| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tired of your standard healer, tank, nuker, skillmonkey? here's the answer (or at least my attempt at it):
Why those 4 roles?
It's been proven times and again that one cannot master everything. Those so-called Jack-of-all-Trades are reputed to be weak at everything they attempt:
you only get a fixed pool of ressources (feats, skillpoints, ...) and spreading these over various things means you're more likely to fail each time you try (remember that a +1 equals 5% for many things).
So what do these 4 roles cover:
The healer obviously protects the party, while healing hitpoints and ailings is one aspect, boosting the party's abilities is another of his specialties.
The nuker is obviously about big damage against one or many targets.
The tank is good at keeping the targets busy by having them hit him.
The skillmonkey is the one taking care of all those skill needs of a group (face, traps&locks, scouting).
so if we divide those 4 roles into smaller categories, what do we get?
What jobs need to be taken care of?
Skillpoint-related:
- the face (cha), this guy is capable of talking people into everything or out of everything, ideally he has some spell to help "turn heads"
- the scout (wis, darkvision), this guy will rarely miss anything worth noticing and should get all the tools to not be seen
- the mechanic (dex), he knows everything there is to know about traps, locks, devices, and maybe even engineering and architecture: leonardo da vinci
- the library (int), he knows all creatures that roam the lands and anything beyond these lands(planes)... he's a breathing and moving library, who'll devour more knowledge at amazing speed
Feat-related:
- the tactician (crowd control/debuff), this guy will keep targets busy by messing them up, this can be with spells as well as maneuvers
- the tower, this guy is capable of taking it all: fireballs or a balor swinging greatswords, this guy is the tough nut to crack and should be the last man standing
- the enabler (buffer), this guy has various means to make his friends better then usually, this could be though teamwork feats and/or buffing spells and/or class abilities (~bard song, ...)
- the ranged damage guy, great at damage from big distances (more then charge distance) he's the one who can reach flying foes as well as enemy spellcasters protected by a line of defense
- the melee damage guy, can be an AoE whirlwind of destruction or an assassin or a spellcaster (~magus, ...), either way, foes should actively flee from this guy's melee range out of fear
- the medic, of course capable of boosting the party's hit-points he's also taking care of other medical problems like diseases, poisons, curses, ...
(did I miss any?)
While the skillpoint-related jobs can be broken up some more and distributed some other way, the feat related ones are more tricky. Here's some combinations (quick&dirty):
tactician + ranged-dmg = toppling magic missle as well as precise called shots or just some simple fogs and walls of fire/sound/...
tactician + melee-dmg = maneuveur-heavy (strength) or intimidating with Whirlwind Attack makes for somebody who'll have foes fleeing from his deadly reach
medic + tactician = could be a witch as reach spell is available as well as Spectral Hand and clerics don't get the latter, the must-have familiar can be improved to learn the use of wands for even more healing options while the witch cackles the hell out of her misfortunate foes
tower + enabler = can buff his allies' defense (shield other, various bless', ...) and boost their offense as well, an Evangelist could be great for that
(more later...)
Tired of your standard healer, tank, nuker, skillmonkey?
I would probably list something like 3 roles: healing expert, combat expert and noncombat expert. Of course, there's lots of overlap.
You can run adventures fine with 4 clerics or similar roles nowadays really, it might just be more fun for each character to have it's niche, characters are far more flexible in their building then they were in D&D 1st edition but the role division still excists in people's mind, in part because it is cool in part because they are used to thinking that way.
Umm... actually I'm not sure - what do you want to hear?
Its not like every single group is amde of FTR/Rogue/Wiz/CLR, is it?
The one you proposed is... well... could work, but especially the toppling spell wizard will be kind of meh:D
I think a big reason the 4 roles has existed since forever is because it's the easiest combination. No one will deny that Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard is pretty much a complete package of versatility, survivability, and combat power. What about 4 rogues? You're not getting much survivability in terms of soaking front-line damage. You're not getting much versatility in the magic department. Against mobs immune to sneak attack, you're at a huge disadvantage in combat. You've got to completely rethink how to play the game with that group. . . and thinking/being extremely creative is hard.
