Are there specific roles that must be filled to make an effective party, and if so, what roles?
I'm not going to attempt a complete answer to this question in my original post. If I had a complete answer, I'd be publishing an article, not asking in a forum:) I am going to throw out a few ideas to get the ball rolling.
Many games have had quite similar sets of roles over the years. They change based on game system and genre, but always seem to be present. Sticking with the fantasy genre, here are a few examples:
- The traditional roles - Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief
- The OGL roles - Melee Attacker, Divine Caster, Arcane Caster, Rogue
- The 4th ed roles - Defender, Leader, Controller, Striker
- The MMORPG roles - Tank, Healer, Damage Dealer (DPS/DPR)
Some reasons why I think roles exist, and why they frequently get consideration in party building:
- Specialization - Specializing in a single task (or type of task) enables a character to be outstanding at one task, rather than being merely OK at everything.
- Uniqueness - It's more fun to play a character who's abilities are different from your party members' than one who has the same abilities.
- Competition - If two characters have very similar abilities, it's likely that one will be better than the other, which is usually no fun for the weaker competitor. This closely correlates with uniqueness.
- Tradition - Many games over the years have been designed with the intent or assumption that characters will fill certain roles (e.g. treasure placement, monster types). Because games are designed that way, especially published adventures, filling the expected roles can be useful.
The skills guy who is also normally responsible for scouting and picking locks, and finding traps. He may also be the perception guy, and scout.
The damage dealer.
The magical utility guy
The healer(normally status affects, and also hp recovery)
The party face who may also double as the skills guy. He also normally has sense motive since he handles the party's talking, but having someone else be the sense motive guy can also work.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely refuse to go on adventure without the following roles filled:
1) Cook (even prstidigitated trail rations are just not the same as crisp bacon and freshly baked biscuits)
2) Maid (seriously, the difference between huddling in a rain-soaked cloak and resting with clean sheets and a newly turned-down sleeping bag)
3) Mule (this can be an actual mule, or the party fighter. Whatev. As long as I don't have to carry all my stuff)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You will need
-Someone that can stay standing after a bad surprise round and hopefully take hits away from squishies (meatshield)
-Some way of killing the bad guys
-Some way of restoring hit points (healer)
-Some way of removing dangerous conditions (poisoned cursed ability drained etc)
You will want
-Battlefield control
-Buffs
You might need
-Someone to deal with traps: depending on how trap heavy the campaign is
-A party face, for social encounters. If you spend all your time killing orcs, fuggetaboutit.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
To get the best out of the game, a strict division and balance of the party roles is absolutely necessary. It usually goes like this:
- The powergamer/munchkin
- The TRUE roleplayer
- The guy who kills all the NPCs because lol Chaotic Neutral
- The guy who steals all the treasure
- The guy who is carrying 4 metric tons of equipment and has Str 11
- The wallflower who only rolls attack and damage
- The rules lawyer
- The guy who cheats at dice
- The guy with constant bad luck that isn't allowed to touch the other's dice for fear of catching "the fumbles"
- The guy who murders and steals and sometime rapes but insists he's Lawful Good
- The guy who complains about the balance problem and then plays the cheesiest build available
- The guy who pesters the other about the fact that he'd rather play 3.5.
Of course you can also assign double roles, like the rules lawyer/mass murderer or the powergamer/balance advocate with the Evasive Cheater prestige class.
- The wallflower who only rolls attack and damage
- The guy who cheats at dice
- The guy with constant bad luck that isn't allowed to touch the other's dice for fear of catching "the fumbles"
This is me. :(
You will need
-Someone that can stay standing after a bad surprise round and hopefully take hits away from squishies (meatshield)
-Some way of killing the bad guys
-Some way of restoring hit points (healer)
-Some way of removing dangerous conditions (poisoned cursed ability drained etc)You will want
-Battlefield control
-BuffsYou might need
-Someone to deal with traps: depending on how trap heavy the campaign is
-A party face, for social encounters. If you spend all your time killing orcs, fuggetaboutit.
That sums it up nicely.
Damage output/soak.
Healer.
Arcane Caster.
plus anything else, Rogues are no longer required.
|
2 Druids and 2 summoners. What more do you need in life?
You can do fine with anything, as long as you don't do the all-melee no magic type parties. At least have range options and some pallys/rangers with CLW wands. All range works really well actually; no true need for a tank. And you can get by without arcanes or divines as long as you have one. Rogues are actually pretty bad; though I do love urban rangers for trapfinding.
