. The cleric was the tank/healer, the sorcerer was artillery and the druid did pretty much whatever was needed, including finding clever ways to defeat traps, get around obstacles, etc. Druids are pretty dang handy to have around, frankly. The main thing we missed from time to time was a sneaky skill monkey. However, when we did get another player to join the group, he played a rogue for a short time until his rogue died, and he's been playing a second cleric since then. We've still been doing fine.
From a more academic perspective I think if I could have had my druthers during that period of three player playing, I would have preferred cleric, druid, rogue to cleric, druid, sorcerer, especially at the levels we were playing at (mostly levels 4 and 5). Rogues do quite a bit of damage in melee at that level and our sorcerer was a bit too squishy for his own good, frequently deciding to turn invisible in the middle of fights to go hide and heal up, leaving the cleric and druid to hold down the fort.
I do think any three person group I would want to adventure with ought to include at least one druid.
i'm gonna have to go with 3 druids.
3 druids with maxed out perception are going to be finding traps as well as any rogue. and that leaves each druid with at least 3 skill points per level to devote to any other skills the campaign requires.
3 animal companions are pretty much as good as having a fighter, and they'll have their own skill ranks as well. pick ape and at fifth level you can easily have them using a weapon, and they'll have a natural 10 foot reach.
9th level spells, decent healing access, and spontaneous summoning. and that whole shapechange thing. plus easy to justify why they're all hanging out together.
oh, don't forget SECRET PARTY LANGUAGE WOOH! Always a fun little thing :D
If 3.5 classes are allowed, I'd go with binder, druid, and paladin. The binder can be an effective tank, and they can change what role they fill each day, and even twice a day with the right feat selection. They are super versatile, and their default skill selection makes them excellent faces (Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive) and they even have some useful Knowledge skills (arcana, history, planes, religion).
Binder, cleric, scout might be a fun combo too. The scout has nearly as many skill points as the rogue, has trapfinding, enough bonus feats to fill melee and ranged roles, and can also do the nature thing if needed. He doesn't need a flanker to get his extra damage, which is important in a small party. The lack of Use Magic Device is a bit troubling, but there are traits for that. The binder can use his pact bonus or whatever to increase his attack rolls, so he ALMOST has a full BAB. Some vestiges even give him magic weapons and/or armor.
Summoner (Buffs, de-buffs, pet to compensate for lacking member)
Sacred Servant or Hospitaler Paladin (Can use wands to heal after battle, good survivability, if hospitaler, get selective channel for emergency party heals)
Alchemist (Energy damage for those encounters needing it, decent combatant, good utility, finds all the non-magical traps, summoner uses his summon monster ability to set off traps he can't find)
Psychic Warrior- can heal and buff himself
Magus- for arcane type spells and combat
Druid- for animal companion, spells
Paladin.
Rogue.
Sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoner, Summoner, Summoner.
It's a party of 6 that can heal, bump any skill with a buff spell and fill any role required. Add the fact that it's 3 arcane casters, and it's gravy. Beats 3 clerics any day.
Druid, Druid, Druid is a close second.
Urban Ranger
Paladin
Witch
You get a good blend of spellcasting, ranged and melee combat, and social skills. The paladin is good for keeping some of the healing pressure off of the witch, so that she can focus on using hexes and control spells during combat. The urban ranger gives you some trap finding, an extra combatant (Don't skimp on boon companion! The paladin needs a flanking buddy and something to look after the horse.), and a nasty archer.
It definately depends on the campaign, but if I were to go for general adventure covering as many bases as possible? I would probably choose:
Druid - with either an armor wearing combat focused animal companion
Summoner - Non-synthesist
Bard - Any archetype that allows finding of magical traps.
Keep the action economy up and have good front liners with the two pets, solid mix of magic, skills, healing, buffs. All for the low low price of 3 characters.
Now if I knew traps werent going to be a focus in the game, I might turn the bard into a different archetype but overall I think this is my ideal 3 man party.
Zen Archer
Cleric or Oracle of Battle
Wizard or Witch(?)
If I could pick what I want?
Magus (dex-based for defense, go keen scimitar + intensified shocking grasping -> needed for killing fast)
Inquisitor (ideally with ability to take care of traps)
Witch (Hedge Archetype)
between the Inquisitor's high skillpoints and the other two having high int for skillpoints, they should be able to cover everything skillrelated
the witch gives a good mix of support/shutdown, her familiar can be upgraded to use wands with UMD
both magus and inquisitor can be build to be deadly in melee without sacrificing defense (inquisitor can share his judgements through a 1st level spell with his magus buddy).
depending on the inquisitors choice of domain he could have an animal companion at level 4 (animal domain, pick natural bond feat)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druid x3
Druid, Paladin, Summoner / God wizard would work too.
