| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a memory from 3.5 that sticks with me. I forget the character mix, but a druid was our main healer. One of our characters got hit with a second level spell. Blindness. Sadly, druids don't get Remove Blindness.
In Pathfinder, Alchemists and Paladins get it 4-7 levels after it becomes a potential problem.
So you either have to make sure there are potions available, remove this as a consequence, or expect players to hump back to civilization dragging the afflicted player back.
-----
@Dekalinder, you beat me to it by 15 minutes.
I would say 95% of the time, a party made up of partial casters is just fine. In fact I'd say the 3/4 bab 6 level casters are some of the best classes paizo has created.
A magus, inquisitor, alchemist, bard party would be just fine in the vast majority of situations. At very high levels the party would suffer a bit from not having the walking miracles and demi gods walking around, but if you accounted for that in the challenges, you would overall have a better campaign.
The original D team consisted of a bard, a ranger, a paladin and a fighter.
That is particularly lacking in versatility. 3 characters who deal with enemies by physical combat, and a bard that specialises in buffing his team. A more versatile group with no full casters would do better.
For what it is worth, my gaming group has decided to ban full casters from the setting entirely. There was an in-setting event to explain why (My Golarion really doesn't look like the normal Golarion anymore, I might have to do a "setting writeup" for it at some point), but wizards, clerics, druids, etc. simply don't exist anymore. Or those that do are effectively NPC classes - a cleric now gets partial caster progression but no new class features to make up for it, for example.
So far it has significantly improved our high level play experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the assumption that all negative conditions should be easily removable at the level you are expected to suffer them as a flaw.
While I don't want to ruin people's fun by taking them out of participation entirely, I also feel that Pathfinder has a lack of lasting consequences compared to other systems I have played.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see the assumption that all negative conditions should be easily removable at the level you are expected to suffer them as a flaw.
While I don't want to ruin people's fun by taking them out of participation entirely, I also feel that Pathfinder has a lack of lasting consequences compared to other systems I have played.
The issue is that most PF conditions are either fairly trivial temporary issues that hinder a single fight and afterwards are quickly removed or leave by themselves, or character ending effects that cannot be meaningfully played around and MUST be removed unless the party is ok being a member down.
Better conditions that don't cripple but aren't trivial to get rid of would be nice, but given the choice between conditions don't stick around vs conditions stay forever and you can't play now because you are blind, commit seppuku and reroll plz, I know which one I prefer.
After reading this, I suddenly want to run or play in a D-Team campaign. Here are the rules:
15 point buy
No full casters
Half starting gold
You cannot select a race with an attribute bonus in your class's primary attribute. No elf rogues, for example. Now that would be fun!
So go, go party of 6th level casters?
The no attribute bonus in primary attribute isn't a big thing. Most of the 6th level casters have two stats they care about a lot. They usually care about one more than the other, but a slightly suboptimal stat placement isn't a big deal.
A party of 6th level casters is at the B level at worst. At lower optimization levels they are probably stronger than a party of 9th levels, at least until highish levels (full casters have far higher ceilings though).
To get to D, you need to play a party consisting of mostly non-magical martials, with maybe a single 6th and a single 4th level caster. Maybe.
|
Ah, GM Fiat. Fair enough then, though the caster party can still massively cut down on the travel time even if they can't teleport directly to the volcano. Big difference between traveling 1500 miles vs. 15 miles, or even 150.Why not?I think you guys have a problem if, say, a volcano is going to be used in a ritual to destroy a continent, and the volcano is 1500 miles away. The A team is like, two spells. The D team is a month of travel?You can't teleport in or close to a volcano...Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible.Teleport has a "the GM can tell you nope, doesn't work" clause baked into it.
Being on the D-list doesn't mean you're completely dumb: anyone can go knock on a wizard's tower with a bag of money.
Being on the D-list doesn't mean you're completely dumb: anyone can go knock on a wizard's tower with a bag of money.
If you can always just go to the friendly neighborhood wizard to get high level spellcasting services, then the part would be far less effected by not having and full casters.
Being on the true D list [No more than two casters with 4th level casting, everyone else can't cast at all] really just means you're waiting for the Bestiary's and/or AP's metaphorical D to smite you at mid to higher levels.
No. . . even the party of only Fighters can still crush the straight from the bestiary monsters with very few exceptions.
|
It would have to be a pretty powerful set of Fighter's likely with the best fighting styles (Archery, Two handed Etc) And They would need alot of loot or feats invested in somehow getting things like Magic attacks, Good Saves and SU abilities. Let alone not being just Human.. likely Things like Aasimar to eventually get Flight.
F-List Team. Core Monk x4.
