Are there specific roles that must be filled to make an effective party, and if so, what roles?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

In the best of circumstances, a countermagician hits the enemy caster half the time, and doesn't harm them when they do it. It's neither an effective nor fun idea.


I hate the term Tank in MMORPGs. It is often totally misplaced as to what that character is actually doing. Most of then the Tank is more like an Armored Personnel Carrier. Their job is to get the Damage Dealer, Healer, and Control into place. They rarely do any major damage the way you'd expect from the name Tank.

If you're going to compare MMOs to Pathfinder I think EVE is the better choice due to its complexity of options. While "Ships" have defined roles they are good at, there are times you can have cross-roles or even take on totally different roles with the correct equipment. One of the more common roll alterations is "Spider-Tanking" (or "Spider-APC as I prefer). This is a collection of ships with limited ability to heal other ships, who all cluster together and repair the most damaged ship. It's decently effective in a game with virtually no control over who the enemy attacks. Where, if anything, the most vulnerable/valuable ships are deliberately picked off first.

FallofCamelot points out a group with no healer but lots of redundancy (although a Summoner is a different issue as it brings a fairly good pet to the fight). I've also seen this in smaller 3 party groups. One party I was in was a Combat Acrobat (3.5 multi-class nutter, me), a Kineticist Psion, and a hyper rage Barbarian. No real healing out side of UMD and potions. Play would go with my Acrobat going first and getting in creatures faces, followed up by the Barbarian clean sweeping mooks, and the Psion doing what Psions do best... dumping Power Points into dropping single bigger foes. Combats were brutally short.


Thalin wrote:
In the best of circumstances, a countermagician hits the enemy caster half the time, and doesn't harm them when they do it. It's neither an effective nor fun idea.

Loss of an action hurts. Especially if it only takes one round for the barbarian to bisect them. 50% spell immunity for the entire party is pretty great, actually.

I would rather have the ability to prevent the enemy caster from taking half of their turns spontaneously as an immediate action and still be able to cast all the other spells, frankly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pixel, I think you have the right idea. The best (read - most fun to play in) party I was ever a part of had almost all the required roles filled, including:

Fearless leader, damage causer, and face (The Gnome Ranger).
Actual damage causer, his little brother, a dragon slayer (Gnome fighter).
The Gnome Rangers fearless sidekick (Toronto, gnome sorcerer with a 24 con by the time he was 6th level, necessary since he always went in front).
Entertainment - halfing bard who never took a single vocal skill, she did it with dancing.
Business mgr - half-orc cleric who specialized in Knowledge-the Oldest Profession.
Resident pervert - Druid with a wolf companion - Wolf was never permitted to fight, since she and the druid were 'very' close.

OF course, everyone can see that for a true adventuring group, there is one role that is glaringly absent. I'm talking, of course, about the Orchestra. We adventured for 12 levels before finally filling that most important role. I'm sorry, but audible glamor (for when the Gnome Ranger appears), just didn't cut it.

In time, we got our 'folding bandstand' (box, wagon, bandstand), with Frankie the Flesh Golem to pull it, and a dozen lesser air elementals trained in music to act as our orchestra. It took 12 or more levels of relentless adventuring, but the orchestra was always our party's goal.

So, in other words, with a good group, you can make just about anything work.


LOL epic party.
Yay an EVE referance.


I find you " need " the following

A melee combatant - this guy either takes a lot of damage or gets hit little.

A Utility caster - This guy can remove status effects, buff or debuff and solve problems that are difficult by standard means.

A damage dealer - This can be ranged, magic, melee but somebody has to do the killing.

A speaker/leader - someone needs to keep the plot moving and keep the party on track.

A Healer - doesnt have to be a cleric and doesnt always have to be done in combat, but somebody has to stop the wounds from dripping.

Skill Guy - they know stuff, spot things, investigate, build equipment or removes traps...nobody does all of these, but you need a somebody who does a few.

I did however put the word need in quotes...I did this because I am of the opinion that that term should be used loosely. I think you can get by without anyone of these, but for each one you dont have, things get more and more difficult also many classes are capable of covering two spots which frees up somebody to play something that doesnt firmly fit a niche.


Major_Tom wrote:
Funny things

I agree wholeheartedly. You see, I believe that many people here are focusing on overall effectiveness of the party, like you couldn't have ragtag party that is incredibly fun to play in or that having an effective party automatically means that it's also fun.

Your job as a player is not filling a role, is having fun.

Your job as a DM is not making sure that all the challenges you throw at the group are appropriate for their "roles", but deliver a fun experience.

