Strongest / Most Well rounded 4 man party?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Gohaken wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Gohaken wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I don't think there's any room for any martial except maybe paladin.

.

I beg to differ.

Can swap out a Bard for a dwarven Sensei Drunken Master Qinggong Monk w/ fast drinker, deep drinker, and that whole line of stuff.

Basically unlimited Ki; starting at 12th level, he gives all of his allies w/in 30' True strike every round (like all your summons Mr. Sacred Summoner), or he can use Restoration w/ zero real cost on all allies w/in 30' all day long, or have every summon, allied villager and follower use a CL 12+ Scorching Ray at the same time...

At level 19 he pulls the same stunt with Dragon Breath. Even if that's just 10 to 15 minor summons you flood the field with... 10 to 15 x 20d6 is a crap-ton of damage.

He can Shadowwalk the entire party all day long, and/or Dimension Door them all (as a move action) all day long.

Ever wanted to see what happens when your Cleric/Druid/Arcane types summon in 5 or 6 Fiendish Dire Crocodiles, and a gaggle of Rocs (or Vrocks?), and then your Sensei Monk gives them -ALL- Battlemind Link in a single round?? Cause you can.

Monks, who knew.
.

ALTERNATIVE: Go Sensei, Monk of the Four Winds Qinggong. Now you can spend a bunch of Ki to Slow Time for everyone... give all your meat shields 3 standard actions on their turn. Like the dozen Elder Earth Elementals all the casters just summoned, Bullrushing 3 times each in 1 round...

...it'd be kind of like watching old Football games where John Riggins just keeps running down the field while 3 Miami dolphins are hanging off of him like squirrels on a tree. OR the "Refrigerator" Perry mowing through the whoever was stupid enough to be in front of him... in triple time.

If you have the same BAB as a cleric and everything the class does involves a SLA you aren't proposing a martial.

.

Lol, a straw man argument, irrelevant.

Also very literally factually untrue --monk, Sensei and Drunkemaster and Qinggong (and four winds) all have Ex, Su AND SLAs.

Monks are martial, Unchained or not, and have access to SLAs. Rogues have access to SLAs, Slayer(Stygian) as well, even damn Winding Path Renegade brawler can steal some Monkishness.

Bloodrager is wierdly a caster but also very strong martial, what a lucky guy!

A straw man is a claim that the adversary holds a position other than what he actually holds. Know your fallacies.

Martials are characters that fight as their primary contribution to combat. A bloodrager, paladin, or ranger fights as his primary contribution to combat even though he has spells. He cannot cast spells as his primary contribution to combat because he's really bad at casting spells. He's a martial.

Your monk is lousy at fighting himself and spends his time using SLAs on other people. His sole purpose in the party is to use magic. He's a caster. He's a caster built like a monster using SLAs rather than a PC caster built with spell slots and spell lists, but he's still a caster. Having monk written on your sheet no more makes you a martial than having dwarf written on your character sheet makes you Scottish.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

correct this would in fact be the no true scottsman fallacy.

and i'm not sure which party is using it. I think anything with 3/4 BAB and a ton of SLA is probably more caster, and thus saying he isn't a caster is a no true scottsman fallacy.


Also see this thread about D teams (casters pretty much limited to 4/9, if any), which I just found out somebody already did Necromancy on.

Silver Crusade

Gohaken wrote:

++1 this for Tier 3 group!

Human Hunter (eye for talent +2 Int from level 1) w/ Tyrannosaurus sporting Combat Reflexes, it's large sized 10' Reach, the Lunge Feat and Final Embrace (qualifies via Anacondas Coils...) would add sick Grappling and Movement control. And with Constrict he's doing basically double damage on every big bite... much better than vital strike cause it works on charges too.

I don't know much about Magus personally, but I keep hearing "Staff Magus can be Tier 2." Might need to avoid that archetype if that's true...? What kind...

I honestly don't know how the staff magus would be T2, does it get a new spell list or something? That's the only thing that'd really lift it up. For this group, I'd probably say

Grenadier Alchemist, vanilla bard, vanilla hunter, hexcrafter magus, but that's because I think hexcrafter is so much better than any other magus out there. This is also because I'm not super familiar with hunter, so suggestions there would be helpful.