BARBARIAN/BARBARIAN/FIGHTY/FIGHTY. AM ONLY PARTY THAT MATTER.
...You can do fine with anything, as long as you don't do the all-melee no magic type parties...
I would say you also have to have at least someone with some social skills. I've seen some campaigns fall apart where the party 'face' was a fighter that had a 7 charisma (he was the only one that put any ranks in bluff and sense motive).
You will need
-Someone that can stay standing after a bad surprise round and hopefully take hits away from squishies (meatshield)
...
You might need
...
-A party face, for social encounters. If you spend all your time killing orcs, fuggetaboutit.
I have seen a few groups operate successfully without a meatshield. Specifically a very stealthy group. However, it is difficult and risky.
Unless it is just a Dungeon Crawl or Warfare Scenario I would put the party face into the need category.
|
|
For out of combat, having a good party face certainly makes life easy. Generally it just requires a 12 or higher Cha + ranks in diplomacy; at later levels you can even get away with the 7 Cha. That's rarely a problem though; someone wants a good Cha-type character and Diplomacy is the most useful skill in the game.
Meatshields I get away without all the time; it's only a potential strategy in tight dungeons. Everyone spreading out works fine, and even as a backrow you should have good HP (few dump Con; in fact, backrow casters are more likely to take toughness and make con their 2nd stat).
But you do need a (and preferably, multiple) ways to do solid range damage, and a good face. The rest? Well, PFS proves any group can mak a fine party. Those who are good at their tricks (maximize stats) make things easier, others don't; but you rarely feel you are lacking if one of the food groups is gone.
The only roles you need are GM and X number of players. Preferably no jerks.
Most games that require the Four Cardinal Roles more than occasionally are games with a lazy GM. S/he's either lazy in the sense that creating something that doesn't rely on the Big Four seems like too much work, or lazy in the sense that s/he can't even grasp the concept in the first place.
That's not to say that a straight up, nuts and bolts Big Four Tactical Hackfest can't be fun. I think they're a hell of a lot of fun...as a diversion. Playing a game that was that grounded in black and white style, Column A infrastructure for more than a few sessions would get boring pretty quick, imo.
Some reasons why I think roles exist, and why they frequently get consideration in party building:
- Specialization - Specializing in a single task (or type of task) enables a character to be outstanding at one task, rather than being merely OK at everything.
- Uniqueness - It's more fun to play a character who's abilities are different from your party members' than one who has the same abilities.
- Competition - If two characters have very similar abilities, it's likely that one will be better than the other, which is usually no fun for the weaker competitor. This closely correlates with uniqueness.
- Tradition - Many games over the years have been designed with the intent or assumption that characters will fill certain roles (e.g. treasure placement, monster types). Because games are designed that way, especially published adventures, filling the expected roles can be useful.
There are indeed roles, I prefer not to think about them inj terms of class so much as in terms of ability.
- Utility Caster - someone who can cast a broad range of spells.
- Healer -speaks for itself
- Hitter - someone, or a group, with decent combat ability sans magic.
- Damage Dealer - someone has to be able to dish a mass of damage in one hit.
- Battlefield Control - someone with the ability to influence the shape or pace of a fight.
- Tank - someone with the AC & hit points to take a beating. Often divided among several classes.
- Defender - someone with good saves and/or defensive abilities.
- Scout - a character with the skills & abilities to get ahead of the party, be mobile and not be noticed.
- Skills monkey - the guy that can do a lot.
- Know-it-all - the guy that knows a lot.
- Face - the guy that does the talking.
Generally speaking one class can fill many roles, and some roles overlap.
You will need:
5 people who want to have fun.
Some diceThat is all
I with this guy.
I've run games where a "critical role" was missing from the party... and guess what? They all still worked.
You just need challenges built for the party that exists, or for the party to have the ability to decide "we can't do that," and then not have to do that.
My favorite was a game with 4 players all playing Wizards of differing specializations.
And if you play in/run any number of convention games, good luck getting a balanced party.
I used to have people sit down at the table and say "what do we have? what should I play?" I'd always respond "play whatever you'll have the most fun playing; it's not like the next table will be the same anyways, and it's my job to make it work."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are roles that people assign to be conversant in party tactics for a "standard" game, that is, combat-heavy and trap-heavy with occasional social obstacles. That is fine, and these terms are useful. Other posters discuss several well-known ones above.
