So...I'm about to get started with a campaign (will be balancing it with my other campaign) with two other players and a DM. Our Bard has decided that she will NOT engage in combat...AT ALL...our other PC is a Rogue...so, I must choose a class. I'm having a hard time deciding between a martial class to pick up our slack on melee damage (or go archer) and a spellcasting class. Help...?
Master Summoner who spams the field with melee critters? That would give some arcane casting power, too. A fighting Cleric? I'm not familiar but people love the Evangelist that would fulfill a similar role as the Master Summoner. A Druid who Summons?
If you go archer, who fills the front line?
What levels do you start and finish at?
If I were to go archer...it would leave my Rogue buddy all alone in melee...I could go Druid...that may help a bit...my DM did say that Shifters could be used...so maybe I'll use a shifter and make a Barbarian?
Fill both roles. Druid, cleric, oracle, inquisitor, magus, summoner, or possibly another bard would let you flank with the rogue while still being able to cast when needed. By "AT ALL" do you mean that the bard isn't planning on attacking things or that she isn't planning on doing anything useful at all (buffs, debuffs, healing, bard stuff, etc.)?
Barbarians are awesome, however with the lower AC (vs a fighter or Paladin) they get hit alot, so they usually need a good healer backing them up.
With the party you described I would either go Summoner or Paladin. Both can hold a front line, a paladin can supply some healing and divine casting. The summoner can also provide some arcane backup. Given that you have a non-combat bard Yuriel would probably be better served with a divine caster over an arcane.
@Bearded Ben: To quote the bard "I'll just hide in a barrel or behind hay sacks or something"...yes, friends...this is our bard...
@Jay: I was thinking Paladin, but the more I think about it, the more I like Druid...dunno why...maybe the whole Divine Gish thing goin on
Synth Summoner might be good too. You get spells but also more than enough front line power.
Mr. Hyde Alchemist could do something along those lines, but more support than full on spells.
Paladin works well.
Magus perhaps. They're meant to be front liners after all.
Master Summoner also a good choice. A bunch of bodies on the field makes flanking easier for the rogue sometimes.
Plenty of options that offer a bit of both melee and magic. Good luck.
Summoner, Druid, Magus and Such would be perfect.
druid focused on shapeshifting with an animal companion would work, with spells focused on buffing or summoning, preferably buffing since you will technically be 2 melee characters anyway.
Just from reading your post it looks like you want to be a spellcaster. There are a couple ways to do this, Magus probably being the easist. Other ways would include a melee type bard, druid, synth summoner, or even a draconic sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AM BARBARIAN...never a bad choice.What does AM mean?
As near as I could ever tell it means one of two things (or maybe both). First is 'anti magic' barbarian. That is if the barbarian sees a caster he goes into a rage and kills it. The other definition I've come up with is that it is ape speak for 'I am a barbarian' so it's simply shortened to AM BARBARIAN.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AM BARBARIAN was a specific barbarian build that went around the board that was basically the best that the boards could come up with as a counter to the hypothetical wizard that could have anything prepared. He is also a character that was never meant to be played, was incomplete with only estimates of his final stats, and is used as a joke around the boards.
EDIT: This appears to be the most complete form I could find.
Pala/sorc/dd!
Or something summoning.
Or battle Oracle.
I would not want to play with a npc summoner:P
Whyis your bard doing this?
He will probably get bored soon - maybe another game would be mor "his thing"
Another option -- one most people probably won't like -- is to make the entire party a non-combat party that focuses entirely on avoiding or escaping combat. The rogue can go full-out skill focused. The bard can focus on non-combat spells and skills that complement the rogue. I'd say a wizard probably adds the most to this group. You get a big selection of non-combat abilities combined with lots of escape spells.
It's certainly not an "optimal" solution in the context of classic D&D/PF, but it is a possibility.
Edit: basically 1a) in the post above (:
I would seriously consider the in game consequences for your bards actions (or rather non-action). As long as this campaign is not very rp- and diplomacy-heavy, the beard is not going to pull his/her weight at all. The only proper reaction in game would be to send him/her home and tell him/her to go play in a tavern or something. What does one want with a character who doesn't participate in combat AT ALL in pathfinder? Wrong system much...
I would explain to the person that if he/she that ur grp is already shorthanded at 3 players and that they dont get involved with combat then tpks will become frequent.. After that if things dont change leave the bard and make said player play somthing else.. After that remove said player from ur grp entirely and go 2 man.. A few years back we had a similar player do this.. It was the wife of the gm and while she didnt refuse to attack, she certainly didnt pull her weight and would run at the first sign of things not going our way.. Several times she would run and we would finish the fight, afterwards she would come walking back appoligizing for her cowardly ways.. This went on till we removed her character from the grp... I honestly believe she just didnt want her characters to die so would run.. Your player might have the same thing going on..
|
Be a Paladin.
Kick some butt and while you are at it, after a combat that nearly sees you all dead because of the Bard's action/inaction, make it very clear that their behaviour is threatening the safety of the party and the mission at hand. They need to decide to get involved or get out, because if they continue along their current path their actions will be considered a threat to the safety of the party, such a threat will be dealt with. Permenantly.
Summoner or summoning druid. 1 person party :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are more issues at work here. Talk to the bard player and see why she doesn't want to fight. It could be that she has a very different idea of how the game will play out. If she is going to go out of her way to avoid combat, and the other two players are doing the opposite, at least one of the three players will not be having a good time. Involve the DM as well to figure out what will be the focus of the campaign before you just whip up a combat-optimized opposite of the bard.
Also, shaming and brow-beating the bard player will NOT help the situation.
