|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Title says it all. What do you consider the main roles that you think should be filled in any Pathfinder party?
I play almost entirely Pathfinder Society, and I have a wide variety of characters, most of them low level. So I frequently sit down at low level tables and ask what everyone else is playing, then decide which character I'll play based on what roles need to be covered. I pretty much always start by asking "Do we have a healer, and do we have enough front liners?"
It just seems to me that having at least one person capable of at least using a wand of cure light wounds is necessary. That, and you need at least one or two meat shields up front to keep the bad guys off the archers and casters. There's a large variety of meat shield types, whether they're armored tanks who focus on AC or heavy hitters who focus on damage output. But having someone up front for the bad guys to trade melee blows with instead of the squishies is essential.
But how often do you wish you had an archer in the group when that role isn't filled? It's a possible role, and they can be handy to have around for the sake of high damage output, but it's not something you really miss when it's not there. After all, the barbarian on the front line might be your heavy hitter for damage output instead, and then you don't need the damage from an archer as badly.
I can maybe see needing an arcane caster. I played a level 8-9 adventure in PFS recently, and we didn't have an arcane caster, despite having 7 players. My level 6 cleric was the only full caster at the table. And there were times when we wished we had more variety of spells, instead of having three rangers and two rogues. But at lower levels, having full casters isn't quite as important, as long as you have someone with detect magic.
And party face is probably important for any adventure that's not a pure dungeon crawl. It's not something I ask about when planning what to play, but we usually have at least some coverage in that area at every PFS table. Although that might also be because a lot of my characters have high charisma (2 clerics, 2 sorcerers, a bard, an oracle, all with at least 14 cha), so I frequently bring that to the table myself without thinking about it.
What do the rest of you think?
| 42 people marked this as a favorite. |
My approach to party roles is not based on what needs to be done rather than having a particular class or type of class. Bellow is what I consider the roles that need to be covered and what you need to do to cover the role. Many if not all characters will be able to cover more than one role. The roles are not in the order of importance as you will probably need someone to cover all the roles. Healing is one of the most misunderstood roles. Most people only worry about hp damage, but that is the easiest thing to deal with.
Healer
• HP loss
• Ability Damage
• Fatigue
• Exhaustion
• Negative Levels
• Ability Drain
• Blindness
• Deafness
• Disease
• Curse
• Poison
• Death
Ranged Combat
• Handle CR appropriate threats at ranges greater than 30 feet, or against flying or otherwise inaccessible opponents.
Close Combat
• Handle CR appropriate threats ranging from adjacent square to 30 feet.
Area Damage
• Deal damage over an area (Mainly for Swarms)
Traps
• Locate and neutralize both mechanical and Magical Traps
Intelligence
• Locate and gather information about opponents
• Detect Magic
• Identify Items especially magic items
• Navigation both above and below ground
Defensive Magic
• Provide protection vs. elemental damage
• Provide protection from mental control
• Remove hostile magic
• Counteract opponents magic
Battle Field Control
• Hinder or disable opponents
• Restrict or control opponents and opponents movement
• Provide Support for your teammates.
Movement
• Pursue and avoid enemies
• Overcome obstacles
• Maneuver on and under water
Social
• Interact with NPC
• Gather Information
Agree with above^
I don't see it has changed much over the 30+ years I have been playing. You have to have the 4 base classes:
FTR
CLR
WIZ
ROG
The rest are fill ins and play secondary roles. Players today want to play all these specialty classes, but the roles get unfulfilled.
RGR and SOR are next best fill ins as they provide area of affect and ranged abiltied.
DRD, MNK and BRD are largely experience point wholes.
I don't see it has changed much over the 30+ years I have been playing. You have to have the 4 base classes:
FTR
CLR
WIZ
ROG
The rest are fill ins and play secondary roles. Players today want to play all these specialty classes, but the roles get unfulfilled.
RGR and SOR are next best fill ins as they provide area of affect and ranged abiltied.
DRD, MNK and BRD are largely experience point wholes.