And yeah, I agree 4x wizard would probably be the strongest party. For those saying that a group of warrior 1 dwarves wouldn't be unfair, this is in the same way saying that some barb 1 half orcs who took improved initiative wouldn't be mean for a 1st level party, since they're more likely to go first, have rage, and possibly a 2d6 weapon. Sure it's still a cr 1/2 encounter (cr 1/3 if they're kobolds which means you could throw more), but it's very much a group that could drop most players on a decent damage roll.


As a contrast to the all-caster teams, I saw what happened when I tried Legacy of Fire with a martial-heavy team: 1 barbarian, 1 fighter, 1 bard, and 1 ranger/cleric -- no full casters. At low levels they did fine. By mid-level (8th) they were getting curb-stomped by pretty much everything that came their way; the ranger/cleric stopped taking ranger levels, and lamented the ones he had, and the barbarian wanted to retrain as a sorcerer. It was pretty ugly.


Paladin -> Ranged specialist, Holy Gun Archetype or oath of Vengeance archer. Really good at taking targets from afar, bypass DR, can use full BAB most of the time, bit low on feats but you can always go human. Smiting + full attack will most of the time take care of any problem target.

Wizard -> Maximum utility build, most probably a divination school specialist. Spell focus + Greater spell in evocation, will use rime evocation spells mid games to slow down enemies. Will at some point become a pathfinder savant and grab insane spells like holy word, Resurrection,all the darn litany spells.
With the pathfinder savant prestige class he will probably take scribe scroll and carry around a lot of them. Max out UMD.

Summoner -> buffs, 2 characters for the price of one and with evolution surge can make his eidolon into a better skill monkey than most classes. Can summon a bunch of nasty monsters if need to be as a standard action. Half elf for the extra evolution points.

Druid -> Hey look another 2 for one! Lot of very important spells, lots of status removal spells, can adapt to most situations. I would focus on shape shifting combat maneuver could be nice early game (Wolf + trip is awesome) or just go grab a Rhino hide for that sweet pouncing in tiger form.


Now all we need is to take these suggested parties, and put them through the roundedness test to determine which is the most well rounded 4-man party...

We need a roundedness test.


Idle Champion wrote:

Now all we need is to take these suggested parties, and put them through the roundedness test to determine which is the most well rounded 4-man party...

We need a roundedness test.

Here you go!

Silver Crusade

Idle Champion wrote:

Now all we need is to take these suggested parties, and put them through the roundedness test to determine which is the most well rounded 4-man party...

We need a roundedness test.

Someone actually had a test like that up before, but it was intended for single characters to determine if they could contribute in a situation. It quickly devolved into people (including myself) seeing if they could build a character that could solo it (which I could), although it was fun none the less.

For some kind of test, you'd really need about 4 different situations, each varied from each other that would allow general use abilities to shine. For example:

1. You have to learn about a dragon of a color you don't know, but you have to do it in a week, so lots of info gathering and such.

2. Now you have to either break into the king's vaults or sweet talk them and find the mcguffin that can defeat the dragon.

3. Making it through the dragon's trap filled dungeon that's crawling with monsters and other obsticles.

4. Actually taking down the dragon in a straight up fight while in its inner sanctum, most combat intensive.

These are just examples with some thematic cohesion to them, but we'd need something far more concrete. It'd be nice to see someone run with this theme and develop a fun little test around it though.

The Exchange

Atarlost wrote:
A straw man is a claim that the adversary holds a position other than what he actually holds.

No.

Wikipedia: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
.

Seemed to me you purported to refute my argument that Paladin was not the only martial worth including, by attempting to disqualify my specific example of a sensei monk as "not a martial" through reframing.

You did so by saying: "If you have the same BAB as a cleric and everything the class does involves a SLA you aren't proposing a martial."

Perhaps that's not a Straw Man, but to me it sure looked like one. I wasn't arguing the definition of martial class or not martial class in my original post.

I was arguing against Paladins being the only valid martial class for consideration in this inquiry. And by including a monk example as a swap for the -Bard- in the example lineup I was referencing, I showed that a different martial class (at least considered as such by overwhelming community consensus, even if you don't agree that monks are martial) can fill the -Bard's- role after a fashion; and that in this example it contributes at least as much as a Paladin can to the group, if not more so, were said Paladin swapped in for the Bard or any of the other casters in that lineup.

