Thought Experiment, Single Class Campaign

[Nohwear]

If one were to restrict all chars to a single class for a campaign, what class do you think would work best. If you think it varies by campaign type, then pl,ease give your thoughts for various types.

[Scrapper]

That kills off Prestige class option. Is Advance Class Guide excluded? As to a single class restriction, Rogue might shine the brightest.

[Artemis Moonstar]

Bards. They can make up for just about everything, given the archetypes. Make them Varisian wanderers or something...

Then proceed to cry as they wreck your silly notion of dropping the power level of a game to compensate.

Source: Played in an All-Bard game. GM quit after ten sessions and rebooted.

[kestral287]

Bards are the obvious choice.

Wizards could be funny, if only for everybody getting 8 spells/level. To a point the same for the Magus but they're not nearly as flexible.

Alchemists could also do some nasty stuff.

[Dasrak]

Any spellcaster class would work well; you'd have to really know what you're doing to use the 1/2 BAB classes like the Wizard, but those classes have the raw power and broad versatility to pull it off. The 3/4 BAB spellcasters would be safer bets in that regard, with Cleric, Druid, Summoner, Bard, and Alchemist standing out in that crowd due to how versatile they can be.

[Atarlost]

The campaign would have to be written around the target class. Only int based or 6+int classes are going to provide enough skills to be viable. I would recommend Investigator or Bard for an intrigue campaign, though a wizard, arcanist, or alchemist school campaign is possible.

The only case in which you could not obviously make the campaign better by loosening the class restriction, though, is the minstrels or actors as spies bard party. The intrigue campaign will have less trampling of feet with a mix of skill classes and maybe an appropriate wizard. The school campaign would be better when you can have tensions between the thaumaturgical and alchemical departments as a long running B plot. Even the bardic campaign might benefit from a rogue with a perform skill simply because it's so hard to make thematically appropriate and useful bard archetypes not redundant.

You really can't make a single general purpose party out of anything but divine gishes and even that will struggle with skills.

[DominusMegadeus]

Scrapper wrote:

Rogue might shine the brightest.

Not funny.

I think we've done this topic before, though.

[thegreenteagamer]

DominusMegadeus wrote:

Scrapper wrote:

Rogue might shine the brightest.

Not funny.

I think we've done this topic before, though.

Fighters!

[blackbloodtroll]

Bards.

[N. Jolly]

I've got a few options for this:

Alchemist: There's a lot of versatility here that'd make for some incredibly buffed melee and ranged characters.

Bards: Tons of archetypes here make for quite a few options. Honestly any 6/9th caster would be good for this.

[Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll]

Trolls!

[Vorpal Laugh]

Yep, Bard and alchemist are great choices. Oracles also allow very different builds

[thegreenteagamer]

Yes, bards, but all geisha bards! Tea party!

[Rynjin]

In addition to Bards and Alchemists, Inquisitors are also varied enough to make a full party.

Up and in your face "Fighter" (Inquisitor of Gorum, or another god with a good favored weapon and some warlike Domains), "Rogue" (Sanctified Slayer), "Ranger" (Sacred Huntmaster), "Bard" (a good deal of solid buff spells).

[Helcack]

I second Inquisitor and also recommend that you could do an all Warpriest Party(hopefully not all worshiping the same god though, for that look to the other thread where it was suggested for an all following one god party to be a mix of inquisitors, warpriests, clerics, and paladins)

[Ciaran Barnes]

Aristocrat.

[cnetarian]

Don't forget the droods, while not as versatile as they once were an all drood party still can do it all.

[Clockstomper]

A party of Alchemists is my first choice. There's lots of of functional options there, because of the flexibility of the class itself. You don't have the perfect battlefield control, but you have plenty.

A whole team of Clerics would be pretty survivable. Inquisitors would have the skills/knowledges sewn up better, but Clerics specializing in different toolsets would be able to dig out what they needed (especially if you start cheating - within the rules I mean, finding ways to steal the best wizard control spells).

And I'd like to put out this idea: a party full of Witches might be pretty fun, because the action economy becomes amazing. They just need to summon a lot to survive :).

[Melkiador]

If including archetypes, arcanists can cover it all.

[TempusAvatar]

What about summoners? I imagine that it would be a slow time during combat encounters, but I'm pretty sure that you could essentially pull the solution to any problem out of your pocket.

[Aneirin Rhodri]

Commoners

[Cuuniyevo]

I'm surprised only 1 person so far has mentioned witches. Having a full coven roaming the lands would be great. Cavaliers would also make perfect sense for a 1-class group. After those two, I'd pick: Ninjas who are all part of the same clan, Investigators trying to unravel an etc. etc. etc., a circle of Druids (who are LN, CN, NG and NE, respectively—throw in a TN if there's a fifth player), Brawlers (because what adventuring party hasn't wanted to spend their entire adventuring life getting into barfights…) and last but certainly not least, Swashbucklers who all take the Musketeer archetype and teamwork feats, because OF COURSE.

