|
So even though I am a newb to PFS I have been gaming since the 70s and one of my hot button issues is party balance. PFS, it seems, throws such concerns to the wind and lets the chips fall where they will. I kinda dig that vibe occasionally, but I noticed that recently when given the chance I used diplomacy to steer some upcoming sessions towards not having pc overlap in certain areas. These are not even sessions I'm running, just playing in.
Was I right, wrong, or a pebble in the ocean to do so?
|
There is nothing wrong with overlap. The most memorable encounters I've had have been with atypical party composition. ("4-man subtier 1-2 party consisting of 2 Monks and 2 Gunslingers? LET'S DO IT!")
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with politely noting the party may lack in a certain area and suggesting possible alternatives. Not everyone has options for a different tier, so you can always as a party compensate in other ways: No healer? Pots, Scrolls and Wands! No tank? Summons, tactics and buffs. No DPS? All of the above. No skills peeps? Aid another when possible.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Different tables, different expectations.
Speaking for myself, I like having some overlap once in a while. My paladin appreciates the company of other paladins. My magus likes to trade spells and swordfighting tips with others of his ilk.
I got to play my paladin/hellknight in "Order of the Nail" this past weekend. The table included another paladin, a monk, a battle-oriented druid, and a barbarian. We had a lot of overlap in strengths, and there were gaps in our talents. ("What are these 'spells' you speak of?") But that odd concentration, and the emphasis on law versus chaos amid our party contributed to the spirit of adventure at the table. That camraderie would have been lost if we'd chosen to play a better-balanced party with a wizard and a rogue and a cleric, and ...
|
There's nothing wrong with trying to put together a balanced party if that's important to you. However, weigh your desires carefully against the ability of everyone to have fun. If you refuse to play in an party that doesn't have all the roles covered, does that mean that the table doesn't make and your fellow players don't get to play?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I may offer an opinion, the problem is rarely an unbalanced table. More often, the problem is unbalanced characters. For example, a barbarian who can't do anything but attack and put their single skill rank at each level into Intimidate usually contributes very well to the party in combat, but in a non-combat situation they'll quickly get bored. Or worse, an enchanter fighting vermin who didn't prepare any non-mind-affecting spells. Someone said something I really like: You should have one thing your character is great at, and at least two things your character is good at, so that you can always contribute to the table.
A table with four fighters who can all do several things well can easily do better than a table with a highly specialized fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. PFS is a great environment for "fifth man" characters because they can always fit in at a table.
|
|
Season 4 scenarios and no in-combat healing. Can be very bad.
While potions and wands are nice, when you take 61 hp in the first round of combat and you only have 60 hp, that potion isnt going to help much.
Seasons 0-3 table makeup isnt much of an issue. Season 4 combats have gotten a lot harder so table makeup can be a big issue.
|
Just to be clear here, the overlap was specifically 2 Bards in the same party... which made me flinch in a VERY knee jerk reaction.
Agreed. That's why I have another low-level character besides my bard. Especially since there's a bunch of low-level bards locally for some strange reason.
It's also why I'm considering building an archivist bard. The bonuses stack with bard song IIRC.
|
|
So far the group I play with is pretty heavy sided, there are 6 of us as a regular group of PFS players.
We have 3 clerics, 2 of which have the healing domain and of those guys is a Merciful Healer. All three of them channel positive energy. We have an Evocation Wizard, a Time Oracle and my Dwarven Stonelord Paladin.
4 of the six of us are Silver Crusade.
Our fights are pretty stacked into the "How many buffs can we apply before we start overlapping" category.
We have some issues with traps and varied skilled situations, any charisma based challenges we can handle pretty easily though. Not very good at sneaking or balancing.
Overall we almost all overlap each other in some way but we make it work and we've yet come close to failure or death in a scenario.