In the days of 1st edition AD&D your roles may fit, but that is no longer true in pathfinder. Classes are not roles anymore than walls are homes. What matters is that your character can get the job done not what is written on the class description line on the character sheet.
The rogue is a perfect example of what I mean. A rogue is mechanically the weakest class in the game. I can build a urban ranger or a archeologist bard that is a way better "Thief" than any rogue. A life Oracle will be a better healer than any cleric. Both the druid and the witch are incredibly versatile classes.
What role does a fighter, cleric, wizard or rogue have that can't be covered by another class? Sorcerer's are full arcane casters with the same spell list as a wizard. Oracles also have the same spell list as clerics so not really much difference. True both are spontaneous casters but there are both advantages and disadvantages to that.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it has changed much over the 30+ years I have been playing. You have to have the 4 base classes:
FTR
CLR
WIZ
ROG
The rest are fill ins and play secondary roles. Players today want to play all these specialty classes, but the roles get unfulfilled.
RGR and SOR are next best fill ins as they provide area of affect and ranged abiltied.
DRD, MNK and BRD are largely experience point wholes.
Please tell me more about how Druids suck and Rogues rule.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread just headed South. LOL
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
My party includes a Paladin, a Barbarian, a Bard, a Battle Cleric, and a Synthesist Summoner. We lose every encounter because without a Fighter we just can't deal enough damage because we don't have anyone who fills the "hit things" role. I guess that's because we're all spoiled brats who want to play all these other classes when any true roleplayer would know that the original classic party is the only viable one.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a lawn to be told to get off.
My party includes a Paladin, a Barbarian, a Bard, a Battle Cleric, and a Synthesist Summoner. We lose every encounter because without a Fighter we just can't deal enough damage because we don't have anyone who fills the "hit things" role. I guess that's because we're all spoiled brats who want to play all these other classes when any true roleplayer would know that the original classic party is the only viable one.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a lawn to be told to get off.
I know what you mean. The group I GM for consists of a barbarian, magus, witch, inquisitor, ranger, and cleric. They're barely able to squeak by because the cleric carries the party while the rest of them flail around ineffectively.
I have only been in one long-term adventuring party that struggled from day one. The group was all melee and one archer. The melee heavy chemistry was fun for me, but the lack of a character who can lob out an area spell even once in a while hampered us time and time again.
Somethign I've been working on that's highly relevant.
Mysterious stranger's post is excellent at covering your bases. But you can be surprised what you can go without as well. The document I presented presents the very most basic things needed for combat. everything else is an expansion from that.
Note: I do not play PFS the the below applies to home games...
I personally don't think there are any roles that "must" be filled. There are a few that are nice to be filled but none that are required. At a home game hopfully your GM will design encounters that are challenging for the roles that you do have covered. Infact I alot of ways having a role not covered can make a party more intresting/fun. like not having a healer for example will force outside the box thinking and a completely diffrent approach to encounters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't think there are any roles that "must" be filled.
Try doing combat when your group cannot deal damage.
Almost no role is really necessary and there are ways around everything.
Campaign where I am the master has an oracle (who can heal), a bard, a fighter and a barbarian. It works: the bard can heal and can do roguish stuff (out of necessity now), the oracle can heal and cast spells, the fighter and the barbarian are the meatshields. There are two users for wands of CLW or CMW and lesser restoration. A bit more costly, but workable without a cleric and without an arcane caster (although the oracle and bard can help there with utility spells)
Current Campaign where I am a player (Way of the Wicked, evil campaign): Antipaladin, Alchemist (me), Rogue/Ranger gestalt (with -2 ECL), Sorcerer. No cleric again and we are almost level 4 and haven't missed it (at all). We just play a bit more tactical and smart! The rogue in this campaign is essential and our DM told us so, the rest was free to choose.
I've been in D&D for 15+ years and was also a fervent believer of the 'holy foursome': cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue. No thing is less true aparently. All classes are just nice to have!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said at the start of the thread, the two roles I consider essential are healer and front liner. But healer could mean anything from positive channeling cleric to "Everyone be sure you have plenty of cure potions for yourself".
