Like... What does a party need, and what classes fill each of those niches?
Default "standard" party of 4 is generally Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Which feels like:
Fighter: Tank
Rogue: Skills
Cleric: Healing
Wizard: Damage
4e used the terms Defender for tank types with abilities that redirected damage away from their allies, Striker for high damage characters, Commander for leadership types with support and maneuverability stuff, and I think there was a Healer support one too. Then in later print there were classes that were hybrids of those four main roles.
Maybe I'm looking at it in an oversimplified manner. Pathfinder classes seem to try and represent their own niche. I noticed though in the last 6 characters or so that I've made that even though I made 6 characters they really can't make a party. They're all unique in their own little ways, but for the most part I think they all kind of fit the same role.
So what are the basic building blocks of a party? And what classes have each of those aspects? (Not including Archtypes of course, since that's a lot to sift through, and some remove the class' base role to replace with another.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking, a PC needs to be able to function well in at least one capacity; while a "well rounded" party has at least one PC that can do well in each of them:
Battlefield control
Buffing and/or debuffing
Healing (to include status removal)
Melee combat
Ranged combat or blasting
Skills (knowledges, locks/traps, and social skills are the main categories)
Classes can often be strong in two or more categories, depending on how the individual PC is put together. For example, a barbarian is typically strong in melee combat and can potentially be good in a few skills, bards can be strong at buffing and skills, a fighter usually has the feats to be strong in both melee and ranged combat (possibly with some battlefield control/debuffing using maneuvers), a witch is strong in debuffing and (as an Int-based caster) skills, etc.
The thing to keep in mind is that a given class is not limited to the "stereotypical" version. There is enough flexibility to expand beyond that. Also, rather than focusing on "class = role," it's usually better to start with "what do I want the PC to be able to do" and then look at what class and other options can enable that.
Honestly, by using archetypes, multiclassing, prestige classes, and other options, you can pretty much have any "primary" class fill any two or more categories.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah this isn't something that's necessarily going to work for a game like Pathfinder. Some classes will be better at certain things, but they can usually be made to fit just about anything.
Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue.
Fighter: Damage Dealer/Tank
Wizard: Battlefield Control/Buffing
Cleric: Buffing/Tank
Rogue: Skills/Damage Dealer
Those are probably the easiest things to go with, but you could easily change this:
- The Fighter could take a reach weapon and Combat Reflexes and suddenly he's added Batlefield Control to his repertoire.
- The Wizard can choose Evocation (or something similar) as their specialist school and now they're a Damage Dealer.
- The Cleric can turn some of that buffing onto inward and suddenly they're another Damage Dealer.
- The Rogue can choose certain debilitating Sneak-Attack talents and suddenly they're de-buffing the enemy (battlefield controll).
Really any class can do any of these, they just find it harder to do some than others. The Fighter finds it hard to be a buffer, but with the right feats it can be done. The Cleric finds it hard to be a skill-monkey, but there are domains that can help this (also not dumping INT).
The main things you need for combat are:
- Damage Dealer
- Buffing
- Debuffing
You can also get away with none of these, but you'll tend to find you struggle with some encounters.
Huh. So maybe it's just a me thing making the same types of characters. I'm a big fan of the rogue (have been for 10+ years since I started with Palladium), so stretching away from it is probably my problem. I tend to make rogue-like characters.
I played a wizard in a fill game and went divination which was a lot of fun as a pretty much pure-buffs character. And then in Starfinder recently I'm playing an envoy with a similar buff/debuff playstyle focused on intimidate, since the game where I was playing my vigilante was short-lived.
The characters I've been making though are:
I did remake the arachnid wildsoul vigilante using some companion options. She's a drow nightmare fist build.
An ancestry oracle, who feels a bit like a front line fighter with heals.
A makeshift scrapper rogue who's all about front line shovel one-hits. Str based.
A hinyasi brawler who throws full attacks worth of rocks, which makes him a ranged damage dealer.
A weretouched shifter all about stacking powerful natural attack combos.
A finesse magus who isn't a kensai who still needs a lot of work if she's going to successfully get a small Aldori swordlord dip for Dex-damage.
And a musket master gunslinger who plans to multiclass rogue to essentially be the ultimate sniper.
Then my next 2 ideas involve a white-haired witch, which is pretty much a witch/rogue, and the new gloomblade fighter. Maybe I just need to make some characters that actually use weapons? (As I've realized beyond the gunslinger and magus, none of tgem really use weapons, it's all unarmed, improvised, natural, or some other special ability.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder, there's no such thing as "class roles".