[N. Jolly]

A solid Alchemsist team to me would probably be

Beastmorph/Vivi (Melee) Able to transform and put up intense damage, easily able to take a few hits, and cleans house even without a flanking buddy to ensure sneak attack.

Grenadier (Ranged/Debuff) Able to apply enough debuffs to most creatures that the rest of the team can just smash through them, and they're able to do all of this at a decent range.

Preservationist (Crowd Control) Adding a ton of beast to the battlefield will make everyone's job easier, as well as not worrying about which of them are damaged, and adding to group damage.

Alchemist (General) Add some traits and you're good to go on the skills the others didn't cover, as well as any all purpose extracts to help buff party utility.

I'd go into any game with that party and feel solid on recovery (Everyone can cure and deal with statuses), offense (HAHAAHAH!), Defense (Check the extract list), and utility (AHAHAHAHAHAHA!), you've got everything you'd ever need inside of a dungeon.

[pauljathome]

This can be done with ANY class as long as the group build appropriately to cover their bases. Even fighters can get UMD.

My personal vote would be for druids. Its both versatile and powerful as a class. But really any full or 6/9 caster class could do it almost trivially. Full martial or mostly martial classes would require/ a little more work.

[LazarX]

Nohwear wrote:

If one were to restrict all chars to a single class for a campaign, what class do you think would work best. If you think it varies by campaign type, then pl,ease give your thoughts for various types.

The obvious answers would be classes that could fill as many roles as possible, as opposed to be limited to strictly one. Much would also depend on the nature of the world setting and campaign.

[Nohwear]

I have been thinking. I t seems that if you cross reference which classes could work for this experiment with the easiest to build a story around of why only one class. Than to me the best answers are druids and alchemists. Although, that may be just me.

[Scythia]

I would say Oracle. They can fight, they can heal, they can magic.

Although if everybody took a different race, curse, and mystery, the game might feel like an unusual reboot of captain planet.

[Eltacolibre]

Bard is the obvious answer, flexibility for the win.

Cleric, going from domains to domains, various gods, can make an interesting team but going to be the first to admit that some cleric abilities are pretty boring, still very effective singe class campaign and top of it they can change their spells every day to adapt to whatever challenge you toss at them.

Oracles are definitely more fun and the wide range of mysteries can make all kind of characters from elemental specialist, to warrior, healers, pseudo-druid etc...roles are locked in with the spells known but it shouldn't interferes with teamwork.

[voska66]

Done this Inquisitors. Worked quite well, made for very powerful group. Melee and ranged very good, buffs and healing covered, highly skilled, lots of utility spells.

Had a party of Desna Inquisitors traveling trade routes putting a stop to bandits.

[ElementalXX]

probably summoners, they are basically 2 caharacters, one arcane caster and a martial , and they have a lot of resources to burn

[Imbicatus]

Any 3/4 BAB 6 level casting class is going to be fine. Full casting or Full BAB classes might run into some issues, but really, a party of all commoners can work if the GM builds the adventure to them.

[N. Jolly]

Okay, rather than assuming a custom campaign that coddles commoners, why don't we take it a different way?

Rise of the Runelords, which single classed party do you take to this AP?

[Ms. Pleiades]

I'm surprised nobody has suggested summoners specifically yet. Synthesis Front Liner, First World skill monkey eidolon, Master Summoner battlefield control, and then someone who's invested in Use Magical Device and Knowledge skills.

EDIT:

TempusAvatar wrote:

What about summoners? I imagine that it would be a slow time during combat encounters, but I'm pretty sure that you could essentially pull the solution to any problem out of your pocket.

Nevermind.

[spectrevk]

Nohwear wrote:

If one were to restrict all chars to a single class for a campaign, what class do you think would work best. If you think it varies by campaign type, then pl,ease give your thoughts for various types.

All Oracles could be interesting for several reasons:

- Appearance-wise, this would be hilarious. A troupe of limping, blind, deaf people shouting in tongues whenever combat breaks out.

- Mysteries allow for a lot of variety in party role; a Life Oracle as healer, a Heavens or Dark Tapestry Oracle debuffing, a Battle Oracle holding the front line, etc.

- Allows for a unified spiritual theme for the party, without forcing everyone to worship the same deity.

- Oracles could use some love.

[Atarlost]

N. Jolly wrote:

Okay, rather than assuming a custom campaign that coddles commoners, why don't we take it a different way?

Rise of the Runelords, which single classed party do you take to this AP?