But I do consider front liners essential. I once joined a campaign with 6 players, and we intentionally spent our first session together creating our characters together and made a point of balancing the party roles. Then, the first actual playing session came, and the two players of front line melee types didn't show up that day. The rest of us tried playing without them, with our two squishy casters, archery focused rogue, and an archery focused bard. Despite being dex focused, and thus sucking with melee weapons, my bard ended up trying to be the meat shield, because the high dex and size bonus (halfling) gave me the best AC in the group. It was pretty pathetic. That group never had a second playing session, though that had more to do with the people not showing up than the problems in playing that first session with those PCs.
Everything else really does seem optional, or at least dependent on the adventure/campaign. That's why I was asking for more opinions.
Like I said, I have a bunch of PFS characters, and I've sat down at tables and decided to play a healer because the table needed it, or a front liner if we didn't have one or only had one. But I've never pulled out my sorcerers, or an archer character, because of a need to fill those roles.
The answer to this question is "It depends."
I think the better approach to the situation is pick what you want to play and then ask the question "What role am I going to play with this character?"
Because as someone mentioned there are different approaches to everything, and the DM isn't going to stand by and let your party starve to death just because you made some mistakes in the inception.
There are a few recommendations though, for instance, if you're a Rogue you're going to want a Flanking buddy, which almost necessitates good BSF (Big Strong Fighter.) If you're a Wizard, you're going to want someone you can sprinkle buffs on and rearrange the battleground around, and for that you're going to want a good BSF. If you're a Cleric or Bard you're going to want someone who can actually do damage so you can improve that damage with your spell casting and general usefulness, and the best person to fit that role is the BSF.
Actually, if I were to pick an essential Role, it'd be every party should have a BSF, and then other party members should be supporting that BSF in one way or another (Even if it's just providing even more damage.)
A Monk, A rogue that can disarm traps and a fighter.
A Monk, A rogue that can disarm traps and a fighter.
And a Dhampir Paladin who is not literally Superman in every way.
No no, if you have a fighter you don't need a paladin. This has already been proven.
Roughly there are three roles in Pathfinder:
* Physical (or no SR) melee/ranged damage output characters.
* Characters that assist/summon physical (or no SR) melee/ranged damage output characters.
* The character with the highest perception score.
My party includes a Paladin, a Barbarian, a Bard, a Battle Cleric, and a Synthesist Summoner. We lose every encounter because without a Fighter we just can't deal enough damage because we don't have anyone who fills the "hit things" role. I guess that's because we're all spoiled brats who want to play all these other classes when any true roleplayer would know that the original classic party is the only viable one.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a lawn to be told to get off.
Wait what ? The Synthesist should be able to multi-attack anything to shreds, unless very poorly built. The Barbarian should dish out quite a bit too.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait what ? The Synthesist should be able to multi-attack anything to shreds, unless very poorly built. The Barbarian should dish out quite a bit too.My party includes a Paladin, a Barbarian, a Bard, a Battle Cleric, and a Synthesist Summoner. We lose every encounter because without a Fighter we just can't deal enough damage because we don't have anyone who fills the "hit things" role. I guess that's because we're all spoiled brats who want to play all these other classes when any true roleplayer would know that the original classic party is the only viable one.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a lawn to be told to get off.
I suddenly hear a "whhhoooshhhing" sound, as if something is very rapidly passing over your head.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait what ? The Synthesist should be able to multi-attack anything to shreds, unless very poorly built. The Barbarian should dish out quite a bit too.My party includes a Paladin, a Barbarian, a Bard, a Battle Cleric, and a Synthesist Summoner. We lose every encounter because without a Fighter we just can't deal enough damage because we don't have anyone who fills the "hit things" role. I guess that's because we're all spoiled brats who want to play all these other classes when any true roleplayer would know that the original classic party is the only viable one.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a lawn to be told to get off.