I think for a group looking for a huge challenge, having several classic roles missing is fun. But a group looking to just have fun isn't necessarily looking for a huge challenge.
Ok, why can't I modify my initial post? :.(
The goal of this post was for people who don't know better then playing your standard 4 roles, to get an example of what they can do to try something different.
For example him: link
I wanted to show those people who don't have the time to come up with complex builds, "simple" means to build groups that work.
Those examples were never meant to be used together... they were just a start: I combined tactician with everything else that makes sense and was moving on to tower... though not finished yet :-(
tower + melee would have been next...
where's that bloody "edit" button gone?
The party composition depends on the preference of the players, and that is the main reason lists get made with "four roles to fill" or "8 abilities that must be accounted for".
In abstract, to design a party you have to determine the main goal of the game.
Is the game simple fun with fighting and magic to be played after a stressful work/school week? If so, pick whatever you think is coolest, and the GM can work a campaign around what you are capable of dealing with. If you are all rogues (maybe working to form a rogues guild/on a secret mission/all friends on a journey), the GM should make encounters that use your skills, and only include a few big encounters that try to take advantage of your weaknesses.
Is the game going to be running through pre-made adventures? If so you can still pick whatever you want, but there are many assumptions made by the makers of the pre-made adventures as to what roles will be filled, and what abilities will be taken. Going into a adventure path called something like "The Mage Wars" with a party of all fighters seems like a big challenge.
Even in a pre-made adventure, Is the party focused on winning as efficiently as possible? Is the GM capable of modifying published material to take individual party quirks into account? Is there one player who wants to win everything and no one else cares? All of these affect the party choice for the group. if no-one else cares, pick a standard team that is almost guaranteed to overcome the usual dangers. If some people really want to win, and some really want to have a cool and unique (and are not worried about winning), then the GM is going to be on a tightrope, but still playable for the PCs.
Are you playing in an organized system or competitively? If so, you usually have players who want to be efficient and win well. So the party composition has to cover many roles and the GM has less leeway with modification.
However, identifying the roles is still very important, and there are many ways to supplement a party that is missing one of the roles, if it is identified. Keep it up Kyoni, because figuring these things out helps everyone make more informed decisions, for GMs even if the players are not as concerned :)
Ok, why can't I modify my initial post? :.(
You only have a 1 hour window for editing your post.
+1 to what John Kerpan said.
@Kyoni - You'll want to remake your guide as a google document and post a link to it in the first thread of a new post.
Also,
- In PF many people will disagree with the usefulness of a "nuker" mage vs a "god" mage (see Treantmonk's guide). Long story short spells don't do the kind of damage you'd like them to whereas modifying the battlefield (say with summoning spells) pays much better dividends.
- Similarly, a "healer" is much less useful than a "damage preventer" (by buffing). Spells that shorten combat (say by increasing the party's DPR), isolates enemies (denying them opportunity to attack efficiently) or minimizes damage to the party (say by increasing their AC or granting concealment) will be more effective than healing (although there is a role for combat healing it shouldn't be a party focus).
- You might want to start with a list of expected challenges (maybe sorted by level) and compare and contrast how a "standard" vs "non-standard" party would go about dealing with them.
- Finally, put together a sample party that is different from the usual fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard party and show how they solve problems. For example,
Cavalier (Order of the Dragon, Honorguard) (AC tank, buffs Barbarian, does decent damage)
Barbarian (Primary damage dealer, HP tank, handles nature-based skill checks)
Bard (Buffer, focuses on ranged damage, can use wands of healing, provides broad variety of skills)
Wizard (Focuses on battlefield control and utility spells, circumvents the traps the bard and barbarian find using spells)
This party is light on in-combat healing and heavy on damage with the intent to finish combats quickly. The cavalier and barbarian form an intimidating front line with the Cav buffing the Barb's AC substantially using Bodyguard (w/ combat reflexes) against individual attacks. The barbarian does the lion's share of the damage although the cavalier is respectable (with a two handed weapon, full BAB and power attack). In combat the bard buffs the frontline with song and spells and then joins with ranged damage. The wizard casts spells to isolate and distract enemies allowing the frontline to do their job even more efficiently.