When you start reasoning the other way around, expecting characters to fill a role, you potentially incur in the following type of situations:
"Why haven't you healed me! I was at -3! Your job is to heal our asses!"
"I'm sorry, you can't play the inquisitor in this campaign. Yeah, I know you have a great concept in mind, but we already have one in the group".
"I'm sorry, did you just spent 2000 gp on a +1 studded leather? But you are the rogue! You were supposed to spend them in something that helps us avoid traps! STOP BEING INEFFECTIVE!"

I can say from personal experience that the above is not pleasant.

Anyway, what about them monks? Because this thread is actually the recruitment for an all-monk dungeoncrawl campaign, right? Right?


While useful I do not think you need all the roles filled to have an effective and fun party. I have seen fighters and rogues run an Ap with little issue and am currently in a game where we are a wizard and a fighter.

Roles are useful but not must haves.


Great topic!

For anyone interested, we recently released a podcast on this very topic!

The Gamers' Guide to Party Roles

Check it out and let us know what you think!

Sean Mahoney


lastknightleft wrote:
lastblacknight wrote:
stuff
Going by your name are we to be enemies or allies?

Judging by your name he's a corpse in waiting regardless.


IMO you need players. Otherwise the DM is just talking to himself.

That's really all you need. A plot can always be rewritten, a monster replaced, a trap altered, or a hireling found. A game can be run with any combination of players no matter what their specialties be. A party of rogues is just as valid as a party of sorcerers, a party of monks, a party of paladins, of a party of aristocrats.

A game can be finessed to handle one player or ten. A single barbarian can punch his way through an adventure. So can a single wizard. The difference is how they play, how they approach the situation, how they succeed.

But without players there is no game.

That is the one role that must be filled. The role of PC.


Most of the roles mentioned are important.
And most of them can be fulfilled by magic, either spells or items.
Locks? Knock.
Traps? Evasion/Trap Sense/Healing.
(What was that Order of the Stick strip lately? Cleric's Feather Fall=Heal. Same for Cleric's Disable Traps.)
Wall PC? Wall spell. Feather Token. Or Summon/Eidolon/Druid's Bear.
Scout? Arcane Eye, et al.
UMD opens up a lot of options.
BUT
This can get expensive, and lead to attrition, though PF does reward enough this isn't often a risk.
A different way to look at it is "How much g.p. are you contributing?"
Do you buff our weapons/armor to give better items than we can afford?
Do you require so much healing we need a designated healer for you?
Higher BAB, Rage Str., etc. can also represent 'adds' to the group.
When you overlap adds of another PC, it's fine if there are that many more Barkskins, esp. as it frees up some Lesser Restoration slots, but not so fine if there are that many more trap-killers.
As long as everybody's contributing more than they drain, a party should be able to succeed.
I've seen an all Cleric party do quite well, as there's never enough of that good stuff.
I can imagine that all Monk party doing well too. With their saves/evasion/natural immunities/high movement/etc., they need fewer protections/buffs/restorative spells.
And with Spring Attack, that group of five could be hilarious.
"GET BACK HERE!" (shakes clenched claw)
Of course, when one gets a trip in, the enemy's toast. Also when facing a really tough monster they can burn their ki and blow it up.
Put in a couple Teamwork feats (as most will be engaged in melee) and they could go to town.

Another way to look at roles is to address your obstacles/adversaries:
Someone to take down:
...hordes (including swarms)
...big guys (giants)
...weapon immune/resistant (swarms again + oozes)
...wizards (& archers & liches)
...true dragons (& outsiders & other casters you don't want to grapple)
...energy immune/resistant (golems)
...big-league grapplers (purple worms & giant squids)
etc.
Also whether you can take on the conditions you face, both environmental and as bestowed by monsters.
Again, magic can compensate, but something to consider.

Anyway, play what you want. Magic items can make up the difference.
(Yes, in a low magic campaign, you should have more casters/crafters...)


Pixel Cube wrote:
Major_Tom wrote:


When you start reasoning the other way around, expecting characters to fill a role, you potentially incur in the following type of situations:
"Why haven't you healed me! I was at -3! Your job is to heal our asses!"
"I'm sorry, you can't play the inquisitor in this campaign. Yeah, I know you have a great concept in mind, but we already have one in the group".
"I'm sorry, did you just spent 2000 gp on a +1 studded leather? But you are the rogue! You were supposed to spend them in something that helps us avoid traps! STOP BEING INEFFECTIVE!"

In my experience these situations occur regardless on any attitudes regarding ones expected job in an adventuring group.


Speaking of which if I wanted to run a 5 monk party for the hell of it?

Sohei
Healing Hand Monk combained with soemthig else.
Maneuver Master
Sensei
Martial Artist

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Guy who kills enemies.