It's called sarcasm. I know it translates poorly in text but I promise you it's there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here are the roles that are essential:
Damage doer
Next question?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Title says it all. What do you consider the main roles that you think should be filled in any Pathfinder party?
I play almost entirely Pathfinder Society, and I have a wide variety of characters, most of them low level. So I frequently sit down at low level tables and ask what everyone else is playing, then decide which character I'll play based on what roles need to be covered. I pretty much always start by asking "Do we have a healer, and do we have enough front liners?"
It just seems to me that having at least one person capable of at least using a wand of cure light wounds is necessary. That, and you need at least one or two meat shields up front to keep the bad guys off the archers and casters. There's a large variety of meat shield types, whether they're armored tanks who focus on AC or heavy hitters who focus on damage output. But having someone up front for the bad guys to trade melee blows with instead of the squishies is essential.
But how often do you wish you had an archer in the group when that role isn't filled? It's a possible role, and they can be handy to have around for the sake of high damage output, but it's not something you really miss when it's not there. After all, the barbarian on the front line might be your heavy hitter for damage output instead, and then you don't need the damage from an archer as badly.
I can maybe see needing an arcane caster. I played a level 8-9 adventure in PFS recently, and we didn't have an arcane caster, despite having 7 players. My level 6 cleric was the only full caster at the table. And there were times when we wished we had more variety of spells, instead of having three rangers and two rogues. But at lower levels, having full casters isn't quite as important, as long as you have someone with detect magic.
And party face is probably important for any adventure that's not a pure dungeon crawl. It's not something I ask about when planning what to play, but we usually have at least some coverage in that area at every PFS table....
We have a smaller party, four members.
There's me, the arcane caster/party face/skill monkey, there's our dwarf, he's the meat shield/damage dealer/smith/parkour expert, there's the Druid, our healer/summoner/animal translator and until our bard/pirate/lush/jar of ashes gets resurrected, if she can, we're acquiring an albino drow.
So in smaller parties, you sometimes need to fill multiple roles.
Man is an albino drow just like a way of getting to play a drow without having to deal with playing a drow?
|
|
It's rather humorous to see people obsessed with the "Holy X" (For table tops, the Holy Foursome, for MMOs, the Holy Trinity). Party makeup has become extremely variable; In Pathfinder Home Games, it's easier to get a legitimately solid party without having dedicated X. For example, a friday night home game I play in, has no healer. A Sorcerer, A Human Fighter with a Gnomish Battle Ladder (This is a thing.), A Paladin (who has already been thrown into an insane asylum), and a Rogue.
We lost the Sorcerer when he decided to Rage Quit over an in character remark about his hardly opaque greed, and picked up nothing. I believe we're scheduled to get a Ranger; but there is no dedicated healer, we currently have no actual caster; aside from the Rogue (which I play) which has a moderate UMD for his level.
Nothing short of a party of 4 Orcs with character levels (First encounter of the session), to a Demon-possessed Cleric/Oracle[Not sure which at this point] (recent encounter), has managed to put us down. Several encounters between the two have yet to kill us. While this doesn't disprove the trinity or foursome; it does lend credence to the fact that in pathfinder; having a party of Jacks, as opposed to a group of Aces, is equally as feasible.
|
|
In my 30+ years of gaming, there is only one absolutely necessary role at all levels: healer. Whether this is a cleric, or simply a rogue with a high UMD and wand, you can't effectively adventure without someone who can heal.
Everything else in the party simply involves adjusting tactics. Party mostly melee types? Try to pick your battles where you can engage quickly. Retreat if necessary. You may end up in bad situations anyway, but such is the price of adventuring.
A few other roles that are important, but not absolutely necessary:
Focused damage dealer (melee or ranged)
Spotter/scout
Buffer
Battlefield controller (area damage/walls/illusions/etc)
Party face (the diplomat/info gatherer)
Transporter (very important at high levels)
My two cents. YMMV
essential: Basic or indispensable; necessary
There is only one function that is required to play PF. Doing damage. If you don't reduce your opponent to zero hit points, you don't win encounters.
Everything else is support.
That's what "essential" means.