E-List Team. Rogue x4 (post FAQ SLA nerf).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
F-List Team. Core Monk x4.
E-List Team. Rogue x4 (post FAQ SLA nerf).
I'd probably reverse those, but general agreement.
Monk is MUCH better on the defense, movement, and likely AC, with some semi-magical abilities (Dimension Door, etc). A group of monks can parcel out skills to cover the gamut without too much problem.
Rogues are just going to have tough times in combat without extreme teamwork.
==Aelryinth
4 Summoners can pretty much crush anything....
1 Synthesist Summoner (the Big Meaty)
2 Master Summoners (the skills/better than a normal summoner summoner)
1 First Worlder Summoner (Give some variety to summoning and can summon Unicorns for healing, oh and they can mass summon like the Master Summoner since the key wording is not there to limit them :P)
These 4 can pretty much crush anything...
I see the assumption that all negative conditions should be easily removable at the level you are expected to suffer them as a flaw.
While I don't want to ruin people's fun by taking them out of participation entirely, I also feel that Pathfinder has a lack of lasting consequences compared to other systems I have played.
There is a difference between conditions that merely impair you and ones that really make adventuring nigh-impossible.
If this were a disease or poison or moderate curse, I wouldn't have an issue. If it were something that you could make heal checks to recover over time I wouldn't have an issue. But being blind forever until you get one of just a couple of specific spells? That's unpleasant.
As for different games, that's true. Different games have different audiences. There are many games that have serious permanent consequences that would probably fit you better.
I'll note the difference between a D-F ranked team and a B team can generally be solved with one cleric.
That's it. Condition removal, healing, potential offensive power, adaptability by day, and full by level casting with sturdy backup melee if desired. One cleric can easily keep a group of all monks and all rogues going just fine, and they can perform admirably.
Basically, tiering teams follow the normal tiers, with the above caveat. You can vault a team waaaaay up by including a cleric. They just backstop a party that much. 3 melees and a cleric can roar through an adventure easily.
The all-cleric team is probably the epitome of an A-List team in what it is capable of, in both raw power and sheer versatility.
Despite being Tier 5, an all-fighter/barb team is D because cheap healing is available and in combat they can ROFLstomp the enemy fairly well. They just get hung up on condition removal, and don't have a lot of versatility.
The only difference in b-c is how much condition removal. full caster level power, and how much you can change the party in one day.
==Aelryinth
master summoner is the best summer archetype, it us almost tier oneI am also currently in such a game where we wound up with a D- team. Our party is-
My Character a Master Summoner
A Gunslinger
A War Priest
A BardWe are level 4 and playing in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Like Endoralis's bunch, we are doing fine and our GM has even upped the power of some of our enemies.
I know its at higher levels that the full casters are missed. But at level 4 the party is good. My master summoner calling up a wall of ghost scorpions to engage the opponents while we shoot them with ranged weapons has proved very effective. It would be better balanced if we traded in our Bard for a wizard or Arcanist, true.
Yes I know.
And they are a lot better at level 4 than the full casters.War priest are powerful too.
I think I'd like to define how to split up the A-, B-, C- etc Lists. I'll have a little go.
A-List. A group that's really outstanding in one or two areas that are related to adventuring, while still being competent in the others. Where their specialty applies they will succeed (unless it's against an opponent with the same specialty) and they don't have any significant weaknesses when other things need doing.
B-List. Good all round, without being outstanding in any one area. They'll succeed at most things, but if their opposition is really outstanding at something they have to make sure not to contest that area.
C-List. All round competent, or maybe with areas they're strong in but also with several weaknesses.
D-List. Outstanding at something, but few other areas are more than competent and with several glaring weaknesses. Only really capable of overcoming challanges that fall into an area where they can apply a particular type of expertise.
E-List. No more than competent at anything, and with several weak area.
F-List. Why are you trying to do this?
You basically just restated the tier list
After reading this, I suddenly want to run or play in a D-Team campaign. Here are the rules:
15 point buy
No full casters
Half starting gold
You cannot select a race with an attribute bonus in your class's primary attribute. No elf rogues, for example. Now that would be fun!
Stone Lord Dwarf Paladin
STR: 16 DEX: 12 CON: 14 INT: 10 WIS: 9 CHA: 1210/10 would have tons of fun
One fun thing to do is a goblin or kobold game with no full-casters. It gives a bit more of an underdog feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
F-List Team. Core Monk x4.
E-List Team. Rogue x4 (post FAQ SLA nerf).I'd probably reverse those, but general agreement.