I should perhaps amend this to 'guy who eliminates enemies'.

It doesn't matter how much you heal if you never stop the enemy from doing damage.
It doesn't matter how much you scout and learn about an enemy if you can't deal with him.
It doesn't matter how much you control the field if you never get rid of the enemy.

To succeed, there must be someone who can take out the opposition in every encounter. Everything else helps, but only this is needed.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Guy who kills enemies.

I should perhaps amend this to 'guy who eliminates enemies'.

It doesn't matter how much you heal if you never stop the enemy from doing damage.
It doesn't matter how much you scout and learn about an enemy if you can't deal with him.
It doesn't matter how much you control the field if you never get rid of the enemy.

To succeed, there must be someone who can take out the opposition in every encounter. Everything else helps, but only this is needed.

Because it's bound to happe:

You know it.

I know it.

So let's get this over with.

"Nuh uh, all you need is to have fun. It's the GM's job to alter things so that the enemies can be taken out."


TarkXT wrote:
"Nuh uh, all you need is to have fun. It's the GM's job to alter things so that the enemies can be taken out."

Unless the GM is getting paid for this it's the players' job to not make doing so too big a hassle. How much of a hassle is too much will vary from GM to GM, but some people have either multiple hobbies or homework and can't homebrew something for the players who all want to play commoneers and need them to bring characters that can play the AP he bought.


a) Monks can self-heal

at level 7. And its not a lot.

b) Monks can take ranks in Use Magic Device and carry a wand of CLW just like anyone else.

Cha is their dumpiest dump stat and UMD dc's are high. they'll be burning charges left right and center trying to get them off until higher levels.


TarkXT wrote:


Because it's bound to happe:

You know it.

I know it.

So let's get this over with.

"Nuh uh, all you need is to have fun. It's the GM's job to alter things so that the enemies can be taken out."

But always succeding is not fun. Where's the challenge then? The GM should provide a fun challenge.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

a) Monks can self-heal

at level 7. And its not a lot.

b) Monks can take ranks in Use Magic Device and carry a wand of CLW just like anyone else.

Cha is their dumpiest dump stat and UMD dc's are high. they'll be burning charges left right and center trying to get them off until higher levels.

Potions. Also, not getting hit in the first place (Monks have usually very high ACs).

But this doesn't change the fact that a full monk party would be totally awesome WHERE IS MY MONK CAMPAIGN.


You MUST be able to kill the enemy. We just had a party where both arcane spellcasters were de-buffers, & neither the “tank” nor the skillmoney really was able to do any effective damage, no matter that the foe was de-buffed into almost being worthless. Battlefield control is all well and good but someone sooner or later has to put real hurt on your foes.

You MUST be able to heal. We had a game without a healer. It was ‘Do one combat. Then rest. If you have a random encounter during the rest, repeat as necessary”. We spent 4days resting foir every day adventuring. It was boring as heck.

In a trap-heavy dungeon, you MUST have a skillmonkey to find & remove traps. Sure, for an occ trap, “find traps” will work, and sometimes there are ways of getting around a found trap without disarming it. Sometimes the tank can just muscle thru. Sometimes a summon spell can trip a trap. But in a real trap heavy dungeon, nothing can replace the “box-man” style skillmonkey.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

a) Monks can self-heal

at level 7. And its not a lot.

b) Monks can take ranks in Use Magic Device and carry a wand of CLW just like anyone else.

Cha is their dumpiest dump stat and UMD dc's are high. they'll be burning charges left right and center trying to get them off until higher levels.

Nobody said it'd be EASY. Sheesh. ;)

Past level 1-2, I think they could afford the healing (though it'd represent a larger portion of their income than for other party builds.)
Plus, Monks can flee more often. :)

Oh, and add a Zen Archer to the list for diversity, and some sort of energy damage build for weapon immune creatures. Zen Archers are effective enough you may not need to dump Cha so much.

Without a Zen Archer, you still have 5 attackers with disabling abilities/maneuvers, most of whom will act in the surprise round (High Wis/Per), hopefully with high Stealth to get into position, etc.
Against meat & potato monsters (and casters or grapplers) they should do fine. It's the freaky creatures/undead I'd worry about most.
Play to your strengths because that modest healing is no strength, more flavor. Stick above ground, with less monstrous foes (if in sandbox), and they should do fine.