In truth, there are not necessary party roles in Pathfinder. It is the GM's job to look at a party of any size and composition, and determine how best to provide a challenge suitable to that party.
If a group came to me as a GM and said "we really want to run a party of five bards" I would not turn them away. Yes, CR becomes a less useful tool the further you stray from FTR-WIZ-CLR-ROG, but over-reliance on CR and the "traditional" party is the number-one cause of poor GMing, IMO.
You make good points. One thing however that should be known is that if you're running an Adventure Path or even more specifically a Pathfinder Society table, your hands aren't as free as they would be if you're creating your scenarios totaly from the ground up.
My thoughts exactly. I'm sure a few hardcore society players would have a few choice words to say about some of the opinions here.
As a GM I don't coddle my players. Nor do I punish them. I run things exactly how I believe the NPC's would go about things. PArt of the utility of the roles is simply that, covering the bases so that a group can handle anything that might be thrown at them. IF they play an unbalanced party they better be prepared to adapt to this or alter there tactics to accomodate there dynamic. Thins don't suddenly go easier on players simply because they threw good sense out of the window and decided to play a group full of monks without changing the way they do things.
You make good points. One thing however that should be known is that if you're running an Adventure Path or even more specifically a Pathfinder Society table, your hands aren't as free as they would be if you're creating your scenarios totaly from the ground up.
That really depends on the GM, I think. Mind you, that would tend to be true of my own games, since I really enjoy running the APs as static in a way. But there are plenty of GMs who wouldn't bat an eye at alternative approaches to most of the encounters in an AP. Heck, in some contexts, those alternative approaches might make for a better game than doing it the "standard" way. I'm not even talk about a re-write, just a creative execution.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Actually you got a couple things wrong:
Traditional Roles: Warrior, Mage, Priest, Thief
OGL Roles: Warrior, Arcane caster, Divine caster, Expert.
Every class fits into one or two of these roles. For example, the ranger is considered a warrior and expert (with a smidgen of arcane casting.), while the paladin is a warrior and divine caster.
The 3.5 Players Handbook II has a chapter that talks about party roles and building a party. Anything I have to say on the topic is already said there.
You make good points. One thing however that should be known is that if you're running an Adventure Path or even more specifically a Pathfinder Society table, your hands aren't as free as they would be if you're creating your scenarios totaly from the ground up.That really depends on the GM, I think. Mind you, that would tend to be true of my own games, since I really enjoy running the APs as static in a way. But there are plenty of GMs who wouldn't bat an eye at alternative approaches to most of the encounters in an AP. Heck, in some contexts, those alternative approaches might make for a better game than doing it the "standard" way. I'm not even talk about a re-write, just a creative execution.
That's kinda how I've always looked at it - the rules are a framework to support what the players are trying to do. Not to say it guarantees success; if they decide to cut down the largest tree in the forest with a herring, chances of success are mightly low, but in most cases I can figure out some rules basis for what they're trying to do.
I say you dont have to have any one role but ones that are helpful:
Trapfinder/scout
Battle Field control
Healer
Face
Damage Dealer
Those dont have to be different characters but those roles need to be filled somewhat. I added the last one because of last weeks game I ran. My party almost wiped because our rogue missed the game. The rest of the party just didnt have the dps he could push and it showed.
|
As a GM I don't coddle my players. Nor do I punish them. I run things exactly how I believe the NPC's would go about things. PArt of the utility of the roles is simply that, covering the bases so that a group can handle anything that might be thrown at them. IF they play an unbalanced party they better be prepared to adapt to this or alter there tactics to accomodate there dynamic. Thins don't suddenly go easier on players simply because they threw good sense out of the window and decided to play a group full of monks without changing the way they do things.
So, just to be clear, do you or do you not modify published content around such a party?
Because one of two things is likely true. Either...
A) You coddle more than you think. You pull punches, like not leading the 5 monk party into a trap-laden dungeon, but using some other backdrop for your story instead. Or making sure they have access to potions. Or maybe not using wandering encounters when they all need a full night's rest. Stuff you wouldn't change for a 'traditional' party.
or
B) You shouldn't permit the 5-monk party at your table. Not without warning them first that they're not going to have a much fun. Well, not unless they enjoy not being able to complete the adventures, anyway.