Your statement: "If you have the same BAB as a cleric and everything the class does involves a SLA you aren't proposing a martial." ... is an opinionated assertion about whether or not my example qualifies as a martial, and one that includes a bunch of "spin" ('re-framing', for lack of a more sophisticated definition on my part), such as:

1. the assertion that a cleric's BAB somehow impacts the definition of "martial or not".

That's a matter of your opinion, that's not a fact.

"Martial class", not having been explicated by Paizo/WOTC/TSR as a game term with any solid standard definition, is instead left to be defined by the agreement/consensus of the entire community that uses it.

A number of prestige classes with 3/4ths BAB are generally referred to as martial classes. Rogue is generally referred to as a martial class, at least with regards to its combat jobs. Animal racial HD, undead racial HD, monstrous humanoid racial HD, all give 3/4 BAB, and the creatures that sport those HD are heavy majority "melee combatants" which seems to be included in the set of things the entire community generally agrees belong to a "martial class."

And more specifically with regards to the example in question: the greater community consensus is that despite Monks having a 3/4ths BAB, they are martial. That's actually part of the justification often used for explaining why "Monks suck"... they're a "martial" with a 3/4th's BAB.
.

Now this Sensei Monk build is a SAD Wisdom based melee-capable character with 2d6 base dmg weapon (maybe 3d6 if Impact AoMF or Bodywraps) and possibly Dex to damage from his amulet. His attack roll is reasonable due to being SAD and clever with items, and because he can True Strike himself as needed (not just his allies). He can debuff with his attacks as well.

But... both damage, and debuff, are his [u]secondary[/u] jobs in this specific example, because of the inquiry we're in. His primary combat job is "Buff allies". And he's uniquely good at it among the martial classes, with sufficient system mastery on the player's part. If I as a player am crazy enough to get a few Bard-level results extracted from a "poorly built martial" chassis, good for me.

Paladins, from the original argument I was having, are not as good at buffing allies as the Sensei. I'm not arguing that Paladins are bad. I'm arguing they are not the only martial class worth considering. It seems like straw man to me for you to attempt to invalidate my offering to the group conversation here by reframing monks as "not martial".
.

2. that using SLAs somehow impacts the definition of "martial or not"

A lot of classes use SLAs. Paladins, for example, have actual spells... not merely SLAs. Paladins were the martial class cited by the poster who's point I was arguing against. So apparently a class with Spells can still be referenced as martial. SLA's are less "caster" than actual Spell casting.

Even vanilla fighters can take feats or traits that grant them SLAs. That doesn't make them not martial anymore. Again we run into the consensus definition of martial.

And as I pointed out in my original response to your argument on this matter, monks and indeed this Sensei monk specifically have abilities that are Ex, Su and SLA. Not solely SLA. Which leads to the point below...
.

3. the exaggerated-to-an-absurdity frame in your phrasing "everything the class does is an SLA"

No. It uses touch of Serenity at a very high DC to Debuff. Not an SLA. It uses Ki to grant a Feat to itself to all allies. Not an SLA. It uses Ki to increase it's Dodge bonus from time to time. Not an SLA. It uses it's unarmed strike to do damage from time to time. Not an SLA. It uses Advice to grant bardic performance bonuses, and that ability is typed Ex... not an SLA. It uses skills to solve problems and social encounters. Not an SLA.

Does it use SLAs. Yes. But it does not use only SLAs. And SLAs are not the only thing it does to contribute.
.

Bandw2 asserts the fallacy in question was No True Scottsman:

also Wikipedia: No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. ... Bradley Dowden explains the fallacy as an “ad hoc rescue” of a refuted generalization attempt ... the following is an example of the fallacy:

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
.

Maybe this was the fallacy rather than straw man, you're probably more savvy on these terms of art than I am.

I said in my original posting in question the equivalent of "Paladin is not the only martial class to consider, here's a Monk that could sub for a Bard in that lineup".

To which Atarlost replied essentially "your example was not a martial class".

To me that seems like a straw man, but maybe it's actually "No true martial class could actually substitute for a Bard" or "No true martial class could have that many SLA's" or "No true martial class could contribute primarily by doing something other than DPR."