And, BNW, where is RAW/FAQ/errata that you lose a charge if you fail DC 20 to UMD a wand?
You don't use the charge to try to activate it.
You try to activate it to use the charge.
Fail to activate it, you fail to use the charge.
As per RAW-CRB, if you fail the check, you don't meet the caster requirement, no different than a non-caster not using UMD saying the same command word. If you don't meet the requirement for a spell trigger item, you don't trigger it. The item doesn't activate, so no reason to suppose a charge gets used. No charge loss mentioned in RAW, and since that's pretty important, I reassert no charge gets lost.
Easily swayed by errata, but until seen, I have to rule this way.

Of course, with the 'natural 1' cutting you off from that wand, you'd want everybody to take UMD and spread your charges among many wands.


DrDeth wrote:

You MUST be able to kill the enemy. We just had a party where both arcane spellcasters were de-buffers, & neither the “tank” nor the skillmoney really was able to do any effective damage, no matter that the foe was de-buffed into almost being worthless. Battlefield control is all well and good but someone sooner or later has to put real hurt on your foes.

You MUST be able to heal. We had a game without a healer. It was ‘Do one combat. Then rest. If you have a random encounter during the rest, repeat as necessary”. We spent 4days resting foir every day adventuring. It was boring as heck.

In a trap-heavy dungeon, you MUST have a skillmonkey to find & remove traps. Sure, for an occ trap, “find traps” will work, and sometimes there are ways of getting around a found trap without disarming it. Sometimes the tank can just muscle thru. Sometimes a summon spell can trip a trap. But in a real trap heavy dungeon, nothing can replace the “box-man” style skillmonkey.

Had an incident with a 3.x Hydra. Ray of Enfeeblement knocked it to where it couldn't hit the sword & board fighters except on 20, and then for little damage, but it took a long time to overcome the fast healing and actually kill it. Lucky for the party they were secluded from other foes or they'd have been swarmed for all the racket.

(Hydras so 'too easy or too tough' in 3.x. Yay, PF fix.)

Actually had a party with no healing. Bought a rack of potions with our first haul. Sigh. 1st 3.0 game, didn't realize how much $ we'd wasted. Didn't last too long as the DM didn't understand CR...

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I DMed a party once where the primary tank and primary healer was a halfling-sized otterfolk bard, the fighter was a kenku with 6 Str and 8 Con (used a crossbow), the wizard was an empowered awakened parrot, the homebrewed skill-based sorcerer did not max out Spellcraft and mostly relied on gun play, and everyone still had fun. They were like the opposite of min-maxed (except the parrot wizard, but she mostly summoned bananas into the underpants of her adversaries), but were really fun and funny without being (too) silly.

My current group has a feral kobold battle sorcerer, a chaos gnome dragon shaman, and a catfolk archer ranger. The sorcerer does most of the melee stuff, the ranger mostly does ranged stuff, and the dragon shaman absorbs hits and uses lots of special attacks.


Pixel Cube wrote:

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.

You left out:

- The guy who spends all of his time on laptop/talking about non-gaming things/ telling dirty or sexist or racist jokes/ ordering food.
- The bored girlfriend/boyfriend/son who yawns a lot, has to be woken up when it's their turn, and needs their options explained to them every time.
- The backseat DM (a mutant hybrid of rules lawyer/true roleplayer)
- The accountant (keeps exhaustive lists of party treasury, usually digital, sometimes laminated. Get comfy on magic store night)
- The Fool/Leroy Jenkins (Never listens to strategy/advice, has big plans for where his character will be at level 15, is somehow on his eighth character by level 3).
- The guy who talks about the "good old days" of 2E, 1E, pre-AD&D.
- The guy who takes the game way too seriously and uses D&D to work out his personal demons.


joeyfixit wrote:
- The accountant (keeps exhaustive lists of party treasury, usually digital, sometimes laminated. Get comfy on magic store night)

This is actually the most important role after GM. We're in the second decade of the twenty-first century, though, and magic store night should be replaced with magic store email tag.


Atarlost wrote:
joeyfixit wrote:
- The accountant (keeps exhaustive lists of party treasury, usually digital, sometimes laminated. Get comfy on magic store night)
This is actually the most important role after GM. We're in the second decade of the twenty-first century, though, and magic store night should be replaced with magic store email tag.

You'd think that, wouldn't you?

The magic store night that comes to mind happened AFTER the DM left us at the magic store for a cliffhanger because he couldn't stand to sit through a raw magic store brainstorm think bubble session. So he gave us a week to email our wishlist to him and he'd roll and respond. I didn't really think of it until a few hours before game time, but I did email it in. When I showed up he told me what I could have and what I couldn't, but even though I walked in late, I had to sit through about an hour and a half of magic-store planning and haggling.