I don't know if a strictly seperated distribution of roles was ever actually good in D&D, but I know that in Pathfinder, it isn't. Due to traits, archetypes, racial traits, and more hybridish classes, the traditional party roles are split between multiple characters in a proper Pathfinder party. In such a party, "tanking", damage dealing, skills, casting and sometimes even healing are done in part each by multiple characters.
The important thing to realize is that everything is a means to an end. It's always the end that counts, never the means. The goal is never to pick the lock, it's getting through the door (sometimes, with the extra challenge of leaving no signs behind, or producing no noise). It doesn't matter if that's by picking the lock, breaking the lock/door, teleporting, stone shaping the wall, or turning etheral. You don't need someone who picks locks, you need one PC that can do one of these things to pass that obstacle.
In combat, it's even more pronounced - in almost every combat, the goal is to incapitate the enemy without suffering to much. Killing enemies quickly, using debuffs, and using battlefield controll options are all means to the same end, as are boosting defenses and/or infight healing. You don't need all of these. Generally, a good mix is better than only having one, but lacking one or more is not problematic if the others are stronger. In the end, it just doesn't matter whether the enemy is incapitated because it's sleeping, heaviliy debuffed, attacking a near-immune character, having their damage healed back again afterwards, or dead.
I've played in a party where HP healing was done by the Magus' spell recalled Infernal Healing (plus a wand if needed) and the condition removal was split between the Druid and the Sorcerer (both were needed vs. Mummy Rot), plus hired NPC. Said party also didn't have a d10/12 HD class, the melee job was done by the Magus, the Druid+Pet, and my Summoner's Eidolon - each of those had either low HP or low AC. The Druid was the only class with more than 2+int skill ranks per level.
So, we had no traditional tank, no traditional healer, and no skillmonkey, and still the party was ridiculously effective.
To showcase how one character can fulfill multiple roles, let me tell you a bit about what my Summoner from that campaign had or could've had (e.g. I didn't take social skills for roleplay reasons): Infernal Haling on the spells list, plus teleport later on, means that character can fulfill the "healer" roll to a good amount. Charisma focussed obviously helps for social interactions. Large Eidolon with Mage Armor, Barkskin and the cheap Improved Natural Armor evolution results in a frontliner that can block well, while pounce plus multiple attacks results in high damage. Early access Haste allow good party support. Invisibility and Fly allow sneaking. Phantom Steed, Teleport etc. allow transportation. Wall of Fire + Lesser Rod of Dazing can controll the battlefield fairly well. Half-Elf plus Seeker trait resulted in high perception, which in PF works against all traps.
So yeah, that Summoner was/could have been: Healer, party face, 'tank', damage dealer, support caster, party transportation, battlefield controller, and trap finder. That's without the Summon Monster SLA!
In Pathfinder, there is literally no reason to have just one character focus on skills - cross-class skill are no concern.
Likewise, you don't need a dedicated healer, because infight healing is very weak most of the time, anyway. Everything else can be done outfight; when in doubt, by hiring an NPC. HP healing is mostly done with wands of CLW or Infernal Healing, which emans almost every caster can do that.
Not only is a dedicated tank not needed, you don't even need a martial character (pets and summoned monsters, or just debuffs and/or battlefield controll options can fill that gap).
You'll want to have some characters that do damage (not technically needed, but in practice, it's generally the most efficient thing), but there's no reason such a character shouldn't do other stuff as well.
I put together this document to help new players understand class roles and with regard to character creation. Its dated and so there may be options now that didn't exist when I put this together. It should help a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a more simplified view of the roles needed.
First, I think you need to separate combat and non-combat and combat roles are the more important from a character perspective (failing in combat gets the party dead, failing out of combat usually just means a setback) and a player perspective (in most games, a huge percentage of the game time is taken up by combat.)
I believe the combat roles are Striker, Support and Control. There are tons of ways to do these, and intrinsic in them is having plans for dealing with all sorts of difficulties you could come across, and the tactics of how the roles are going to work together for the party you have to work out, but if all the roles are covered and you have a some secondary roles to fall back on, a party will generally do quite well. If something specific is missing (for example, Bards make great support characters but lack the condition removal of a cleric which is also quite good at support) a plan to bridge that gap will need to be made (scrolls and UMD perhaps, or a witch controller that can do some condition removal when necessary.) I believe if your character can't competently fill one of the combat roles, he shouldn't be in an adventuring party (caveat, fun is fun of course, and if your group is cool with a dead weight and you are too, more power too you. An entire party of incompetents can be fun.)
Out of combat I don't think their are 'roles' so much as general needs that have to covered by the party. This includes things like skills, dealing with traps, and understanding language. The party should have good coverage in all of these things or a plan to deal with the lack. Generally though, no amount of greatness out of combat is going to make up in usefulness to a party for being useless in combat.