Just curious how you'd handle it...
B) You shouldn't permit the 5-monk party at your table. Not without warning them first that they're not going to have a much fun. Well, not unless they enjoy not being able to complete the adventures, anyway.
How is a kung-fu flavoured, wuxia epic, all monk party in which every character has a different over the top fighting style "not fun".
How is a kung-fu flavoured, wuxia epic, all monk party in which every character has a different over the top fighting style "not fun".
B) You shouldn't permit the 5-monk party at your table. Not without warning them first that they're not going to have a much fun. Well, not unless they enjoy not being able to complete the adventures, anyway.
Depends on how many fights they get into. If they get into a lot of fights with no way to heal they're going to die, and its not in the raw but i don't think you can crane style while dead.
As a GM I don't coddle my players. Nor do I punish them. I run things exactly how I believe the NPC's would go about things. PArt of the utility of the roles is simply that, covering the bases so that a group can handle anything that might be thrown at them. IF they play an unbalanced party they better be prepared to adapt to this or alter there tactics to accomodate there dynamic. Thins don't suddenly go easier on players simply because they threw good sense out of the window and decided to play a group full of monks without changing the way they do things.So, just to be clear, do you or do you not modify published content around such a party?
Because one of two things is likely true. Either...
A) You coddle more than you think. You pull punches, like not leading the 5 monk party into a trap-laden dungeon, but using some other backdrop for your story instead. Or making sure they have access to potions. Or maybe not using wandering encounters when they all need a full night's rest. Stuff you wouldn't change for a 'traditional' party.
or
B) You shouldn't permit the 5-monk party at your table. Not without warning them first that they're not going to have a much fun. Well, not unless they enjoy not being able to complete the adventures, anyway.
Just curious how you'd handle it...
No, and whether or not I permit it is entirely up to the players. I do warn them that I run thigns pretty much straight from the book with modifications based purely on in-game actions. Not because they decided to play through serpents skull as an all bard black metal band.
As I said, I don't coddle and I don't punish I let people dig their own graves.
Now, if a group wanted to try the all bard black metal band in a homebrew? Well we'll talk about it but again the badguys aren't suddenly all going to be weak to bards as it were it's up to the group to decide on how to approach things that fit their capabilities not me. Things won't always work their way but that is the weakness of a non-diverse group. You make yourself more vulnerable to that classes particular weaknesses then any standard diverse group.
The guy who brings beer. You can't have a party without beer. Unless it's a child's birthday party, which is party I wouldn't be in anyway, on account of my fear of balloons.
...
What are we talking about?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they'd still die quick if you sent them into something trap-infested like Tomb of Horrors (at least the old version of it). I don't believe there's a trap-finding archetype for monk.
EVERYTHING dies quickly in the Tomb of Horrors. That's kinda the point of the Tomb of Horrors.
Monks have great saves, and traps aren't all that rough usually per CR. A five monk party would fare quite well if they swapped out who went first. Oh yeah, great perception too!
ROLES:
1. GUY WHO TANK, HIT THINGS
2. GUY WHO HEAL DAMAGE, CURE STUFF
3. GUY WHO FIND TRAPS, FIND TROUBLE
4. GUY WHO CAST MANY SPELLS MANY REASONS
ROLE FILLED BY:
1. CLERIC
2. CLERIC
3. CLERIC
4. CLERIC
GODS' POWER DO ANYTHING.
CLERIC USE GODS' POWER.
QED, CLERIC DO ANYTHING.
TRY ORACLE, DRUID, IF OUT OF CLERICS.
It's all going to depend on how your group plays the game and what type of game you're going to play.
|
|
People keep listing "Scout". In personal play experience, have these actually been useful?
I've both played and played in groups with one. They go off alone to see what is ahead, often getting into trouble and needing assistance. On rare occasion they get you intel, but it's even rarer you do a strategy different from your original planned (taking advantage of said intel). Finally, since it effectively means one person plays while the others just "sit there", after a little play people so away with scouting all together. Does this differ for people?
Traps have been overdiscussed as well; they are difficult to explain why a baddy would have them and making them more relevant than "some healing" VS instantly kill people who don't look. In published modules trapfinders do save you some money for healing items, but little else.