In the end it doesn't matter which fallacy it is. It's still fallacy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In handy poster form to put on your wall as a reference.


@Gohaken
The class you described to me doesn't sound like any martial I know. In a line up with a Barbarian, Cavalier, Hunter, Ranger, Paladin, Druid, Slayer, Eidolon, Bloodrager, and Brawler your Sensei Monk would be the odd man out.

If anything he sounds like a support styled caster like the Bard you suggested he replace. That Bard who isn't a martial....

@Thread topic and N. Jolly's test

My proposed party was

-Bard Archer with an archetype for a unique performance that replaces inspire courage
-Evangelist Cleric for Inspire Courage. Feather Subdomain for an animal companion and huge perception and Sacred Summons feat.
-Hunter with a Big Cat or something. Can either be mounted or act as a big meat wall fighting side by side.
-Wizard or Arcanist that does Wizard/arcanist stuff.

This party can
-Group Sneak
-Gather info well
-lie well
-Sense motive well
-Tank well (Hunter defenses and Sacred Summon/animal companion meat shields)
-Do ridonkulous damages (Hunter and Bard are veeery good at this)
-Create meat shields
-Keep on trucking even without a wand of CLW
-Group buff
-Deal with issues using magic

How would they deal with the Dragon Premise?

1-2: Bard and Cleric Diplomatic/Knowledge duo.

3. With the knowledge gained from 1 the Hunter can cast protection from energy and resist energy of the appropriate energy type for allies. Knowing the dungeon is heavily trapped the Wizard/Arcanist will prepare several Knock spells. With all the group buffs and high base DPR flying around combat vs the dungeon denizens should only drain perform rounds and several channels of positive energy. Maybe a few Cleric spells

4.Dragon Fight: After the first breath attack the Dragon will probably abandon breath attack tactics. The Hunter will have Air Walk on his Big Cat mount (Pouncing big cat with Greater Longstrider is pretty scary) and the Wizard will have fly on the Bard so they can keep within engagement range. Cleric and Bard performing separate performances with a haste buff and Good hope and maybe even a Blessing of Fervor. Cleric using Sacred Summons every round to add more flying allies to the fray. Wizard/arcanist could probably just chill and watch since his primary role is to make everything non-combat related easy.


My party was fairly simple - not chosen for strongest, but for well-rounded where well-rounded includes simplicity and effectiveness from level 1.
Bard, cavalier, druid, oracle. No archetypes, goblin cavalier, human everyone else, archer bard, oracle with lunar mystery (seriously, just a really nice mystery)

N. Jolly wrote:

1. You have to learn about a dragon of a color you don't know, but you have to do it in a week, so lots of info gathering and such.

2. Now you have to either break into the king's vaults or sweet talk them and find the mcguffin that can defeat the dragon.

3. Making it through the dragon's trap filled dungeon that's crawling with monsters and other obstacles.

4. Actually taking down the dragon in a straight up fight while in its inner sanctum, most combat intensive.

1) Bardic knowledge, possibly legend lore, supplemented by Oracle doing Diplomatic research, trying to find people who may know more or repositories of information.

2)Sweet talk - Bard and Oracle take diplomatic point, attempting mundane diplomacy, with the option of using light social enchantment. The druid and the oracle keep shapeshifting into diminutive animals to steal the macguffin as a pocket option.

3)Infiltration. Careful scouting, some scrying, to identify the safest and most efficient path to the lair. Two animal companions, Medium sized tunnel-suitable cavalry, bard's inspiration, murderous bard archery, Druid SNAs with Oracle buffs.

4)Dragonslaying. Largely as above, plus communal air walk.

We may need to design roundedness tests for 1st, 7th, and 12th in this general theme.

Silver Crusade

Okay, if we're going to assume an actual 'roundness' test, I propose it be done at anywhere between 7-12, and for me, I'd think 10th level is a fine point for it. With this, I'd also like to introduce another caveat in this roundness test: That each step include 3 party members contributing. So often we see people just having one person just solo a certain part of the challenge, and that's not really a roundness test, it makes for more boring sessions for the players who aren't included.