This magic store, BTW, was many many miles away and required us to either trek through the desert for about a month through presumably hostile territory or capture a Roc and force it to give us a ride (which we did). To the only village with a magic store for hundreds of miles. So that probably took about forty minutes of game time (at least ten of which was me arguing against the idea in favor of getting on with the quest).

This was about a week before the DM had a big blowup for wasting too much of his time.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Guy who kills enemies.

I should perhaps amend this to 'guy who eliminates enemies'.

It doesn't matter how much you heal if you never stop the enemy from doing damage.
It doesn't matter how much you scout and learn about an enemy if you can't deal with him.
It doesn't matter how much you control the field if you never get rid of the enemy.

To succeed, there must be someone who can take out the opposition in every encounter. Everything else helps, but only this is needed.

You have a good point, but every character should have a weapon or ability that can do damage. It doesn't matter - in most cases - if a foe takes 24 damage in one hit or four hits for 6 damage. In other words, while generally true and very useful, you can still make up for it by everyone contributing - like the party mentioned above where they had no full BAB classes and no full casters.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

a) Monks can self-heal

at level 7. And its not a lot.

But they've all got it, so it doesn't need to be a lot.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

b) Monks can take ranks in Use Magic Device and carry a wand of CLW just like anyone else.

Cha is their dumpiest dump stat and UMD dc's are high. they'll be burning charges left right and center trying to get them off until higher levels.

Assuming that all five monks in the party use charisma as their dump-stat, you'd be right. But we are talking about five very different monk builds, one of whom will be built as the 'face' and have decent charisma, so no worries. Plus, at low levels there are potions, besides, I always try not to do dump-stats.


I can run a good game with any collection of races/classes so long as there's more than two players - two players just isn't as fun for me and even three is pushing it.


I'd say no.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
cranewings wrote:
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.

Back before I started running E6 exclusively, I still ended games around 8 or 9, and people generally thought of 9 as the end. For a little while I was struggling with how kings stayed in power when PCs could just teleport in and kill them. That being said, I know you could just say the king is anti-magic or the the castle redirects teleporters or the castle is made out of lead. I never liked any of that. It all feels too ham-handed to me. So I wrote up a 9th level Abjurer for my book of NPCs called, "The Court Mage." With a little back up, this guy was unbelievably awesome at defending the castle.

I haven't had to run for a real APG counter mage yet. My current players aren't all together sure about how things like power attack and cleave work, being really new to the game. I'm sure it's nasty though.


IMHO,

The most effective party (of 4) would be:

Wizard (x3), Cleric

Pros:
* Players of wizard characters can easily combine spellbooks (with GM approval, I suggest making them wizards from same school/faction even brothers/sisters). Done correctly as level 1 characters they could each copy from each other to gain the majority of good 1st level spells.
* Wizards at each level up can copy from each other's spell book for 6 new spells per level. Best might combine Conjurer, Transmuter, Universalist. (Prohibited schools (2) necromancy/evocation/enchantment)
---* Conjurer specializes in summoning creatures.
---* Transmuter specializes in buffs/debuffs and battlefield control.
---* Universalist fills the gaps, supports the others. nukes.
* Shelter is easy no need to set a watch : Rope Trick, Secure Shelter, Magnificent Mansion.
* Cleric acts as tank and buffer (no need to heal summoned creatures that will disappear). Can use spells to become party rogue or better fighter when necessary (though wizard 'knock' takes care of locks). Divine magic access is a huge benefit to this party. Cleric as "archer" would be ideal. (This party excels at range combat so best for all party members to attack at range)
* Transportation is easy via spells mount, phantom steed, flight, and finally teleport.
* Minimal equipment "needed" for this party to be effective.
* If used under the "15 minute adventure day" cliche (one or two encounters then "camp" for the night), the party easily can take on much higher challenges than other parties their level.

Once this party becomes 9th level (if played correctly) it will function far above its listed challenge rating.

Cons:
* Encounters resistant to magic (Constructs, etc.) more difficult but not impossible.
* Low armor and hit points require smarter play styles that reduce exposure.
* Require daily rest to return to full power, in a situation without the ability to regain lost spells they will eventually be rendered weak to the point of uselessness.


Torlandril Morninglord wrote:

IMHO,

The most effective party (of 4) would be:

Wizard (x3), Cleric

...

Once this party becomes 9th level (if played correctly) it will function far above its listed challenge rating.

And then a couple levels later clerics of Ugathoa get antimagic field with the magic domain and that's all she wrote.


AM CLERIC wrote:

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.

You'd think this but no, no it doesn't work at all :(. Way back when the RPGA ran Living Faerun in 3.5, we decided an all-cleric party would be awesome. Tons of healing, tons of crafting, could be beatsticks and/or casters and/or tanks with really good saves. This was around level 12 or so. We were inspired by the OOTS strip of "go team cleric!".