I agree that someone needs face skills, and range attacking. For dungeon dwelliers having a tank IS key, as it is easier to clog up narrow hallways (and therefore I do believe tank is a necessity).
People keep listing "Scout". In personal play experience, have these actually been useful?
I've both played and played in groups with one. They go off alone to see what is ahead, often getting into trouble and needing assistance. On rare occasion they get you intel, but it's even rarer you do a strategy different from your original planned (taking advantage of said intel). Finally, since it effectively means one person plays while the others just "sit there", after a little play people so away with scouting all together. Does this differ for people?
To tell the truth I've only played in one game where the stealthy rogue came in truly useful as a scout. However, I think this is highly DM dependent.
No.
There are two "roles", the way I see it.
Every party member should be able to fill the first one. There shouldn't be a "striker". Your party should be able to hold it's own weight in that regard. Relieving anybody of striker duty is really hurting your effectiveness.
Then there's the rest. I'm hesitant to call these roles, though. I see them more as perks, some more important than others. Area damage/control (spells/cleave), battlefield presence (reach, combat reflexes, step up, that kind of thing), buffing (bardic music, spells) and utility casting (summons, heals, the rest of your spells). I can concievably see Mobility being one of the above, too.
When it comes to skills... Yeah, I dont like treating skill use as a "role", especially dividing it up even more for traps and talking...
Skill points are a dime a dozen, guys. Thanks to the consolidation of skills and the favored class bonus, at least. The human fighter with favored class (skills) can have a point in each of his class skills (exc. craft and profession) by level 2. That's +4 to every one of these. Most skill DCs aren't really that high, only a certain few skills need be maxed.
With the perks of spreading around skill ranks, dont worry so much about doubling up. A party of four of our friendly fighter can cover 16 skills, and if we assume our fighter left his dorky brothers at home to hang out with the high int wizard or a ranger? You've now covered everything.
Sure, you'll be doubling up on the good skills, but that just means losing out on the bad. This double up also means you can aid another, which is all kinds of awesome. Especially with out of combat skills like diplomacy and craft. There's also the fact that a bit of creativity (or a spellcaster) can cover most of the skills you're lacking.
So in short, stopping power is everybodies job and if you're looking for a niche in the party, look at combat ability/spells rather than skills. Lastly, you can just let skills sort themselves out and rely on what's at your disposal. Most four man parties should have what you need, especially if you coordinate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As it seems all of the above answers could be summed up as:
No, not really.
Depends on how many fights they get into. If they get into a lot of fights with no way to heal they're going to die, and its not in the raw but i don't think you can crane style while dead.How is a kung-fu flavoured, wuxia epic, all monk party in which every character has a different over the top fighting style "not fun".
B) You shouldn't permit the 5-monk party at your table. Not without warning them first that they're not going to have a much fun. Well, not unless they enjoy not being able to complete the adventures, anyway.
a) Monks can self-heal
b) Monks can take ranks in Use Magic Device and carry a wand of CLW just like anyone else.Monks have great saves, and traps aren't all that rough usually per CR. A five monk party would fare quite well if they swapped out who went first. Oh yeah, great perception too!
Exactly. Monks have decent skills, so Disable Device is not a problem and a trap able to beat a monk's Perception will probably also beat a rogues trapfinding.
I used to have people sit down at the table and say "what do we have? what should I play?" I'd always respond "play whatever you'll have the most fun playing; it's not like the next table will be the same anyways, and it's my job to make it work."This is a great attitude!!
Well done
Seconded.
Counter Magic
This is a role you don't often see getting the love from the tactics-wonks, and I don't know why. An abjurer with the right feats since the APG has been alarmingly great at shutting down enemy casters.
A great dispeller is basically the best defensive buff you can get — your allies never need to make saves and your most powerful enemy wastes action after action...
This guy is in a category all his own, one that I would say is as effective or better than a straight godwizard (since they can spontaneously default to dispel, they can still prep as a godwizard).
If you've never had to GM for a dedicated post-APG dispeller, you're fortunate.
|
You make good points. One thing however that should be known is that if you're running an Adventure Path or even more specifically a Pathfinder Society table, your hands aren't as free as they would be if you're creating your scenarios totaly from the ground up.
I had a party in LoF that consisted of a Bard, a Rogue, a Summoner and a Monk.
No full healer, no full BAB, no 9 level caster.
They did fine. Play what you like.