N. Jolly wrote:
Okay, if we're going to assume an actual 'roundness' test, I propose it be done at anywhere between 7-12, and for me, I'd think 10th level is a fine point for it. With this, I'd also like to introduce another caveat in this roundness test: That each step include 3 party members contributing. So often we see people just having one person just solo a certain part of the challenge, and that's not really a roundness test, it makes for more boring sessions for the players who aren't included.

What about if 3 characters could individually solo it?

Otherwise there is this wierd situation where an amazing group scores worse than a mediocre group, because the amazing group finds it so easy that they only waste resources by having multiple people participate. It would be the equivalent of sticking a DC12 strength check in front of a strength based martial party, and criticizing them when the fighter pulls it off in a standard action while the slayer, barbarian and monk watch. Meanwhile the strength 5 caster party gets bonus points because they all managed to participate by aid another-ing over the 4 rounds it took them to beat the pathetically low check.

Silver Crusade

Snowblind wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
Okay, if we're going to assume an actual 'roundness' test, I propose it be done at anywhere between 7-12, and for me, I'd think 10th level is a fine point for it. With this, I'd also like to introduce another caveat in this roundness test: That each step include 3 party members contributing. So often we see people just having one person just solo a certain part of the challenge, and that's not really a roundness test, it makes for more boring sessions for the players who aren't included.

What about if 3 characters could individually solo it?

Otherwise there is this wierd situation where an amazing group scores worse than a mediocre group, because the amazing group finds it so easy that they only waste resources by having multiple people participate. It would be the equivalent of sticking a DC12 strength check in front of a strength based martial party, and criticizing them when the fighter pulls it off in a standard action while the slayer, barbarian and monk watch. Meanwhile the strength 5 caster party gets bonus points because they all managed to participate by aid another-ing over the 4 rounds it took them to beat the pathetically low check.

Hm, well the thing is these are very large and vague challenges, like the first one is pretty vague to begin with. I could possibly agree to that if while they could solo it, it could at least involve 2/3 people participating, since it would be better to have more people involved for the sake of the game as well.


N. Jolly wrote:
I'd also like to introduce another caveat in this roundness test: That each step include 3 party members contributing

Wouldn't a fairer caveat be to either demonstrate how a challenge can be resolved co-operatively, or if it can be soloed (which is not unreasonable as many non-combat skill challenges can be soloed, disarming a sophisticated magic trap, for instance), to also demonstrate the next-best option if the soloing character was unavailable.

Or an alternative like 'a character that soloes one challenge cannot solo another.'


The party I made all worked pretty well together I think.

All of them got reasonable spotlight or were able to provide aid on the challenges.

I forgot to include a few ways each of the classes could contribute, but the jist is there.

Silver Crusade

Idle Champion wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
I'd also like to introduce another caveat in this roundness test: That each step include 3 party members contributing

Wouldn't a fairer caveat be to either demonstrate how a challenge can be resolved co-operatively, or if it can be soloed (which is not unreasonable as many non-combat skill challenges can be soloed, disarming a sophisticated magic trap, for instance), to also demonstrate the next-best option if the soloing character was unavailable.

Or an alternative like 'a character that soloes one challenge cannot solo another.'

I'd like to at least have 2 characters to a challenge, since if everyone solos 1 thing, it's still everyone playing direct spotlight for a certain part of the game, which leaves the other three players bored and checking their phones.

Really the object of the 'roundness' test is to help figure out a way to include as many people as possible (especially in non battle situations), but right now these are all just rough ideas, and I welcome any ideas on how to make this a better test.


N. Jolly wrote:
Idle Champion wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
I'd also like to introduce another caveat in this roundness test: That each step include 3 party members contributing

Wouldn't a fairer caveat be to either demonstrate how a challenge can be resolved co-operatively, or if it can be soloed (which is not unreasonable as many non-combat skill challenges can be soloed, disarming a sophisticated magic trap, for instance), to also demonstrate the next-best option if the soloing character was unavailable.

Or an alternative like 'a character that soloes one challenge cannot solo another.'

I'd like to at least have 2 characters to a challenge, since if everyone solos 1 thing, it's still everyone playing direct spotlight for a certain part of the game, which leaves the other three players bored and checking their phones.