Not "useful". Not "desirable". Not "generally agreed on".
You don't have to heal to win encounters.
You don't have to cast spells to win encounters.
You don't have to buff to win encounters.
You HAVE to damage your enemies.
Rather than assigning mutually exclusive roles (Striker, Controller, etc.) I prefer to list the necessary tasks. Ideally, the most important tasks can be done by all party members, and the less important tasks are covered by at least one party member. Then there are optional tasks, things that are great to have if someone wants to play them or if the particular campaign or GM calls for them, but which you can complete most campaigns without.
.
1) Enemy Removal - Defeat each enemy. (Melee, ranged, or spell damage; SOL spells, etc.)
2) Battlefield Control - Prevent the enemy from removing you before you remove them. (combat mobility; magic or other effects that defend the party or render enemies temporarily vulnerable or non-threatening, etc.)
3) Party Recovery - Be ready for the next round of combat. (Hit point healing, ability healing, condition removal, and death reversal.)
Mostly in order= Battle-field controller. Tank (blocks foes, does damger in melee). Party booster. Ranged damage dealer. Healer (in combat) . Skill monkey-scout. Face.
Many of these can be combined. A cleric can do the more critical role of party booster, do a little tanking and still provide the occasional in combat healing. Skill Monkeys can be faces. Arcane casters can do both Battle-field controller/Ranged damage dealer. In a classic dungeon crawl the skill-monkey/scout is more critical.
Bbn= Tank.
Bard=Booster & face, and with archetypes skill monkey.
Cleric=Battle-field controller. Tank. Party booster. Healer (in combat)
Fighter= Tank
Ranger= Tank, Skill monkey/scout
Pally= Tank, healer
Wiz/Sorc= Battle-field controller. Ranged damage dealer.
A lot of people seem to think you do not need to cover roles. On poster was stating they did not have a healer, but listed a paladin as one of the four party members. I hate to tell him but they do in fact have a healer. The fact he can do more than just heal does not mean he is not filling the role of a healer. You may not need a character dedicated to solely to a single role, but the role does need to be covered. As I stated most if not all characters should be able to cover more than one role. How the role is covered or how much of the role needs to be covered will depend on the campaign and the group itself, but the need to cover the role is always there.
Certain roles are more easily covered by certain classes but I can't think of a single role that could not be covered multiple ways. Another assumption people are making is you need to be specialized in a role to cover it. Ranged combat is one area where this seems most prevalent. While having a archer focused character is nice any full BAB class with martial weapon proficiency can cover this roll. While you may not do the same damage as a full out archer you can pick up a bow and shoot the enemy.
My approach is to look at the challenges you will need to overcome and figure a way to overcome them. Even with perfect tactics your party will probably become injured, and will need someone to fix you up so you can keep going. If the enemy is fleeing and you can't catch them having some ranged attacks may allow you to take them out. Without having a way to gather information you may miss the whole adventure. Does this mean you need a cleric, fighter and a rogue? No a alchemist, bard, paladin or witch can easily fill in for the cleric. Your ranged combatant could be a ranger, monk, sorcerer, or almost anything able to deal damage at range. Instead of the rogue you could have a cleric, bard, paladin, sorcerer, or even a wizard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
essential: Basic or indispensable; necessary
There is only one function that is required to play PF. Doing damage. If you don't reduce your opponent to zero hit points, you don't win encounters.
Everything else is support.
That's what "essential" means.
Not "useful". Not "desirable". Not "generally agreed on".
You don't have to heal to win encounters.
You don't have to cast spells to win encounters.
You don't have to buff to win encounters.You HAVE to damage your enemies.
I would disagree with this. Not all encounters need to be defeated by killing the other party. Some encounters are not about defeating someone but about getting information from them, or causing them to do something. Killing the guy who has the information you need to get to the next step of the adventure does not really work well. Some challenges do not even include anyone to fight. Kind of hard to fight the river you need to cross, or the cliff you need to climb.
"One could argue" anything. But it would be a fairly obvious stretch to any reasonable player to assert that you can defeat most encounters without doing damage.