The first random encounter (which I don't even remember anymore!) TPK'ed our party. The DM let us quickly roll up some 12th level characters more in line with standard roles, using the WBL guidelines provided, and we stomped through the rest of it just fine.

I, too, generally go by functions more than specific roles, because many classes can fill multiple functions in different combinations. You will note "skills person" isn't in the list, because really what matters is what skills the party possesses, not who has them. I consider the primary functions pretty crucial to a successful party, while the secondary functions are really useful but optional.

You want:

Primary
Damage (melee)
Damage (ranged)
Damage (area)
Healing
Fixing negative conditions, like stat damage, poison, negative levels
Talking skills, specifically Diplomacy and Bluff
Strong guy who carries stuff, or a pack mule, or a caster with a disc, or lots of extradimensional space

Secondary
Scouting, magical or stealthy
Trapfinding
Tank, high hitpoints and high AC who absorbs hits
Knowledge, especially of monsters (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Local, Nature, Planes, Religion)
Linguistics, specifically someone who speaks a lot of languages
Appraise
Perception
Survival
Climb
Spellcraft
Teleportation at high levels


Melissa Litwin wrote:


You'd think this but no, no it doesn't work at all :(. Way back when the RPGA ran Living Faerun in 3.5, we decided an all-cleric party would be awesome. Tons of healing, tons of crafting, could be beatsticks and/or casters and/or tanks with really good saves. This was around level 12 or so. We were inspired by the OOTS strip of "go team cleric!".

You did this in 3.5?

You were doing it wrong.

Pathfinder I could understand.


TarkXT wrote:
Melissa Litwin wrote:


You'd think this but no, no it doesn't work at all :(. Way back when the RPGA ran Living Faerun in 3.5, we decided an all-cleric party would be awesome. Tons of healing, tons of crafting, could be beatsticks and/or casters and/or tanks with really good saves. This was around level 12 or so. We were inspired by the OOTS strip of "go team cleric!".

You did this in 3.5?

You were doing it wrong.

Pathfinder I could understand.

Yeah, 3.5. Though it's entirely probable that we weren't the very best we could be, all of us were experienced players and we did coordinate our crafting. We just happened to hit something that was horrifically bad for us: flying, high SR, lots of AoE damage as I recall.

Most of us weren't experienced cleric players, which definitely impacted things. Our usual party in Living Greyhawk (3.5, Bandit Kingdoms) was wizard, bear druid, rogue, ranger. That was the best 4-person party I've ever played in :).


Atarlost wrote:
Torlandril Morninglord wrote:

IMHO,

The most effective party (of 4) would be:

Wizard (x3), Cleric

...

Once this party becomes 9th level (if played correctly) it will function far above its listed challenge rating.

And then a couple levels later clerics of Ugathoa get antimagic field with the magic domain and that's all she wrote.

I don't know if you are being serious or not. Truthfully if the party is rendered powerless against an enemy (and it take a lot more than anti-magic field to do that BTW) they can always 'retreat'

I never understood why players felt "well there is one encounter type where we suck so I guess our party sucks"

The world is a big place, have the party go somewhere else.

After 9th level this party would likely be using Planar binding and constructs to supplement the summoned creatures anyways.


So I've been arguing with my GM about this very topic (though before I saw this post as I just read it as of this posting), our group is comprised of mainly Ranged and Casters. Our GM has been running the Carrion Crown Adventure Path straight out of the book with almost no modification (extended the Time Frame to allow a trip to Carrion Hill after the first book). Our party setup is as follows:

Cleric of Iomedae who uses a Sword and Shield, but mainly has stayed back to Heal and Channel against Undead

Summoner with a Powerful Eidolon that has dealt major damage but hasn't been able to successfully take a Major Hit

Oracle Tengu using a Katana and a Daikatana that has normally stayed back and casted spells (horrible die rolls to attack = Many Whiffs)

And the GM made a Ranger (Ranged Specialist) to deal with the fact we were missing a "heavy hitter"

In the majority of our adventuring the GM has fudged many die rolls so none of us were significantly one-shot when facing major enemies (though the Eidolon was "killed" once toward the end of an encounter). The problem that I and my friend have not been able to convey to him is that in making the Ranger as a Ranged combatant hasn't quite filled the role of a person that can take the major hits that these major "bosses" have been dishing out. However as we have tried to explain we slip and say Tank, wherein he says he can't see using MMO Logic in a pencil & paper RPG, and brushes off the issue. However he is still not going to adjust the adventure to fit the group, and I just can't see a continuance of fudging die rolls so a character doesn't die as a viable option. He is also pissed when one of us talks about ditching a character to make a new one focused around being able to take hits.