As for how the classes match up, obviously some are better than others and some classes are naturally suited for one role or another, but for the most part pathfinder classes are flexible enough that almost any class can perform any role. Through the mid levels, a trip focused fighter is actually pretty great battlefield control for example.
Organized Play Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The current edition of Pathfinder doesn't really bind class and role together as tightly as various other RPGs often do. There are some basic functions that some classes are going to be better at than others (fighters and paladins can deal consistent damage and have solid AC, barbarians can do high single-target damage, wizards have lots of control and area effects, etc.) but the flexibility of the system means that if you want to build a cleric who deals high melee damage and specializes in battlefield control, that's doable. Similarly you can have fighters that act as debuffers and control specialists, spiritualists who act as primary healers, so on and so forth. The best party tank we've ever had in my home group was a bard.
Mostly you want to make sure you have someone who can deal good direct damage, someone with some level of area control, someone who can cover condition removal and basic healing needs, and someone with good skills who can handle various non-combat interactions. You can also split those up between multiple characters who have more well-rounded skill sets. Classes like ranger, alchemist, bard, inquisitor and several others can typically tackle two or three different needs such as combat prowess and skill facility, and having two or three such classes in a group may mean that the group is particularly adept at handling a variety of situations but needs to get more creative for tasks that assume or require a specialist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like basically everyone else mentioned, combat is less about "role" and more about "outcomes." I explain it with a mnemonic called "the 3 p's."
-Performance: everything ties back into this. There's an objective to this scene. Someone needs to complete it, whether it is "steal this thingy" or "kill this many orcs" or "open the door." A Performer usually needs a large damage output in some way, as a lot of combats are resolved through combat.
-Positioning: It's the Performer's job to carry out the objective, but it's the Positioner's job to get them there. They're in charge of getting all of the little details of the battle; manipulating the enemies, the lighting, and the buffing/debuffing. This role is frequently overlooked because of its indirect relationship to damage, but played well, can trivialize a lot of encounters.
-Protection: The GM has an infinite supply of monsters, and the Performer and Protector have a definitely-not-infinite supply of HP. It is the job of the Protector to keep them alive (and not blinded/sickened/unconscious/any number of other bad things) long enough for them to do their job. While this sounds like the traditional "healer" role, it is usually tied more to condition removal and other, more proactive methods of avoiding death.
An example:
A group I'm playing with on Saturday (we all built Monks, because Monks are a pretty good meme.)
Tetori Monk with Agile Maneuvers, specialized into grappling.
Monk of the Mantis, specialized into Stunning Fist.
A weird-ass Drunken Master build, specialized into having ridiculous strength and elemental attacks.
Example Encounter 1: Swarmed by Mooks
Positioning: Our high Perception and Movement let us set the battlefield to somewhere with a chokepoint (doorway, narrow pass, etc.).
Protection: The Tetori and Mantis flank the doorway, slowing down the enemy advance with blocking, Sneak Attack OAs, and Grappling to buy the Drunken Master time to "recharge"
Performance: The Drunken Master lets loose through the doorway with his fire breath, and we flurry the survivors.
Example Encounter 2: A single powerful monster
Positioning: The Mantis stuns the enemy, limiting their offensive options and making them easier to hit.
Protection: The Tetori flanks the enemy, and uses the Disarm/Grapple chain, limiting the monster's offensive and escape options.
Performance:The Drunken Master uses Drunken Strength, Flurry, and Ki Strikes to deplete the monster's HP.
If Monks can do it, you can do it too!
A home game runs well with core straight classes in which each player chose a different role and they covered all the bases.
Mustered tables in PFS run well with a party of hybrid classes who can fill in ability gaps.
Pathfinder does have life tanking though. This is when you build a tanky life oracle with lots of shield other and life link. You take at least half of all damage and then heal the rest over time. And then, if your enemies are intelligent, you will generate a ton of aggro as they try to take you out directly.
Given all the different archetypes and secondary rules that could be at play, I don't think it's wise to try and fit classes into general roles.
Rather, it's possibly better to judge what the characters have and weigh it against what is expected. By that I mean most games you're going to want some level of;
Melee/Ranged damage
Toughness/survivailibity(AKA The Tank)
Magic/Elemental damage
Battlefield control
Buff/Debuff
Healing
Problem solving(Spells, skills, RP)
And maybe AoE tossed in there as well. That's the usual collection of traits you want in a character AND the Team. If you know your friend is going Sorcerer, well pick up Barbarian and be a wall of HP and Pain, as an example. Base Cleric is probably the easiest way to up the amount of Healing and De/Buffs you can toss out but built a different way or with an Archetype basically becomes a Fighter with some extra goodies.