Really the object of the 'roundness' test is to help figure out a way to include as many people as possible (especially in non battle situations), but right now these are all just rough ideas, and I welcome any ideas on how to make this a better test.

The issue is that you want to avoid the situation where you are throwing challenges at a certain party that can be handled by a single player, while another party has to work as a team to survive. If that happens then the most likely cause is that some of your challenges are probably too damn easy for some parties. If a single player in a fullcaster party can easily solo an encounter with very little resource expenditure, making the encounter 4 times more difficult has a reasonable chance of getting them working together. A Core Rogue group would struggle against the first encounter if they can even manage it at all, and certainly TPK on the second. Using the metric of "how many players are participating" leaves you in the silly situation where for some challenges a party of "everyone is good at everything" Schrodinger casters stomp the challenge and score poorly, while a group of crappy rogues who barely manage to survive by UMDing expensive consumables score fairly well.


Beef up the roundedness test:

King's City is under tyrannical rule. Objective is not to kill King, which would have disastrous consequences for the city, but to disarm him as an oppressor and restore balance of power. His ace in the hole in a dragon ally, that he can contact and influence by means of The MacGuffin.

1) Openly entering the city under assumed identities, and building connections with the authorities and the city's elite.

2) Covertly contacting freethinkers, radicals, spiritual leaders without blowing their cover or yours.

3) Researching the dragon and the MacGuffin.

4) Any extra/specialised equipment for the party - item creation, regular acquisition, black market.

3&4 require working in the city while maintaining cover.

5) Tricking or sweet talking the king into revealing his MacGuffin. Stealing it by whichever method you choose, bearing in mind great care has been taken to protect it, and that a replica that appears and detects as the same object must be left in its place.

6)Destroying the MacGuffin to break the King's connection with dragon ally. Magical countermeasures, difficult to destroy, dangerous consequences - treat the MacGuffin as a baby Artifact.

7) Discreetly leaving city and established identities to find and kill the dragon before theft is discovered and the dragon is alerted. All subsequent challenges must be done in one working day.

8) The entrance to the dragon's lair is concealed, and takes advantage of the dragon's racial advantages (e.g. buried under the sands, underwater, such like. The entrance is also trapped out the wazoo.

9) Dragon's lair is guarded by sub-10 Intelligence magical beasts, kobolds, and constructs.

10)Killing the dragon and reporting your success to the civic leaders discussed in (2)


Before we decide on a roundness test, shouldn't we figure out a roundness test for roundness tests?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Gohaken wrote:
stuff

yeah, a straw man can be called "putting words in their mouth", like a straw man argument would be "people in favor of abortion just like to murder children, murdering is bad and should be illegal", obviously no one holds the position that he set up, he set up a straw man, an enemy that looks tough but is actually made of straw so he can easily beat it down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Before we decide on a roundness test, shouldn't we figure out a roundness test for roundness tests?

Well-roundedception.

Wait... I know! We can test the roundedness tests by putting well-rounded parties through them, that way we'll know if they're well-rounded.

Yes, since we had strawman so thoroughly discussed, I'm playing 'Know Your Fallacies.' I guess we'll have to rely on open critiquing and comparisons with alternative tests proposed by the thread. Then we'll have to design even more excruciating tests of roundness, so that the chaff of sufficiently well-rounded parties can be sorted from the wheat that is the most well rounded 4 man party.

Silver Crusade

Okay, now for the 'rounders' test, there needs to be some guidelines that can be agreed on.

I propose at least done at either 5th or 10th level, since 5th is a pretty standard level for things like this, and 10th is where everyone should have all of their moving parts in order, so no one's waiting to blossom.

The challenges should be ones you could normally expect to see in actual games, with minimal altering of preset monsters/npcs (since it wouldn't be hard for myself or someone else to make an NPC who's CR did NOT reflect their difficulty to throw off the curve.

There should be at least 4 challenges, although this number could be higher, but 4 feels like a solid bare minimum for this.

I myself don't think any of these should be able to be done with less than two people for my previous stated reason, since making something that only 1 player can solve (and most likely easily at that) will not really show a party that's completely round for fun play, and is more an exercise in specialization instead of team work, which a rounded party feels like it should excel in. Again, this one is the most up for debate, and I'd love to kick around ideas for party inclusion.