Monk is MUCH better on the defense, movement, and likely AC, with some semi-magical abilities (Dimension Door, etc). A group of monks can parcel out skills to cover the gamut without too much problem.
Rogues are just going to have tough times in combat without extreme teamwork.
==Aelryinth
Well the way I figured it, Core Monks have virtually nothing going for them. Their odds of finding good treasure for them is essentially nil (no armor, no shields, probably no weapons) and they cannot craft magic items effectively which likely means being limited to around 16,000 gp magic items which means never any better than +2 rings, +2 amulets, +4 bracers of armor, and never better than a +2 AoMF. Their offense is so horrible that they absolutely have to invest something into it and they lack any sort of problem solving ability while being disgustingly MAD. So in this case their offenses AND their defenses AND their problem solving is all pathetically bad.
Prior to the FAQ nonsense, rogues could at least take minor magic and start crafting magic items, but they can't anymore if you follow the (really wrong) FAQ. This leaves them in much the same boat as the monks when it comes to acquiring gear, but they are more likely to find gear that they can use (having a wide variety of simple and some martial weapons they can use, being able to use mithral gear, and being able to use light armors effectively). Since there's 4 rogues, you're pretty much assured someone is going to want to be your flanking buddy, so you're likely to find situations where combats are frequently opened with a sneak attack volley vs flat footed opponents, then drawing longspears and flanking whenever possible. Careful use of consumables can make most fights very do-able.
Maxing UMD on all of them means that you can probably pack a few wands and such for emergency medicine between fights even if you can't adequately handle real spellcasting.
Also, unlike monks, rogues can be pretty decent for single-shot burst damage. Monks are shut down by just moving around, whereas getting mobile on rogues at mid to high levels is just inviting them to stealth again. Once a rogue has concealment 24/7, every time they move they can Stealth, so they might move + 1 hit w/ sneak attack, whereas the monks are going to do utterly horrid damage unless the enemy stands still.
I have been toying with the idea of an all-Halfling party for Giantslayer. As it stands (on the other end of the link), it is a super B team. Without its Witch (so no full casters and just 1 6/9 caster), it would be a D team (and then the Paladin MUST NOT take the Warrior of the Holy Light archetype, because then Paladin spellcasting becomes essential)(*). Add in a Hexcrafter Magus to replace the Witch, and it would bump up to a super C team. I don't have Giantslayer and have not yet started following one of the PbPs on here, so I don't yet know if this D team would still be up to doing this AP, but if not, I suspect that the proposed replacement Hexcrafter Magus might be able to put them over the top.
(*)EDIT: Paladin also must have pure or nearly pure Paladin progression, with no more than 1 level of dip into anything else. Have to cut Tower Shield Specialist and Stalwart Defender. The Paladin will be the only divine caster.
But not at levels 3, 5, or 7 compared to prepared casters and not at level 6 or 8+ compared to any full casters. Well, excluding the master summoner because the SLA is on track with a prepared caster's highest spells and he has an absurd amount of early entry on important spells.master summoner is the best summer archetype, it us almost tier oneI am also currently in such a game where we wound up with a D- team. Our party is-
My Character a Master Summoner
A Gunslinger
A War Priest
A BardWe are level 4 and playing in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Like Endoralis's bunch, we are doing fine and our GM has even upped the power of some of our enemies.
I know its at higher levels that the full casters are missed. But at level 4 the party is good. My master summoner calling up a wall of ghost scorpions to engage the opponents while we shoot them with ranged weapons has proved very effective. It would be better balanced if we traded in our Bard for a wizard or Arcanist, true.
Yes I know.
And they are a lot better at level 4 than the full casters.
War priest are powerful too.
Well, the War Priests spells suffer at those levels. They have other advantages.
And the master summoner's SLA is a lot better than summon monster of the same level. And they have so many of them, I have 9.To list all the pros and cons of classes you would have to write a book.
If the group tries to build and play like a more 'standard' group, they will have lots of problems pretty early in the campaign.
However, if the group is intelligent and actually builds and plays to their strengths, I don't think the situation is nearly as dire as many of the above suggest.
They have if anything an excess of martial capability. All agree on that correct? So you don't need to concentrate your build and equipment nearly as much on the martial capability.
Drop your strength a few points to increase your mental stats. Puts some ranks into things that are usually covered by the caster guys. UMD, sense motive, diplomacy, knowledge, etc... Especially UMD.
Instead of the +5 falchion of doom, buy a +1 falchion. Then spend that spare wealth on potions, scrolls, wands, boots of escape, wings of flying, etc...
No you won't have those world shattering spells at the end of the game, but up until the very end game we didn't see nearly as much difference as many people suggest.