I've generally always seen the best method to attract enemies as presenting yourself as the most dangerous
Correct. Most of the terms CRPGs use were appropriated from meat-space RPGs.I'm going to rage against one of my personal pet peeves. Tanks. Tanking is a MMO term that people drag into Pathfinder.No. "Tank" is a D&D term in common use years before MMOs were even a thing.
For something to be a Tank you really need an ability to force an opponent to come to you or stay with you. 4th edition D&D had that for 'Tanks'. It is the only addition of D&D with real tanks.No & no. Old-school tanks were just able to take hits their teammates couldn't, and could take better use of the attack-of-opportunity equivalent. The term may have gained extra connotations in an MMO context, which is why D&D 4e defenders are not MMO tanks (or old-school tanks).
The definition of "tank" has been debated for awhile, and players commonly conflate it with "striker" (a similar role) or "turtle", but I like the delineation of role between "tank" and "striker" as stated here: "The mentality of the (striker) is "I'm going to dish it out faster than I take it! The mentality of the tank is "I'm going to take it less than I dish it out!" Both strive for favorable attrition ratio, but whereas the striker emphasizes DPR and making combats short, the tank emphasizes minimization of party resource usage, especially as regards to healing expenses with actual gold costs (e.g., those rainy-day Breath of Life scrolls nobody wants to dip into).
Like... What does a party need, and what classes fill each of those niches?
Default "standard" party of 4 is generally Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric. Which feels like:
Fighter: Tank
Rogue: Skills
Cleric: Healing
Wizard: Damage
First off, YUCK! A typical Fighter doesn't just handle melee combat and lots of armor, many have to switch off to missile weapons.
Rogues aren't just a random grab bag of skills. Typically the skill set is most useful in cities or populated areas. However, they are also really good at dungeoneering. Typically they serve as great scouts and use lots of tools to get the job done in versatile situations.
What really gets me going is this idea that Clerics just do healing. That's malarkey! Yes, they restore hp and remove debilitating conditions, but they also screw over opponents with debilitating magic, buff up the other PC's, nail undead back into the coffin like nobody else, and serve as great Face men or leaders. Oh, and many summon creatures to fight as well.
Okay, this one is silly: Wizards are actually more effective using control spells like Color Spray than spells like Fireball. Moreover, arcane magic is easily the most versatile in the game, you can do just about anything with the right spell, NOT JUST DAMAGE!
First off, YUCK! *rant about classes here*
I was over generalizing based on what those 4 classes will generally be doing around level 10. Or alternatively what a beginner party, many of which I run, should be trying to do with those classes. I am well aware of the vast diversity each class is capable of, especially since I tend to play a lot of against the grain characters.
As I was later mentioning though and no one has had comment on. I think the problem is me, because despite having made 7+ characters I cannot make a party out of them. They all kind of do the same thing.
I made an Oracle because I offered to take the healing role of my table's next game. From there I wanted to make a few different characters for future games. The closest I can get is a Finesse Magus, the Ancestor Oracle, the improvised weapons Brawler, and the Arachnid Wildsoul Vigilante.
I was over generalizing based on what (...) a beginner party, many of which I run, should be trying to do with those classes.
And that's where I and I think others disagree.
A Rogue should never be made/played so that "skills" is what defines them. Not the least because like the express train to being overshadowed and feeling useless. Overshadowed by spells that do the same thing only much better, and feeling useless because a Rogue who isn't well crafted for combat is likely to seriously suck at it. Rogue is also probably the worst class for a beginner, not the least because the class sucks as playing a "rogue".
It is possible to play a Cleric as dedicated healer (focussed on Channel Energy), but not only is that rather boring to play, but it's also very likely to be a huge waste. Cleric can do so much more than heal, and is way better when played as a more varied character.
Similarily, damage focussed Wizard is possible, but again, it's a waste of potential, and the potential to overshadow martials is huge, while at the same time, an inexperienced blaster Wizard player may feel bad in a party with well crafted martial or hybrid characters.
Vanilla Fighter is actually not that good as a tank because of weak will save, and because it takes quite a lot of system mastery to build a tanky Fighter so that enemies have a reason to attack it. Like Rogue, Fighter is a class likely to frustrate new players, only this time it's because the do the same every round in combat and nothing out of it unless well build. The more you focus on being "tanky", the more pronounced that is.
I was over generalizing based on what (...) a beginner party, many of which I run, should be trying to do with those classes.And that's where I and I think others disagree.
A Rogue should never be made/played so that "skills" is what defines them. Not the least because like the express train to being overshadowed and feeling useless. Overshadowed by spells that do the same thing only much better, and feeling useless because a Rogue who isn't well crafted for combat is likely to seriously suck at it. Rogue is also probably the worst class for a beginner, not the least because the class sucks as playing a "rogue".