This should be open to all classes, but the classes should be kept as single classed as possible for this to really gauge the class's ability to handle things without needing tools from others.

I like Idle's addition to the previously suggested test, although we'd still need to throw some hard numbers and such onto those challenges that fit around what a party should expect to face with DCs for skill checks, AC/dmg/etc.


Lookup "Same Game Test"

Silver Crusade

I found the link to the thread that was sort of like this

That should provide a decent starting point for a test.


Well, as for the 4 wizards, I believe I could probably take them out with 3 kobolds with crossbows (hardly unusual or min/max'd).

HOWEVER, it should be noted, this could boil down to an initiative thing.

Wizards CAN get sleep which if in range can end the encounter right quick, they also can have color spray.

The question of course is if they could survive 4 encounters a day where they constantly win the initiative. On that count, even against a typical CR encounter, I'd say the wizards would be TPK'd at level 1 (and possibly at level 2). Higher levels and I'd say they start to shine.

As far as encounters, I'd say encounters at 1st, 4th, 8th, and 12th if we are going for 4 encounters only (as that's a nice spread).

If we are allowed more, I'd say 12 encounters, one at each level.


I'd prefer to see just a basic 'can they make basic skill checks, survive and succeed in a 4-encounter day at level 1' test, then pit them against a more varied range of challenges - skills, social encounters, gearing up like a party in progress rather than being built to WBL (coming to town at 10th level with 9th level WBL gear and enough valuables to pay for the transition - how's their haggling, their crafting, etc.), how do they deal with environmental encounters (traps and suchlike), before moving on to the 4-encounter day.

I'd like to see - much like the way iconics get their 1st, 7th, and 12th level builds detailed - a comprehensive 7th and 12th level challenge - the one I suggested based on Jolly's template was sort of angling towards 12th level.

The Exchange

N. Jolly wrote:


I honestly don't know how the staff magus would be T2, does it get a new spell list or something? That's the only thing that'd really lift it up.

Man Im not really sure either -- I haven't ever played Magus or spent much time on it. I'm guessing it has to do with level 10 "Staff Weapon" ability, which as written allows magus to recharge any one staff as much as he wants each day (assuming he has access to refilling his arcane pool easily).

I suppose with a really nasty staff, he can effectively expand his spell list by burning arcane points to cast level 9 spells (again, really only an issue if he can find a way to recharge his arcane pool easily).

This is conjecture from reading the archtype, I haven't ever built or play tested one of these.

-Goh

Sovereign Court

Most seem to be assuming high levels.

Why?

The best and/or most well-rounded party varies greatly from level to level.


Gohaken wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:


I honestly don't know how the staff magus would be T2, does it get a new spell list or something? That's the only thing that'd really lift it up.

Man Im not really sure either -- I haven't ever played Magus or spent much time on it. I'm guessing it has to do with level 10 "Staff Weapon" ability, which as written allows magus to recharge any one staff as much as he wants each day (assuming he has access to refilling his arcane pool easily).

I suppose with a really nasty staff, he can effectively expand his spell list by burning arcane points to cast level 9 spells (again, really only an issue if he can find a way to recharge his arcane pool easily).

This is conjecture from reading the archtype, I haven't ever built or play tested one of these.

-Goh

Even without arcane pool recharge that can give the Staff Magus access to one 9th level spell per day.

Summoner's been called T2 as well, and he's only got one 9th level spell [granted Greater Planar Binding is worth more than many 9th level spells anyway, despite being an 8th level spell normaly]

Oh... another thing just occurred to me. The cost of a spell and its material components is integrated into the cost of the staff creation. With Wish/Limited Wish this would enable the Staff Magus access to any spell of 6/8 level for the cost of putting one spell on the staff [and 50x the material component, which is a lot but not nearly as much as trying to make a very versatile staff of high level spells just by spell selection.]

Lastly, there's the feat Extra Arcane Pool. A Staff Magus who reached level 10 could easily deign to retrain his feats to that, increasing his pool by up to roughly 1 point per level [2 points every odd level] which very well might be worthwhile at that level of play, for opening up that level of spellcasting.

51 to 82 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Strongest / Most Well rounded 4 man party? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.