So what would a party of Wizard, Reach cleric, Summoning/Wildshape druid, Bard be?
S-team? Can do almost anything and do it really well, and everything it can't do well it can circumvent with what it can do well.
F-List Team. Core Monk x4.
E-List Team. Rogue x4 (post FAQ SLA nerf).I'd probably reverse those, but general agreement.
Monk is MUCH better on the defense, movement, and likely AC, with some semi-magical abilities (Dimension Door, etc). A group of monks can parcel out skills to cover the gamut without too much problem.
Rogues are just going to have tough times in combat without extreme teamwork.
==Aelryinth
Well the way I figured it, Core Monks have virtually nothing going for them. Their odds of finding good treasure for them is essentially nil (no armor, no shields, probably no weapons) and they cannot craft magic items effectively which likely means being limited to around 16,000 gp magic items which means never any better than +2 rings, +2 amulets, +4 bracers of armor, and never better than a +2 AoMF. Their offense is so horrible that they absolutely have to invest something into it and they lack any sort of problem solving ability while being disgustingly MAD. So in this case their offenses AND their defenses AND their problem solving is all pathetically bad.
Prior to the FAQ nonsense, rogues could at least take minor magic and start crafting magic items, but they can't anymore if you follow the (really wrong) FAQ. This leaves them in much the same boat as the monks when it comes to acquiring gear, but they are more likely to find gear that they can use (having a wide variety of simple and some martial weapons they can use, being able to use mithral gear, and being able to use light armors effectively). Since there's 4 rogues, you're pretty much assured someone is going to want to be your flanking buddy, so you're likely to find situations where combats are frequently opened with a sneak attack volley vs flat footed opponents, then drawing longspears and flanking whenever possible. Careful use of consumables can make most fights very do-able.
Maxing UMD on all of them means that you can probably pack a few wands and such for emergency...
anytime you start talking magic items the class competition goes out the window. You may as well say fighters and barbs are crap because they'll never get magic items, either...so it's a fallacy.
Monks can UMD too. It's only skill points. A trait even makes it a class skill. Rogues are going to have the same money problem. UMD exacerbates money problems. Consumables work for both sides.
Monk damage autoscales by level, and multiplies with Vital Strike nicely. Enlarge and similar effects also increase it. What's not freely available to buy, they can commission.
Their defenses are much better, in the form of saves, spell resistance (no casters in the party, so who cares?), and movement, and AC on demand. They can also heal themselves, potentially stun enemies, resist mental attacks better, etc. They just plain are going to be harder to stop.
Rogues are also screwed if the enemy moves. It's hard to maintain flanks when the enemy keeps moving around on you. Any enemy with uncanny dodge basically shuts you down...or if they are back to back against a wall. Basically, tactics can obviate flanking even in a team.
Combine with horrid saves, bad AC, lousy To Hit, conditional sneak attack damage...yeah, I'd give Rogues the short end of it.
==Aelryinth
I think if you replaced one of them with a Cleric then they'd be up to A-List standard. Not B, because that involved being good everywhere and that they aren't, but A-list means outstanding at one thing and capable elsewhere.Despite being Tier 5, an all-fighter/barb team is D because cheap healing is available and in combat they can ROFLstomp the enemy fairly well. They just get hung up on condition removal, and don't have a lot of versatility.
==Aelryinth
'capable elsewhere' means the whole team could pull off info-gathering, stealth, magic item construction, down-time productivity, accelerated travel, defensive abilities, etc.
Not quite the case. They would be outstanding in the inflicting of damage upon the enemy through martial means, and the cleric covers for them adequately and with preparation elsewhere.
So, B team, or high C.
==Aelryinth
So what would a party of Wizard, Reach cleric, Summoning/Wildshape druid, Bard be?
S-team? Can do almost anything and do it really well, and everything it can't do well it can circumvent with what it can do well.
It's almost by definition A Team.
Outstanding at the whole buff thing. The whole team can't melee as well as a melee team, but they are very capable at it, and capable at most everything else. With time and preparation, they can retailor to be exceptional at just about anything, which is the power of prep casters.
They aren't going to be awesome at everything simultaneously, which would be "I wear a big S on my chest" rank, but they can change their shirts with just one day.
==Aelryinth
So what would a party of Wizard, Reach cleric, Summoning/Wildshape druid, Bard be?
S-team? Can do almost anything and do it really well, and everything it can't do well it can circumvent with what it can do well.
It's almost by definition A Team.
Outstanding at the whole buff thing. The whole team can't melee as well as a melee team, but they are very capable at it, and capable at most everything else. With time and preparation, they can retailor to be exceptional at just about anything, which is the power of prep casters.