It is possible to play a Cleric as dedicated healer (focussed on Channel Energy), but not only is that rather boring to play, but it's also very likely to be a huge waste. Cleric can do so much more than heal, and is way better when played as a more varied character.
Similarily, damage focussed Wizard is possible, but again, it's a waste of potential, and the potential to overshadow martials is huge, while at the same time, an inexperienced blaster Wizard player may feel bad in a party with well crafted martial or hybrid characters.
Vanilla Fighter is actually not that good as a tank because of weak will save, and because it takes quite a lot of system mastery to build a tanky Fighter so that enemies have a reason to attack it. Like Rogue, Fighter is a class likely to frustrate new players, only this time it's because the do the same every round in combat and nothing out of it unless well build. The more you focus on being "tanky", the more pronounced that is.
I'm sorry this just reads to me as "You have no idea what you're doing, don't play anything".
This seems an incredible hostile take on what is held up on the iconic group. Just get a new group of players and tell them "Here's what you're playing, here's why you're playing, and now have fun."
Yeeeeeeeeeeeah..., that'll get beginners playing.
Rogue is also probably the worst class for a beginner, not the least because the class sucks as playing a "rogue".
Like Rogue, Fighter is a class likely to frustrate new players, only this time it's because the do the same every round in combat and nothing out of it unless well build. The more you focus on being "tanky", the more pronounced that is.
Actually, the first class I tend to give beginners is the Fighter, sometimes the Barbarian. Most of them appreciate the ACTION! that the classes engage in, and the dice mechanics are really simple. Spells and skills tend to be more complicated when you think about it. That said, I do steer them toward defensive feats and traits in the beginning, just so they will survive the class' weaknesses long enough to understand how to play.
As for Rogue, typically I give them to anyone that has a creative or devious mentality, since Rogues love to use skills, various tools, alchemical items, poisons etc to get the job done. Better yet, their skills don't have a limit per day, so they can try whatever they want as many times as they want. That is something spellcasters can't do, period.
I agree that rogues tend to work better when they have a lot of tools at their disposal - and know how to use them. There are actually quite a lot of mundane tools and equipment in the game, many with valid uses in combat, and you can do a lot with that if you're creative enough.
I agree that rogues tend to work better when they have a lot of tools at their disposal - and know how to use them. There are actually quite a lot of mundane tools and equipment in the game, many with valid uses in combat, and you can do a lot with that if you're creative enough.
And see this is why I love giving Rogue to new players. Because they're creative. Then again that's why I tend to like newer players in general.
I should stress there's a difference between Creative "Effective" and creative "fun" I suppose. I tend to run my tables with a looser reading of the rules and early game tends to look more like something out of a Pirates of the Caribbean movie. So some of the suggestions I get might not be in the spirit of the rules but I'm not one to slow down the action to think on if it's legal or not during a convoluted chase. Granted most the new players I've sat down and GM'd for were younger tykes so maybe that helped.
On the flip side, yeah there's more effective classes/builds but those might be ... akward and or confusing. I was gifted a Paladin and then a Witch as my first two characters. That was a very confusing experience to try and learn not only all the normal rules but all the spell related ones too, OH AND Animal Companion/Familiar too. I was so funked out I didn't play till I sat down and just read a class front to back at random.
Rogue - Skills. Fighter - Tank/Damage. Cleric - Heals. Wizard - Damage/Control.
These might not true. They might not be optimal, or even any good after a certain point. But they're relatively easy to envision and sort of build around. Basic blocks to start with.
Stepping back a bit; if a new player comes up to me and asks to be a sneaky knife user, I'd probably suggest Rogue. Now I could suggest Fighter, Alchemist, Hunter/Slayer, Investigator, Swashbuckler, heck probably Wizard. But I would suggest Rogue because it has less moving parts for a new player. When they understand it more, then we can maybe branch out.
Pulling it back to Class Roles - I suppose it's a good idea to ask your players just what role they want to fill to avoid having people step on each other's toes. Now if set up right, this could be pretty fun but done badly and well, you'd probably have the fighter and barbarian arguing about getting into melee to do stuff first, as an example.
Vanilla Fighter is actually not that good as a tank because of weak will save, and because it takes quite a lot of system mastery to build a tanky Fighter so that enemies have a reason to attack it.
Enemies have a reason to attack the fighter because he is at the head of the column (discounting the sneak they didn't notice) and appears to be delicious. By the time they discover that he's not, they're either dead or mostly dead.