It is one of my little annoying quirks that I think words have actual meanings. "Essential" means something. What this thread has become (and was probably intended to be) is "what are the most effective roles within a party?"
My own take on the most effective roles within a party is that is entirely dependent on what strategy and tactics the group employs. If the party is highly tactically proficient and understands that Pathfinder combat is essentially a resource management endeavor, then the most effective roles will be entirely different than if the party is focused on charging into combat and laying waste with all they have at their disposal.
Or, to put it another way, there is no answer to the question because different approaches require different roles to be effective.
Man is an albino drow just like a way of getting to play a drow without having to deal with playing a drow?
I dunno.
I've seen a lot weirder, we already had a halfling rogue with a 7 Dex.
I once played a cleric whose deity was her battle axe.
The axe's name was Steve, every inn we stayed at I put the Book of Steve in every room.
The axe could cast fireball and cure mod wounds.
And I was the normal one in the party.
So yeah, I've seen weirder.
|
Almost no role is really necessary and there are ways around everything.
Campaign where I am the master has an oracle (who can heal), a bard, a fighter and a barbarian. It works: the bard can heal and can do roguish stuff (out of necessity now), the oracle can heal and cast spells, the fighter and the barbarian are the meatshields. There are two users for wands of CLW or CMW and lesser restoration. A bit more costly, but workable without a cleric and without an arcane caster (although the oracle and bard can help there with utility spells)
Current Campaign where I am a player (Way of the Wicked, evil campaign): Antipaladin, Alchemist (me), Rogue/Ranger gestalt (with -2 ECL), Sorcerer. No cleric again and we are almost level 4 and haven't missed it (at all). We just play a bit more tactical and smart! The rogue in this campaign is essential and our DM told us so, the rest was free to choose.
I've been in D&D for 15+ years and was also a fervent believer of the 'holy foursome': cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue. No thing is less true aparently. All classes are just nice to have!
Amen. Some of you think/worry way too much about the 'proper group arrangement'. I've leveled my BardBarian all the way up to level 10 in PFS with only having an actual "healer" a handful of times in the group (And no, my guy would only use a CLW wand inbetween fights for healing). And by healer I meant someone who would heal during fights. Myself and ranger wife would only spot heal with wands between the fights. And we did great... it just takes playing a little slower and being a lot smarter, especially with what you buy (that paizo blog post a month ago was spectacular).
And yes, it did pain me everytime I had to step out of the fight to cure serious stat damage or drink a CSW potion... took a little longer, but hey, I never died.
Thock
essential: Basic or indispensable; necessary
There is only one function that is required to play PF. Doing damage. If you don't reduce your opponent to zero hit points, you don't win encounters.
Everything else is support.
That's what "essential" means.
Not "useful". Not "desirable". Not "generally agreed on".
You don't have to heal to win encounters.
You don't have to cast spells to win encounters.
You don't have to buff to win encounters.You HAVE to damage your enemies.
Normally I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. Then we had our game this past weekend. The whole group failed a save vs sun burst. Four 7th level PCs sitting in a dungeon, permanently blind with a group of high CR opponents closing in. It should have been a TPK, but the DM didn't feel like scrapping the campaign.
Unless I'm mistaken only a dedicated cleric or oracle would have had access to Remove Blindness.
Of course, we could have had a cleric with us and if he didn't have that exact spell prepared, we'd have been toast too. Sometimes, the dice just aren't in your favor.
|
I know what you mean. The group I GM for consists of a barbarian, magus, witch, inquisitor, ranger, and cleric. They're barely able to squeak by because the cleric carries the party while the rest of them flail around ineffectively.My party includes a Paladin, a Barbarian, a Bard, a Battle Cleric, and a Synthesist Summoner. We lose every encounter because without a Fighter we just can't deal enough damage because we don't have anyone who fills the "hit things" role. I guess that's because we're all spoiled brats who want to play all these other classes when any true roleplayer would know that the original classic party is the only viable one.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a lawn to be told to get off.