I have a PFS bard (flagbearer) who purchased masterwork thief tools and put a rank in disable device so as to be able to cover when there is no proper rogue in the party. Sure, I'd have rather put that gold to a different use, but when you NEED disable device, you really need it (it's not just for unlocking stuff, so the Knock spell doesn't always cut it). This gets back to the advice of always having a secondary thing you can do. Maybe it's UMD for you. For my PFS monk, it's a high heal skill and the Temple vanity.
Usually, however, I leave it to the specialists.
|
|
In Georgia, we once had a Bard-o-rama table. Intentionally. It was advertised and people signed up to play in it. Everyone was a 1st level bard. It was such a hit that there was subsequently an all-rogue game.
Part of the joy and wonder of Pathfinder Society is encountering these kinds of tables, and coming up with creative solutions. Of course, if you have an alternate character, then by all means, consider it. But sometimes you should just play what you want to play.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've a GM credit blob I'm holding out to 5th level (right now I'm putting my low level season 4 GM credits towards her to give Taldor a boost) and am planning to take arcane duelist. Was talking with another bard player last night about harmo- er synchronizing with other bards. I like the idea that if I'm in a bardless party she can do 'standard' bardic music, but if I'm in a party with a bard focused on it, come 5th-6th level, I can do bladethirst.
So overlap can be a good thing. (And I'd love to have more witches at the table, well Ksenia and her familiar would).
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
I felt the same way when playing a scenario with 4 Clerics (One melee cleric, a cleric mounted on a pig, a casting cleric and a longspear reach cleric) and a monk, in a scenario about helping a town with disease. We never fought over healing, that's for sure.
|
|
Well, it'd be a very wise party.There is nothing wrong with overlap. The most memorable encounters I've had have been with atypical party composition. ("4-man subtier 1-2 party consisting of 2 Monks and 2 Gunslingers? LET'S DO IT!")
It was one Flurry of Misses monk, and two mis-firing low-rolling musket masters and my one-bad-guy-at-a-time-please low level Tetori. We barely survived 2 near TPKs...and it was scary fun time.
|
In my PFS group, I've noticed that we often have tables without lock pickers and trap springers. My solution is that as soon as I'm done getting Morgrym to 12, I'm going to start an Archivist Bard. Wanted to try a bard, wouldn't mind having a skill monkey, and the group seems to need that skill set.
|
|
Some balancing is OK, I just think people take it too far. Every table doesn't need a fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard, but some people act like it's the gospel. You need people to fill roles, you don't need specific classes. More importantly you need players that know how to build and play specific characters.
What you need: At least one good martial PC. Someone that can heal (out of combat healing is fine). Diplomacy. Some knowledge skills. And that's about it. Everything else is a bonus. **This probably does not apply to Bonekeep. ;)
More than 1 healer often sucks, more than 1 wizard/sorc often sucks (unless they do more than buff or are versatile). Too many rogues/ninjas or monks can go badly. But above average players break the rules and you can have a table of 6 bards and still be successful. It's hard, but can be done.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Some balancing is OK, I just think people take it too far. Every table doesn't need a fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard, but some people act like it's the gospel. You need people to fill roles, you don't need specific classes. More importantly you need players that know how to build and play specific characters.
What you need: At least one good martial PC. Someone that can heal (out of combat healing is fine). Diplomacy. Some knowledge skills. And that's about it. Everything else is a bonus. **This probably does not apply to Bonekeep. ;)
More than 1 healer often sucks, more than 1 wizard/sorc often sucks (unless they do more than buff or are versatile). Too many rogues/ninjas or monks can go badly. But above average players break the rules and you can have a table of 6 bards and still be successful. It's hard, but can be done.
I played at a table of 7 with three bards once. IT was funny because it became "Who's doing Bardic music this time?" Especially since Bard-2 (The one I killed in Enigma Vaults) has Lingering performance, and a lot of the 'finish the performance for a bonus feats.'
Combat often went like this.
Other PC: Crap I failed my save!
Bard-2: Ok, immediate action time! re-roll and Bardic music shuts off.
(soon after in the initaitive order)
Another bard: Starting Bardic performance!
GM cries.