Aside from that, if you're unwilling to part with your hat(-of-disguise) slot, Glamoured armor only costs 2700gp, doesn't cost an enhancement level, and permits you to masquerade as the squishy class of your choice whom intelligent adversaries will assume they ought to immediately pounce before it gets off any spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I think that the Tank role is at its most effective when paired with some kind of Battlefield Control. Sure, smart enemies might try to go around the heavily-armored guy... but if the Wizard raises some stone walls and funnels foes towards the Fighter, they may not have much of a choice. Playing what you want to play is important, but unless you're in a solo game, your powers don't exist in a vacuum - the choices of the rest of your party can and do influence your overall effectiveness.
For what it's worth, I think that the Tank role is at its most effective when paired with some kind of Battlefield Control. Sure, smart enemies might try to go around the heavily-armored guy... but if the Wizard raises some stone walls and funnels foes towards the Fighter, they may not have much of a choice. Playing what you want to play is important, but unless you're in a solo game, your powers don't exist in a vacuum - the choices of the rest of your party can and do influence your overall effectiveness.
I think the idea of "Tank" is misleading. I prefer to think of them as "Frontliner". Now there's a few ways to get a frontliner going but depending on your group, builds, tactics, etc; you're gonna want to figure out how to put something between the squishies and the enemy.
Rolling up Fighter or Barbarian tends to be the 'easiest' answer to filling this role/job/idea.
Personally, I prefer the distinction between "Damage Dealer" (causes HP damage) and "Tank" (takes HP damage in place of others when possible). A character can be both, of course - in fact, many classes have at least two roles they are, or can be, good at. I think Frontliner seems a little too close to meshing the ideas - you can do damage from the back or obstruct enemies and try to take hits without dealing damage in return. That second one is pretty rare, but it does happen. Of course, that's heavily influenced by my personal thoughts on the term, which aren't necessarily shared by others. XD Point is, I think we can all agree that having someone or something to protect characters with weaker defenses and smaller HP pools is usually a good idea.
I'm sorry this just reads to me as "You have no idea what you're doing, don't play anything".
It's supposed to read as "play what you want, not what someone who's mentally stuck in the 70's tells you is needed".
This seems an incredible hostile take on what is held up on the iconic group.
Now that is intended. Because it's only iconic because of people who're slave to outdated concepts, or whe don't seem to graps that Pathfinder is not D&D 3.X. It should not be the iconic party, because it doesn't fit the game.
Just get a new group of players and tell them "Here's what you're playing, here's why you're playing, and now have fun."
That's exactly what I'm trying to fight. What do you think happens when the GM, other players, or the newbie(s) think that you absolutely need a dedicated tank/healer/skillmonkey, the newbie doesn't want to play one, and the party is lacking one?
Seriously, threads like that pop up on these boards all the time. "I don't want to play tank, but the party needs one, so I'll take one for the team" is something that should be reserved for World of Warcraft, niot Pathfinder because there is no such "need". You can play the game without a divine caster in your party. You can play the game without a d10/12 HD class in your party. You can play the game without a class with more than 2+int skill ranks per level. Everything that makes people believe different should be discouraged!
Actually, the first class I tend to give beginners is the Fighter, sometimes the Barbarian. Most of them appreciate the ACTION! that the classes engage in, and the dice mechanics are really simple.
Three problems with that: 1) Newbies often tend to try to solve just about everything with skills, a class with 2 skills/level and very few class skills is not good for that. 2) Unless well build, Fighters are easily overshadowed by for instance Barbarians. 3) You learn very little about how Pathfinder works mechanically if you play Fighter.
As for Rogue, typically I give them to anyone that has a creative or devious mentality, since Rogues love to use skills, various tools, alchemical items, poisons etc to get the job done. Better yet, their skills don't have a limit per day, so they can try whatever they want as many times as they want. That is something spellcasters can't do, period.
What happens when they discover that poisons are overpriced crap, their caster teammates make their skills obsolete, and their "lone wolf" style character doesn't funktion in combat without teamwork? How good do you think the player feels about the game then?
Enemies have a reason to attack the fighter because he is at the head of the column (discounting the sneak they didn't notice) and appears to be delicious. By the time they discover that he's not, they're either dead or mostly dead.
What happens when the enemies don't come from up front, but from the sides, or behind? Or their survival instinct tells them the guy who hurts them a lot is more worthy of attention than the one who only pokes them a bit? Of course, intelligent enemies will presume that the guy your party puts in front is the one you want them to attack - it's the default tactic after all.
I think we can all agree that having someone or something to protect characters with weaker defenses and smaller HP pools is usually a good idea.