They aren't going to be awesome at everything simultaneously, which would be "I wear a big S on my chest" rank, but they can change their shirts with just one day.
==Aelryinth
I would have thought that the Tier 1+bard party would be an A-team, but some people on this thread seem use a lower threashhold for an A-team.
A-List. A group that's really outstanding in one or two areas that are related to adventuring, while still being competent in the others. Where their specialty applies they will succeed (unless it's against an opponent with the same specialty) and they don't have any significant weaknesses when other things need doing.
The happy fun narrative power party is far better than what I would expect from that description. That type of "A-team" sounds like it could be a bunch of full bab martial types with a single fullcaster providing the utility for the party.
There's a limit to how much utility one full caster can supply.
One guy can't do AoE support, condition removal, buffing, melee replacement, summoning, magic item construction, ranged attacks, stealth/concealment and the like for the whole party at the same time.
He can probably do one or two of those things, if he prepares for it.
When you start multiplying the caster ability around...yeah, everyone can share part of the load, or everyone can specialize in one or two of the jobs with a smatter in the others. That's basically what an A-Team does...you have your own schtick, but you can pull off the others, and the group as a whole has all bases covered, all the time.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unpopular opinion here, but I'd personally take your D-team over your A-team to begin with. Let's break down what you have:
1. Bard - Bards are unique in that their efficacy is largely dependent on the party make-up. The more Martials in a party, the better a Bard becomes. Your other party members are a Fighter (Martial), Ranger (Martial), Paladin (Martial, Martial, Martial!). As well the Bard has the almighty UMD which makes up for a LOT of the missing spellcasting. Wizards are technically better, but they're not nearly the team player a bard is. As well any Bard worth their salt should have the Scrolls and Wands to cover your necessities - especially healing.
2. Fighter - This is the one area a fighter wouldn't be my first choice, either, especially compared to Barbarians. However, you could not have chosen a more ideal party for a Fighter to be a part of. All of his weaknesses are beings shored up by Bardic inspiration and the Paladin's aura. You have the Skills pretty well covered by the Bard and Ranger. And if the job is simply "Go Kill _______", well, great news! Fighters still do that quite competently. I'm not gonna start splitting hairs if the Barbarian one-shots an enemy plus 20 hit points and the Fighter one-shots an enemy plus 10 hit points.
3. Ranger - Druids are (like Wizards) technically better, but you have a high skills class to complement the bard, and a full-BAB switch hitter with full feat trees to back the Fighter. 4th level spellcasting isn't 9th, but it's not too shabby, and it's one of the better 4-level spell lists. Take Boon Companion at level 5 and you're on par with one of the Druid's best class features. And if the favored enemy aligns, I'd easily say the Ranger in his element can surpass the Druid.
4. Paladin - In many ways I prefer this to a Cleric. Paladins passively buff their party just by being around. She's going to have a better way to overcome DR out of the gate. And while the Cleric doesn't have bad saves, the Divine Grace means you can pretty much pump CHA and dump WIS/DEX and still frustrate the hell out of your DM. Self heals as a swift action makes her the tankiest of tanks.
If you're running an open ended campaign with lots of world building and very complex narrative challenges, the A-team is pretty much necessary. If you're running an AP or any sort of straightforward adventure consisting of Go Here - Kill This, I'd take these options over the A-team any day of the week, with the lone exception of the Fighter - and again, even so, a lot of the big drawbacks of a Fighter versus a Barbarian are being greatly mitigated by the makeup of the party. That is how you use party synergy to overcome the issue with Class Tiers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is the A-Team "necessary" for an open ended campaign with lots of world building?
The best thing about a sandbox style game is that it naturally tailors itself to the characters that exist-- the supposed "A Team" would end up facing different challenges than the supposed "D Team", but in a sandbox they would both naturally be facing appropriate challenges and regardless of which group you had everyone would be having fun.
I ran a group with a dwarf inquisitor (acted like a fighter, though), half-orc monk, elf rogue archer, human gunslinger, tiefling dual-wielding rogue, and we had a lot of fun! It was homebrew, but I didn't really pull any punches because of the lack of casters. They DID eventually also get a half-orc red draconic sorcerer pyromaniac, but were really effective for levels 1-6 without the sorcerer. I just dropped a few extra potions of CLW for healing. I think it was a 20 or 25 point buy, though.
I played in another group where we did the 15 point buy thing. I initially played a half-orc inquisitor, got eaten by an owlbear, and made a human uber-healer paladin. We also had a dark tapestry oracle/rogue/wannabe shadowdancer, sword and board fighter, psion, and maybe a barbarian? Plus some NPC henchmen warriors.