thanks everyone for the advice :D
I'll work all of this into a google document next week, so keep it coming even if I don't reply during the weekend
I'll sort through everything next week and try to write something nice and usefull for beginners and habit-cursed people :-D
|
I have, at times, thought of party building like building a pokemon team.
The PCs should sync, in one way or another, each having the ability to cover another PC's weakness. Tactics should work together, and each member should have a back-up plan if one is out of commission.
Items help with this process as well.
Also, if you have the time/energy maybe a section on how this advice is different for parties of non-standard sizes (3 vs 5-7). My experience is that there is a lot more room for specialization in larger parties (esp. since the adjusted CR makes a single enemy encounter bigger/faster/better/stronger) and a smaller party might see better use of the hybrid classes in the APG and UC/UM (e.g. a party of an Inquisitor (ranged), Alchemist and Samurai would seem to cover a lot of bases). Or for CORE you might have a Bard, Barbarian and Druid, say.
You can run adventures fine with 4 clerics or similar roles nowadays really, it might just be more fun for each character to have it's niche, characters are far more flexible in their building then they were in D&D 1st edition but the role division still exists in people's mind, in part because it is cool in part because they are used to thinking that way.
4 Clerics would be pretty boss. Especially if the cleric who had the battle domain, had an INT of 13 and a STR of at least 13. Then he could get combat expertise and power attack. At level 8, watch the magic happen...
But I myself have been theory crafting an enitre group and the "classic" roles using nothing but the Ninja class, from Ultimate Combat. My inspiration originally coming from the champion Shen form League of Legends who is a ninja, but he is a tank and is capable of defending his fellow champions by taunting, dashing, teleportation and above all, staying alive despite taking immense amounts of damage.
So I want to see:
Stealth + Tank
Stealth + Magic
Stealth + Healing
and stealth plus stealth would be pointless to list at this point. Though a Magic+Tank would be cool. I've wanted to try a wizard-tank. I started on a build once but its difficult.
Remember, you can be a "ninja" without the any levels in the ninja class.
Restricting your character to the name of your class is a common mistake.
Don't I know it. However Stealth and Acrobatics are not class skills for a wizard.
My point of building them out of ninja, is to see how far I can bend the ninja class and for S's and G's, not because I believe ninja's can only be made from the ninja class.
However, when mking a ninja, the ninja class just might be a nice starting point. While rogues, and monks could make great ninjas, as well as some architypes of other classes like fighter could also do the job; Ninja just so happens to have profincieny in eastern weapons, stalth, acrobatics, poison use, sneak attack, and a few over odds and ends that make it easier as a starting point.
Here is an example of an unusual party that I'm playing in:
1) Dwarf Paladin. Our only strong front-line melee tank. Also healer for the party with Lay On Hands and the ubiquitous Wand of CLW.
2) Elf Rogue/Wizard. Rogue 4/Wizard 1 with a Magical Knack +2 caster level in Wizard spells. Our scout (stealth at full speed). In battles she switches between range or melee, whatever is needed. Has the very useful Detect Magic cantrip and a ton of skills including Spellcraft.
3) Human Bow Ranger. Excellent damage dealer. Working towards Improved Snap Shot (threat range 15 feet). Animal Companion (small cat - cougar) works well with the paladin by flanking and tripping opponents.
Thats the core party. We have a 4th party member (Human Inquisitor) who plays sporadically due to his working hours.
One weakness I see is that we don't have much area of effect spells for handling masses of weaker enemies. So far it hasn't been an issue.
Just to let you guys know I'm working on it :-) I'm also taking some advice from some heated discussion-threads into this as some of these have good advice.