I do agree, but as you say, you don't need "someone", a "something" will do as well. Eidolons, animal companions, summoned monsters, wall spells, pit spells, difficult terrain producing spells, and illusions can do the job. There are also "mid/backline" characters with strong defense, from equipment, class features or spells like Mirror Image (in my current party, the most "tanky" character is the sole non-melee character, a Zen Archer Monk).
All I know is, munchkins/powergamers/optimizers all amount to the same thing: Rules Lawyers, and the desire to "win" the game. Oddly, my players seem to have a distaste for that sort of thing. They prefer to craft their characters to the needs of the campaign, rather than a set plan or a need to win.
I have found Rogues to be more than adequate for most campaigns, and have been using Unchained versions of the Rogue, Barbarian, Monk in my games for some time now.
I would say for a long term game Condition Removal and someone who can deal Area of Effect damage decently are the only things that are probably absolutely necessary to take on a wide variety of adventures.
Nothing sucks the fun out of a game when someone eats a pile of negative levels(Or ability damage/drain) and is effectively out of the game for weeks in game time. Nor is the inevitable swarm encounter where everyone awkwardly tries to figure out how to hurt the diminutive swarm.
Everything else is more or less gravy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, you can be a rules lawyer without being a munchkin. I’m pretty sure a large number of us that frequent these boards fall in that territory. I thoroughly enjoy analyzing the mechanics. And I always try to make sure my character is competent. But I almost never optimize as hard as I could, because the character’s flavor usually gets in the way at some point.
I'm sorry this just reads to me as "You have no idea what you're doing, don't play anything".It's supposed to read as "play what you want, not what someone who's mentally stuck in the 70's tells you is needed".
This seems an incredible hostile take on what is held up on the iconic group.Now that is intended. Because it's only iconic because of people who're slave to outdated concepts, or whe don't seem to graps that Pathfinder is not D&D 3.X. It should not be the iconic party, because it doesn't fit the game.
Just get a new group of players and tell them "Here's what you're playing, here's why you're playing, and now have fun."That's exactly what I'm trying to fight. What do you think happens when the GM, other players, or the newbie(s) think that you absolutely need a dedicated tank/healer/skillmonkey, the newbie doesn't want to play one, and the party is lacking one?
Seriously, threads like that pop up on these boards all the time. "I don't want to play tank, but the party needs one, so I'll take one for the team" is something that should be reserved for World of Warcraft, niot Pathfinder because there is no such "need". You can play the game without a divine caster in your party. You can play the game without a d10/12 HD class in your party. You can play the game without a class with more than 2+int skill ranks per level. Everything that makes people believe different should be discouraged!
And if the newbie DOES want to play dedicated X you're going to sit them down and say "It doesn't work that way" it seems.
You can totally play the game all those ways but you're going to need a good group or a good GM that can roll with the oddity of the group. I mean, all fighters is something I've wanted to try for awhile but I would only do it in a group I actually like and trust. I wouldn't suggest All Fighters to a new group. Or all wizards.
As for the "The party needs a tank but I don't want to play it" the actual answer should be; talk it over with the rest of the group or GM. The forums can probably help to build you a tank but if you're not going to have fun with it, why bother? Talk with the group about what they can do to cover that area, either with items, spells, or even reworks.
But if you WANT to fill the role of "Tank/Frontliner" I would think you should be allowed to do so. You don't need a dedicated X, I just find that you need enough access to X. Example, needed another frontline recently in a game. No one rebuilt though and I saw this need coming, so I made a simple Golem. Can't out damage the Barbarian we already have but can take a hit better than the gunslinger, alchemist and sorcerer we have. It's a workable Solution than a hardline Answer.
Now it can be really fun to play without an area covered. No frontline means more running battles. No Magic means practical solutions and NPC interaction. Low skills means different solutions. But there's only a couple GMs I would probably trust playing under with that.
Now, you can be a rules lawyer without being a munchkin. I’m pretty sure a large number of us that frequent these boards fall in that territory. I thoroughly enjoy analyzing the mechanics. And I always try to make sure my character is competent. But I almost never optimize as hard as I could, because the character’s flavor usually gets in the way at some point.
This. By math I probably waste a feat or two, pick up some unviable magic items or don't use them as I should, and make some odd choices with traits and gear. I end up with a flawed character by math's standards.
Good. Makes them feel more believable. I'd perfer not to be overshadowed in my character/role(Shaman in Iron Gods, get shown up by Impossible Sorcerer that picks up CLW wand), but at the same time I feel if you optimize after a certain point you're not playing a character, you're running a spread sheet.
|
Now, you can be a rules lawyer without being a munchkin. I’m pretty sure a large number of us that frequent these boards fall in that territory. I thoroughly enjoy analyzing the mechanics. And I always try to make sure my character is competent. But I almost never optimize as hard as I could, because the character’s flavor usually gets in the way at some point.