It's a roleplaying game. If someone wants to take up a role of a pacifist...<shrug>
It's like the barbarian with nothing but a focus on melee. If the game revolves around diplomacy then they'll become a master of spinning their dice and twiddling their thumbs, as this player will be if your game is combat heavy.
If they're cool with that then all the power to them.
p.s. Just because you avoid combat does not mean that combat avoids you :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, talk to the Bard, and figure out what she expects from the game, and how the GM feels about that. In fact, involve all players. It's good to agree on what the game's about before you start. Is it going to be mostly about combat? Or is combat going to be avoidable?
With a rogue and a bard, a stealthy combat-avoiding group is definitely a possibility. It could be a very social and investigation focused campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This really is best solved in a non-game method. Talk to the bard, talk to the dm. Figure out what people want out of the game. If the player just thinks its an amusing way to roleplay the character, you should explain to her that it isnt acceptable for a pc in a small group to deliberately not contribute to a challenge. You dont bring dead weight into dangerous adventuring type situations.
Combat could also take a long time. She is going to get bored sitting there doing nothing for half an hour hiding in a barrel. This can end up being more disruptive then just restricting character options.
plus man you can just have super fun when you kick over her barrel and send it tumbling down a street with a slant to it.
|
|
Make a Human Druid. Select the "Eye for Talent" alternate racial trait and get a nice big animal companion to act as tank, granting it the +2 to a stat you get from Eye for Talent. Probably for Con or Str. You should be able to squeeze an average of at least 11HP out of any given animal companion at first level while still maintaining their damage-dealing capability.
With the above animal companion, you can go caster, melee or ranged as desired.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
just all hearing her go "asssss youuuuuuu wissssssshhhhhh!" as she tumbles away down the street in her barrel.
Oh Cary Elwes, you slay me!
You could do some sort of thievs guild/leverage campaign. You have your grifter/con-man (the bard) and your burlgar/thief (the rogue). You could either be the strong man/thug, or possibly the mastermind. Or you could be a cleric of a god of thieves. You solve problems not through combat (usually) but by being sneaky and out-thinking your opponents.
Go summoner.
You could do some sort of thievs guild/leverage campaign. You have your grifter/con-man (the bard) and your burlgar/thief (the rogue). You could either be the strong man/thug, or possibly the mastermind. Or you could be a cleric of a god of thieves. You solve problems not through combat (usually) but by being sneaky and out-thinking your opponents.
Bard: Grifter
Rogue: Thief/Hacker*Insert Class Here*: Mastermind/Hitter
Go Magus, Summoner, Alchemist, or (if available) Gunslinger.
1) Make a Paladin for the reasons pointed out elsewhere in the thread.
1a) Join the 'pacifist' club and be a paladin who's also very reluctant to engage in combat (not never ever but reluctant in the extreme) ... make sure all of you are well versed in the skills, abilities, and equipment for the art of escaping and evading capture (and encounters). I'm thinking of things like rally points for the inevitable retreats, funds left with temples/friends for healing or ransom demands, spare equipment and caches hidden near the adventure local etc..
1b) Get real focused/good at nonlethal combat and stealth to avoid fights. Be prepared for dealing with prisoners for when combats do happen. It would be a very different sort of campaign but go in whole hog with the whole avoiding combat and dealing permanent harm. All involved, PCs and DM, need to more or less be onboard with this for it to work.
That is a very interesting possibility. Would the DM be willing to scrap his plans and switch to an urban adventure? With a rogue, bard, and paladin, the party could work with the local law and bring a crimelord to justice. The fighting would be light: a few first-level thugs and an occasional assassin. When the fighting gets heavy, the party can be backed up by the city guard.
Maybe by the time the party leaves town, the bard will have acquired some courage.
A few years back we had a similar player do this.. It was the wife of the gm and while she didnt refuse to attack, she certainly didnt pull her weight ...
My wife plays a non-fighting bard in a campaign I run. Due to her health problems, she needed a character that could miss a few sessions without causing plot holes, so we designed a lyrakien bard. The lyrakien can pull her weight, since she weighs only a pound.
My wife is the eighth player; therefore, the party can afford a fifth wheel. Combat is pretty useless for a tiny lyrakien. Instead, she is a great scout and she buffs and hastes the party during combat. Next she would use Greater Dirty Trick, but with all the buffs and teamwork, combat seldom lasts past three rounds, even against CR APL+4 foes.
|
1) Make a Paladin for the reasons pointed out elsewhere in the thread.
1a) Join the 'pacifist' club and be a paladin who's also very reluctant to engage in combat (not never ever but reluctant in the extreme) ... make sure all of you are well versed in the skills, abilities, and equipment for the art of escaping and evading capture (and encounters). I'm thinking of things like rally points for the inevitable retreats, funds left with temples/friends for healing or ransom demands, spare equipment and caches hidden near the adventure local etc..
1b) Get real focused/good at nonlethal combat and stealth to avoid fights. Be prepared for dealing with prisoners for when combats do happen. It would be a very different sort of campaign but go in whole hog with the whole avoiding combat and dealing permanent harm. All involved, PCs and DM, need to more or less be onboard with this for it to work.That is a very interesting possibility. Would the DM be willing to scrap his plans and switch to an urban adventure? With a rogue, bard, and paladin, the party could work with the local law and bring a crimelord to justice. The fighting would be light: a few first-level thugs and an occasional assassin. When the fighting gets heavy, the party can be backed up by the city guard.
Maybe by the time the party leaves town, the bard will have acquired some courage.
Also seems like a good possible fit for paladins of Shelyn going by the Faiths of Purity code. And the Redeemer paladin archetype from the Advanced Race Guide, considering how potentially different they play from vanilla paladins.