Snarkiness aside, the OP was correct. You need those 4 roles filled, F, Cl, Th, Wiz.....otherwise you will eventually suffer. Doesnt mean you cant have a party without them, but things dont go as smooth.
Our original party 5 years ago of 6 people was Cleric, F/CL, Wiz, Rouge, Barbarian and Bard. Which worked great....until the Rogue player moved away...then anything ssearching or trap based we suffered. Barbarian took over the searching role, but we got hit with traps that spells couldnt cover. That was eventually covered by the urban ranger/scout. Until he died.
You dont necessarily need the 4 square, but their roles need to be covered one way or teh other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first time I brought my new cleric to a PFS game they were all "Yes! A Healer!" untill the DM informed them that I worshipped Urgathoa and therefore could only channel negative. From that, they assumed I would be practically useless, and not able to do anything usefull (by usefull, I mean be their bandaid!) However, by taking the Death (Undeath subdomain) I could safely use channeling or inflict spells to heal the party, my Undead minion (I was an Undead Lord in the days when this was legal!) was a dire rat skeleton (later Bloody - yay for immortal minions!) that I used to flank and assist action. My channeling was usually my main form of attack (covered most of the battle area in PFS, does a moderate amount of damage to most creatures, unlike spells it does not provoke, and later on took a feat that let me add a Shaken effect to the damage) which my group laughingly refered to as my "Fart of Darkness". Against Undead, I was able to bend the weaker ones to my will, making the party stronger and the enemy weaker simultaneously. After the rules-change making UL's illegal I supplemented my lack of minion with short lived summons (just as effective) and gained the Magic (Divine Subdomain) and the ability to give my group a floating "buff" as a swift action.
So what was I? Healer? Damager? Buffer? Debuffer? Battlefield control? I was any one of those things at any given time, though oddly many people prefered to ask either the Pally or bard for healing. Odd that.
Normally I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. Then we had our game this past weekend. The whole group failed a save vs sun burst. Four 7th level PCs sitting in a dungeon, permanently blind with a group of high CR opponents closing in. It should have been a TPK, but the DM didn't feel like scrapping the campaign.
Unless I'm mistaken only a dedicated cleric or oracle would have had access to Remove Blindness.
Of course, we could have had a cleric with us and if he didn't have that exact spell prepared, we'd have been toast too. Sometimes, the dice just aren't in your favor.
Alchemist has it, as well as Paladin. I have a 8th level cohort Alchemist and he actually has this prepared- once a day. I can't see a Paladin preparing it, but at 12th level, it's a great mercy to have. OTOH, if you had been 12th level.....
OTHO, what were you guys doing facing down a 15th level bad guy?
Normally I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point. Then we had our game this past weekend. The whole group failed a save vs sun burst. Four 7th level PCs sitting in a dungeon, permanently blind with a group of high CR opponents closing in. It should have been a TPK, but the DM didn't feel like scrapping the campaign.
Unless I'm mistaken only a dedicated cleric or oracle would have had access to Remove Blindness.
Of course, we could have had a cleric with us and if he didn't have that exact spell prepared, we'd have been toast too. Sometimes, the dice just aren't in your favor.
Alchemist has it, as well as Paladin. I have a 8th level cohort Alchemist and he actually has this prepared- once a day. I can't see a Paladin preparing it, but at 12th level, it's a great mercy to have. OTOH, if you had been 12th level.....
OTHO, what were you guys doing facing down a 15th level bad guy?
Actually I mistyped, we were only 6th level at this encounter. At that level, only a cleric or oracle would have that spell. We have a paladin, but he won't have access for a while.
As for how we got in that situation, we are playing Council of Thieves.
But none of them are fighters. Because we were fools and chose classes that didn't exist in 1974, it is physically impossible for us to win because we don't have the word "fighter" on any of our character sheets. Brvheart was right: these silly specialty classes are too busy focusing on things that don't matter like basketweaving to be able to even touch most enemies. Can you argue with 30+ years of experience? I certainly can't.