In this respect I can see a definite need to define Combat Roles since there is going to inevitably be alot of Combat, but Challenge Roles are a different matter since they will change depending on the situation you get into (with a vast array of different situations within many different Adventure Paths/Modules/Homebrew).

I don't expect to get my own situation resolved anymore (in writing this reply) as the Campaign will either work itself out or fall apart altogether (if the GM gets too frustrated with the system not working in his favor or refuses to admit to MMO Logic as he puts it).


Lodan wrote:

So I've been arguing with my GM about this very topic (though before I saw this post as I just read it as of this posting), our group is comprised of mainly Ranged and Casters. Our GM has been running the Carrion Crown Adventure Path straight out of the book with almost no modification (extended the Time Frame to allow a trip to Carrion Hill after the first book). Our party setup is as follows:

Cleric of Iomedae who uses a Sword and Shield, but mainly has stayed back to Heal and Channel against Undead

Summoner with a Powerful Eidolon that has dealt major damage but hasn't been able to successfully take a Major Hit

Oracle Tengu using a Katana and a Daikatana that has normally stayed back and casted spells (horrible die rolls to attack = Many Whiffs)

And the GM made a Ranger (Ranged Specialist) to deal with the fact we were missing a "heavy hitter"

In the majority of our adventuring the GM has fudged many die rolls so none of us were significantly one-shot when facing major enemies (though the Eidolon was "killed" once toward the end of an encounter). The problem that I and my friend have not been able to convey to him is that in making the Ranger as a Ranged combatant hasn't quite filled the role of a person that can take the major hits that these major "bosses" have been dishing out. However as we have tried to explain we slip and say Tank, wherein he says he can't see using MMO Logic in a pencil & paper RPG, and brushes off the issue. However he is still not going to adjust the adventure to fit the group, and I just can't see a continuance of fudging die rolls so a character doesn't die as a viable option. He is also pissed when one of us talks about ditching a character to make a new one focused around being able to take hits.

In this respect I can see a definite need to define Combat Roles since there is going to inevitably be alot of Combat, but Challenge Roles are a different matter since they will change depending on the situation you get into (with a vast array of different situations...

Instead of tank say you need a meatshield, that IS a pen'n'paper term, so he can't be an ass about it. I suggest a barbarian with good con, good dex, Toughness and as much AC as you can cram into it. If the build is focused on defense he shouldn't be out damaging the party (DMPCs that outdamage the party kill the fun), but he should be able to stand in the front of the group and take the brunt of the damage.


Melissa Litwin wrote:

Yeah, 3.5. Though it's entirely probable that we weren't the very best we could be, all of us were experienced players and we did coordinate our crafting. We just happened to hit something that was horrifically bad for us: flying, high SR, lots of AoE damage as I recall.

Most of us weren't experienced cleric players, which definitely impacted things.

I have to vote inexperience, too. High SR doesn't protect anyone from summoned monsters, and Summon Monster is the Swiss Army Chainsaw of cleric spells. With four 12th-level 3.5 clerics, you've got 12+4 5th and 8+4 6th level spells, and the 3.5 Summon Monster V can bring in, for example, a celestial griffon to chase your flying foe.


see wrote:
Melissa Litwin wrote:

Yeah, 3.5. Though it's entirely probable that we weren't the very best we could be, all of us were experienced players and we did coordinate our crafting. We just happened to hit something that was horrifically bad for us: flying, high SR, lots of AoE damage as I recall.

Most of us weren't experienced cleric players, which definitely impacted things.

I have to vote inexperience, too. High SR doesn't protect anyone from summoned monsters, and Summon Monster is the Swiss Army Chainsaw of cleric spells. With four 12th-level 3.5 clerics, you've got 12+4 5th and 8+4 6th level spells, and the 3.5 Summon Monster V can bring in, for example, a celestial griffon to chase your flying foe.

screw a griffon a summon monster v in pathfinder can summon a wind dijin or a low level angle.


SweetDee wrote:
a low level angle.

Since when can you summon puppies of Tindalos?


Melissa Litwin wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Melissa Litwin wrote:


You'd think this but no, no it doesn't work at all :(. Way back when the RPGA ran Living Faerun in 3.5, we decided an all-cleric party would be awesome. Tons of healing, tons of crafting, could be beatsticks and/or casters and/or tanks with really good saves. This was around level 12 or so. We were inspired by the OOTS strip of "go team cleric!".

You did this in 3.5?

You were doing it wrong.