Four Samsaran Shamans. Wandering spirit in I think Lore lets you crib from the sorc/wiz list. Being a samsaran lets you grab the clerical self-buffs or druidic blasting or some usually arcane stuff like invisibility off the inquisitor list. I'd say two mystic past life clerics, one druid, and one inquisitor.

[Set]

Using the Unearthed Arcana options, allowing a Necromancy-Specialist to have a perma-pet skeleton, or an Enchantment-Specialist to have a permanently charmed flunky, an all-Wizard group was a pretty viable thing in 3.5.

Assuming archetypes that worked similarly, such as a transmutation focused one that came with a pet construct companion creature, that could still be fun.

My favorite dungeon delve at GenCon was an all-Barbarian group. (Well, three barbarians and a cleric, but because of her armor and our movement bonuses, she was always a map behind us as we charged through the scenario and slaughtered everything. She never got to cast a healing spell...) Probably not viable for long-term play, but fun, fun, fun for a short scenario!

Add a fast healing / condition removing / suppressing rage power, advanced Heal skill options for a Rogue (replacing the advanced uses of Perception and Disable Device they get with trapfinding) and / or other non-cleric healing options, and viable all-Barbarian or all-Rogue groups could also be competitive.

Otherwise, yeah. Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Bard, Inquisitor, Paladin and Ranger all work great. Alchemist and Summoner as well, although if the Summoners are non-good and can use Infernal Healing, so much the better.

Witches might be do-able as well, but might want to resort to charm spells, animated undead and the like to provide some front line combatants to stand between them and the pointy things.

[Oliver McShade]

Nohwear wrote:

If one were to restrict all chars to a single class for a campaign, what class do you think would work best. If you think it varies by campaign type, then pl,ease give your thoughts for various types.

I throw my Vote for: Any of these classes as a single class game.

Bard = Can melee, heal, and cast. Has some feats and lots of skills
Druid = Can melee, heal, and cast. Has some feat and just right skills.
Ranger = same as druid, just 4 level latter. slower casting but greater skills.

[Eryx_UK]

Clerics.

[bookrat]

I love campaigns like this. Once had a group of 7 players where we played a campaign where everyone had to be a cleric (or paladin) and no one could have he same deity or same alignment.

I've always wanted to play a campaign where everyone had to be a rogue. Pathfinder really helps with all the archetypes, but back in 2nd Ed, it was a greater challenge, because the difference in characters was one of concept and role playing rather than ability or stats (we rolled stats back then so there was greater variability).

Played an all fighter campaign once where we were all a part of an army. I've designed an all wizard campaign where everyone was a part of a school (Harry potter came out a few years later).

About a year back I had an all magus-gestalt game in the works, with a Highlander theme. You level by killing other magus-gestalt characters and "gain their powers."

I find these types of campaigns to really challenge my role playing and character design skills, and I absolutey love them.

[Just a Mort]

Rise of the runelords(full oracle party):
1 half orc battle oracle to smack sh*t -wasting curse
1 half orc flame oracle with seeker archtype to find traps, disable em and burn sh*t - tongues curse
1 human lore oracle (dump dex, take scion of war), use favored class options, and trade human bonus feat for skill focus to skill monkey like a boss - lame curse
1 heavens half elf oracle (ancient lorekeeper) to fool around with wizard spells, and control battlefield through colourspray - burned curse

If 1 more player, heavens oracle does not take ancient lorekeeper.
Next player:
1 half elf wood oracle archer with ancient lorekeeper, to get gravity bow and other utility wizard spells - lame curse/ legalistic curse

[Anguish]

Four generalist wizards should be able to own almost any campaign.

[LazarX]

Anguish wrote:

Four generalist wizards should be able to own almost any campaign.

See how that assumption works when you start at 1st level instead of 15th.

[boring7]

I've done an all-wizard campaign. If it weren't for "cheats" we would have failed from the lack of healing problem. Otherwise it worked pretty well though, we had to be more cautious and smart, but magic solved a lot of problems. Admittedly we started at level 5 instead of 1, but at level 1 it's a lot of luck anyway.

All-witch solves that problem in a trice and parties hardy. Not only that but they get ALL THE SPELLS by being able to share them so freely.

All-druid is one I really want to try. Wildshape on one party member can be darn-near useless, but if your whole party can spontaneously turn into a flock of birds a LOT of overland challenges and underwater problems become irrelevant. Instead of cautiously rowing your boat across the deep and terrifying underground lake you all dive in, kill everything, and loot the beasty's treasure. Not to mention the druid is often an outsider as the only guy who actually LIKES the great outdoors or has a connection to the world itself. A paladin wants to seal the worldwound because he hates demons, but would happily counter it with a second worldwound that spat out angels. A druid actually feels the pain of Golarion and has an intimate connection to the Prime Material plane that most caster classes don't.