I find that a lot of times what some consider optimization has actually gone so far around the curve that you're actually doing the opposite of optimizing after a certain point. I've seen a lot of characters with a 5 or 7 in a "worthless" stat get taken out of the adventure hard when they run into something that can cause damage or penalties to that stat. Similarly, I've seen a lot of dwarven druids who thought they could dump CHA find out that they only have a 50% or lower chance of successfully commanding their animal companion during the first several levels of play. Once I had a Dex-based vivisectionist in a Skulls and Shackles game who probably could have taken out just about anything the party would have encountered, but was constantly stymied by a variety of mobility-based skill checks that made her struggle to actually catch an enemy (though in fairness, that did eventually smooth out after she got a few levels under her).
One of the secrets of Pathfinder is that optimization is really about time to resolution. If you are expected to be able to deal with a CR appropriate threat by yourself (say, if you're fighting a group of enemies who collectively make up an APL+3 encounter but individually are the same level as you), and that threat has 60 hit points, there's no difference in the effectiveness of an attack that deals 75 points points of damage or an attack that deals 100; any resource you spent on that last 25 points of damage is character waste, and true optimization would have been spending those resources to round out your skills and/or utility.
What that often means is that someone who spends their traits or the occasional chunk of wealth on RP related skill-boosters or magic items is actually a better optimizer than the player who min/maxed and leveraged every resource they could towards hyper-specializing in a specific task (unless that task is "casting arcane spells" in which case they may legitimately be more optimized).
I've seen a lot of characters with a 5 or 7 in a "worthless" stat get taken out of the adventure hard when they run into something that can cause damage or penalties to that stat.
Haha. Yeah, I've been there. XD It wasn't a matter on min/maxing it, but rather the character I was playing needed Dex, Con and Cha all high, and I chise a Drow. So most of my points were funneled into a 14 Con after penalties, leaving me with 9 Str and 7 Wis. We were level 3-ish and guess which two stats were hit by traps and poison?
Didn't die, but going into a boss fight with 4 Str and 5 Wis is not a fun time. I had to default to using my Drow Nobility SLAs for support, and providing flanking bonus for our heavy hitters.
Now, you can be a rules lawyer without being a munchkin.
Nope. If you started rules stomping the GM during gameplay, you would still be a munchkin. The game gets halted, and you sit there and argue. That is not playing the game, it is munchkinism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, you can be a rules lawyer without being a munchkin.Nope. If you started rules stomping the GM during gameplay, you would still be a munchkin. The game gets halted, and you sit there and argue. That is not playing the game, it is munchkinism.
That’s not what rules lawyering is. It’s just a very specific flavor of it. It’s like saying ice cream is strawberry.
I'm sorry this just reads to me as "You have no idea what you're doing, don't play anything".It's supposed to read as "play what you want, not what someone who's mentally stuck in the 70's tells you is needed".
This seems an incredible hostile take on what is held up on the iconic group.Now that is intended. Because it's only iconic because of people who're slave to outdated concepts, or whe don't seem to graps that Pathfinder is not D&D 3.X. It should not be the iconic party, because it doesn't fit the game.
Just get a new group of players and tell them "Here's what you're playing, here's why you're playing, and now have fun."That's exactly what I'm trying to fight. What do you think happens when the GM, other players, or the newbie(s) think that you absolutely need a dedicated tank/healer/skillmonkey, the newbie doesn't want to play one, and the party is lacking one?
Seriously, threads like that pop up on these boards all the time. "I don't want to play tank, but the party needs one, so I'll take one for the team" is something that should be reserved for World of Warcraft, niot Pathfinder because there is no such "need". You can play the game without a divine caster in your party. You can play the game without a d10/12 HD class in your party. You can play the game without a class with more than 2+int skill ranks per level. Everything that makes people believe different should be discouraged!
And if the newbie DOES want to play dedicated X you're going to sit them down and say "It doesn't work that way" it seems.
You can totally play the game all those ways but you're going to need a good group or a good GM that can roll with the oddity of the group. I mean, all fighters is something I've wanted to try for awhile but I would only do it in a group I actually like and trust. I wouldn't suggest All Fighters to a new group. Or all wizards.
As for the "The party needs...
Nope. I run APs. And I read ahead, and also I play my villains to the hilt. This means the PC's are screwed if they don't have what they need to handle all challenges. If they don't have a balanced party, they die, and then they get frustrated. That means they either leave the game or have to make new PC's, which means less game time.
Oddly enough, my groups tend to last for YEARS at a time, not weeks or months like so many other rpg groups. You think maybe I'm doing something right, hey?