Pathfinder I could understand.

Yeah, 3.5. Though it's entirely probable that we weren't the very best we could be, all of us were experienced players and we did coordinate our crafting. We just happened to hit something that was horrifically bad for us: flying, high SR, lots of AoE damage as I recall.

Most of us weren't experienced cleric players, which definitely impacted things. Our usual party in Living Greyhawk (3.5, Bandit Kingdoms) was wizard, bear druid, rogue, ranger. That was the best 4-person party I've ever played in :).

And the moral of this story is, spell-casters rule as long as they have the right spells.


I'm not sure how that Wiz/Wiz/Wiz/Cle party would run from an enemy with an Anti-Magic Field, assuming the enemy's smart and uses the Field offensively.
"Did I just trip/grapple you in my Field? Oops."
Dead caster.
You'd need to use divinations to prep for the AM Field, maybe illusions to draw them out, and counter before it's even cast, from afar, in case they do get it off (on your illusions hopefully, instead of you) in which case you leave until hours later.

The Wizard-party game becomes much more about pre-combat preparation. Not just spell selection, but everything, so that every factor (esp. traps/ambushes/terrain) can be prepared against so that enemies never do get a full attack, especially those that pounce or grapple.
And at all levels, with low levels being especially taxing, this could be arduous, with much need for rest, sometimes a luxury you won't have.

Most every time the enemy seems prepared for you, you'd likely need to run, unless you've prepared for them being prepared, etc...
It becomes an intriguing mental challenge, all the pre-combat maneuvering, but you'd better know the game really well (foes & spells) before venturing with such a crew.
And getting through specific missions/quest types could be difficult. You don't always get to choose to avoid the golem.
No, I don't see that as the most powerful group, simply because they are so lopsided and need more player effort. (Mind you, in a sandbox campaign that's mostly vs. PC races, it'd be a fun experiment.)


Nope, next to any party can solve a situation. Maybe not in the most ideal way, but hey that's what makes the game fun.


Lodan wrote:
. . .And the GM made a Ranger (Ranged Specialist) to deal with the fact we were missing a "heavy hitter". . .

Please stop, you're hurting me.

Please.

The GM must not have a character. This should be printed in the rulebook.

I don't want to derail this conversation, so please make a new thread if you'd like to learn the 1000 reasons why the GM must not have a character.


Reading through the conversation so far, I've seen three basic camps. Do you agree that one of these three sums up most posters' positions?

.

No Roles - Roles don't matter at all. Make whatever you want, have fun, and the GM will adapt the adventure to suit.

One Role - One role matters. Kill the enemy. So long as you have the ability to kill the enemy (usually through damage), every other party ability is distant second.

Multiple Roles - A party should have at least one character who can: take hits, deal with traps, cast a wide variety of spells, heal, and hopefully most of you can deal damage as well.


Blueluck wrote:
Lodan wrote:
. . .And the GM made a Ranger (Ranged Specialist) to deal with the fact we were missing a "heavy hitter". . .

Please stop, you're hurting me.

Please.

The GM must not have a character. This should be printed in the rulebook.

I don't want to derail this conversation, so please make a new thread if you'd like to learn the 1000 reasons why the GM must not have a character.

'

I disagree with must not have a character. Some GM's handle it well. I would tell his GM that the party wants someone to stand in between the bad guys, and the squishies.

What he should do is allow one PC to control 2 characters. It is one less thing he has to worry about or he can edit the campaign which is not all that time consuming. Dropping CR's by 1 should even things out.


SweetDee wrote:
screw a griffon a summon monster v in pathfinder can summon a wind dijin or a low level angle.

The example of play was from 3.5, so I was using the 3.5 lists, not the Pathfinder lists.


Blueluck wrote:


No Roles - Roles don't matter at all. Make whatever you want, have fun, and the GM will adapt the adventure to suit.

One Role - One role matters. Kill the enemy. So long as you have the ability to kill the enemy (usually through damage), every other party ability is distant second.

Multiple Roles - A party should have at least one character who can: take hits, deal with traps, cast a wide variety of spells, heal, and hopefully most of you can deal damage as well.

I am part of the first camp, but I'd like to point out something about the second one (one role): I'd swap "kill the enemy" with "deal with the enemy". While you do need at least one that is capable of dealing with adversaries, that doesn't mean that you couldn't convince them to surrender, sweet talking them into joining you, avoid them altogether... Killing is not always necessary, facing the opposition is.

Also, GM characters: they are fine as long as they stand in the background giving support and don't steal the spotlight.

51 to 100 of 115 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are there specific roles that must be filled to make an effective party, and if so, what roles? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.