All-cleric can bash and heal past most things. Probably less comfortable or quick than the all-barbarian party that kills everything before it even has a chance to wake up, but there's more wiggle-room when you need to undo a curse or cure ability damage.

All-bard gets a lot of attention, and they are undeniably a good stack of pre-balanced characters. But on the flip side anything which can ignore lower-level magic or has an AC through the roof or DR their tiny weapons can't punch through is going to be a much bigger problem than it would be for a party with a super-stompy barbarian and a magical maven. I mean, try hitting AC 30 dragon or something with Glove of Invulnerability up as a pack of level 8-12 bards, it'll be an issue.

All summoner may be an indictment against the summoner class.

All-rogue...well if they aren't human. Rolling all darkvision rogues and stealth means every fight is an assassination, every role is filled with skill checks or stolen wands, and against the targets they legitimately can't just assassinate or skill past something (like a swarm with tremorsense) they can always run away and try to find another option. It's expensive, of course, since replacing fireballs with alchemist fire is pricey, but them's the breaks.

[Adept_Woodwright]

I'll see your all Bard party and raise you an all Skald party... Less archetype support, but less squishy

[Anguish]

LazarX wrote:

Anguish wrote:

Four generalist wizards should be able to own almost any campaign.

See how that assumption works when you start at 1st level instead of 15th.

Works pretty well, actually. When it comes to melee, your BAB difference between a full-caster and a full martial is exactly 1. Yeah, you're going to have relatively low Strength but if you know you're playing an all-wizards party you just don't treat that as a total dump stat. Frankly in between spells you can do fairly well. Same situation for survivability. You've got an average of two fewer hitpoints than a full-BAB character.

Remember, any single-class party that isn't cleric or oracle is going to be pausing frequently to deal with damage they take. And anyone but those classes are going to have serious issues down the road once conditions like blind start kicking in. So if the answer isn't explicitly "four clerics", then wizards make a lot of sense.

[boring7]

Wizards have other issues, like carrying capacity and skill checks. But as you mentioned, at level 1 it's kind of a crapshoot anyway, best your character is getting is usually a +8 if they're really good at something, maybe as far as +14 if they're really twinked out for that one skill. And on the flip side, people have been assuring me that you can turn burning hands into a terrifying blast of destruction at level 1 that does more damage (and more reliably) than the barbarian with his greataxe.

Without the kind of crazy rules-mastery powergaming that makes ANY class do anything, wizard would have a lot of trouble for the first handful of levels. After that it would rapidly spiral out of control. That said, Schoedinger's caster doesn't tend to be a real-world occurrence and most challenges tend to find ways to screw the caster off and on. I mean, the common wisdom remains that a wizard does better buffing his melee martials or CC-ing the baddies than actually making kills in his own right.

But I still stand by druid as something I think would be interesting. And it's "interesting" that actually brings me to these little games.

[Marroar Gellantara]

Just about any class could work with the right access to items and consumables.

Against standard AP? Go druid. The animal companions will carry through levels, the wildshaping through mid, and the spells clear house at high levels. You don't really even need different builds inbetween druids.

[UnArcaneElection]

I've said it before in the other thread, but I'll say it again: I think an all-Bard party would actually fit thematically with Council of Thieves, and could actually work mechanically for this AP, except for likely trouble with the last part.

[Rynjin]

boring7 wrote:

Wizards have other issues, like carrying capacity and skill checks.

Wizards are great at skills, and why assume every Wizard dumps Str?

If you're going for a full party of one class, then you probably want a guy who can mix it up in melee.

A Polymorph focused Wizard might be the order of the day.

Especially if you change Wizard to Arcanist (Brown Fur Transmuter).

[boring7]

Rynjin wrote:

boring7 wrote:

Wizards have other issues, like carrying capacity and skill checks.

Wizards are great at skills, and why assume every Wizard dumps Str?

If you're going for a full party of one class, then you probably want a guy who can mix it up in melee.

A Polymorph focused Wizard might be the order of the day.

Especially if you change Wizard to Arcanist (Brown Fur Transmuter).

They have the skill points, but rarely have the class skills or the stat mods. Hell, even having the skill points is only mostly true, lotta brain skills worth taking for the average wizard. Mind you having knowledge skills that are really high bonus are good for knowing what you're up against and how to kill it.

Staying in light load (kind of important when your AC is low) is hard for a wizard, even with a 12 strength, and even if you go to heavy, at level 1 (which was the purpose of this particular tangent) you have difficulty carrying all the stuff you want to bring and also the dungeon loot (which is usually the armor and weapons of fallen enemies).

That other stuff is for higher levels, and therefore part of a different discussion.