Those are all strong classes, they should be fine.
Inquisitors get bonuses to Knowledge skills if memory serves.
3 PCs often has a problem of lacking something somewhere, whether no arcane magic, no divine magic, traps (as Meirril said), lack of skill points, ...
I would recommend that one member of your party takes the Leadership feat and/or gets a familiar/companion with some of those necessary skills. Since the Druid likely has an animal companion, the Paladin might be a good choice due to high CHA, but it depends on your party.
While a druid is a divine spell caster their spell list is one of the most diverse in the game. They can usually do just about anything that another spell caster can do just not quite as good. While their spells may not be as strong as another casters in its specialty does not mean they don’t get the job done. They also have a lot of class features that only add to their versatility. Combat wise they can be pretty strong when using wild shape if they are built for it.
Both the paladin and the inquisitor can be absolute beast in combat. They only problem is that they both rely on a limited class ability for a lot of their offensive ability. Once that runs out they are at a little bit of a disadvantage. The paladin still has excellent defensive ability, but one he smite evil and or divine bond are used up his offensive ability is a lot less. The inquisitor does not have the defenses of the paladin, but has a lot of utility that the other classes don’t have.
The lack of arcane casting is going to mean that for the most part your party is going to have to rely on brute force to wind the day. The good news is that all you characters are good at this. This may mean the combat last longer so there are more chances of things going wrong. But all your characters have the ability to do some healing so you may need to have few more magic items for that..
With all the classes in pathfinder there is less need to have specific type of magic. When only cleric could heal and Wizard where the only one with decent offensive spells you needed both.
Yeah I think the need for dofferent types of magic etc isn't super important, but the need for different combat roles can be incredibly important.
The Forge of Combat is a reasonable model for this, giving you a Hammer (damage dealer), Anvil (enemy de-buffer) and Arm (party buffer) as the 3 main combat roles. Combat usually goes a lot smoother if you have all 3 of these covered than it does if you don't. Personally I also add Battlefield Control to this list of valuable combat-roles, but I don't know how it fits into the forge metaphore (the Tongs maybe?).
Outside of Combat there are things you'll find harder without an arcane caster, but as Mysterious Stranger points out the Druid is an incredibly versatile caster. The Inquisitor also get some spells not usually associated with Divine classes, so you have more variety there as well (and the Paladin's spells are strong - if limited - as well). The times those options can't cover what you need will be challenges that define your party - leading to roleplay and player creativity. I think this is probably going to be more interesting than "The wizard casts Dimension door". I literally can't imagine a scenario where you actually NEED an arcane caster.
|
Combat won’t be much of a problem. There will be encounters where a particular arcane (or cleric) spell would make things much easier and they will have to brute-force it instead.
Skills could be a problem. They really need to make sure they spread out their skill focuses around the party. (Someone should have max ranks in Spellcraft, but not all three of them.)
Utility will be a problem. For example they don’t have anyone who can cast teleportation spells. I would suggest you (the GM) allow them to buy any scrolls/wands they can afford and that they (the players) pick someone to invest heavily in Use Magic Device. Likely the paladin, given that group’s key ability scores.
What can arcane magic do?
Area damage - not often necessary, your druid can cover it when it is.
Battlefield control - see druid.
Buffs - all.
Flight - your druid can cover this.
Teleportation - Teleportation is more a problem for adventure design than a plus, usually.
Invisibility & sneaky stuff - inquisitor to cover.
Not a problem IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem I potentially see is that the Inquisitor is the only really skillful class, and if they don't build knowing they need to bring the right skills to the table there could be knowledge gaps.
The players should coordinate which skills they're going to take with each other to try and cover all the important ones.
Other than that, arcane magic isn't really necessary.
Usually arcane magic allows the players to completely bypass a challenge or subvert the plot of an adventure.
It sure is hard to catch the PCs unaware during their travels if they're teleporting in between the destinations and never really walk anywhere. My experience is that arcane magic makes it harder to GM and run an adventure as written, because it rarely takes into account the things PCs can do with arcane magic. Divine magic is usually much less disruptive.
Lacking teleport is not really a problem because druids get Transport via Plant. While it is a 6th level spell instead of a 5th, it has unlimited range, no chance of failure and does not require you to be familiar with the location. In a lot of ways it is even superior to greater teleport.
As far as skill go the inquisitor can cover quite a bit of that. Druids get a decent number of skill points so can help in that respect. The paladin is the only one really lacking in skill, but they are the logical candidate for the role of face.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was untenable, just that I don't see the lack of arcane magic as a problem, as much as the group needing to coordinate skills so there is no/little overlap. With only 3 characters it could be difficult to make sure everything is covered.
And also to further clarify, I was trying to say that arcane magic usually makes life harder for the GM and while generally "easier" for the PCs just means the GM has to come up with alternative challenges instead.
Yeah I think everyone's on the same page, you'l be finez but try to cover bases with skills known. This isn't a probelem with the lack of arcane casters so much as a problem with small parties.
Also, you can tell I don't play Druids much because I thought they got 2+Int skills like a Cleric, but just learned that they get 4+.
Are they the only 9th level caster to get 4+INT skills/level?
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will start treating all your problems like a nail.”
Adaptation is a key skill and a primary challenge in the game.
What stat generation did you use? Most APs are designed for 4 adventurers with a 15 point buy, so if you have 3 PCs with 20 point buys they'll probably cope fairly well.
The main things for smaller parties are save-or-suck effects and grapples. If you paralyze/grapple/etc someone in a 4 person party then they still have 3 allies to get them out. Take 2 of them and there are still w up and fighting. With a 3 person party a single person going out of the fight is a big hit to their effectiveness, and taking 2 of them out means the remaining person has to solo the rest of the encounter.
All 3 of your players should have good fort-saves and phenomenal will saves, so tbe save-or-suck part may not come up much, but be aware of it anyway.
Obviously, these are all Divine casters. So far, there haven't been any real problems with the complete lack of arcane spellcasting. This is our 1st time playing really, having graduated from the beginners box rules. As they move into the level 5-10 range & beyond - is lack of Arcane spellcasting going to be a probem - are there things I will need to do as a GM to compensate or 'patch' this lack ?
Your party, like most parties, may lack something, but it's not going to be arcane casting in general. People tend to vastly overrate the differences between the three different kingdoms of magic (arcane/divine/psychic), in reality, there is a huge amount of overlap.
As an example, as it was mentioned/discussed, Teleport is not only aviable as an arcane spell - a Pyschic, a Lore spirit Shaman, and a Travel domain Cleric all have (access to) Teleport, despite not being arcane casters.
If anything, it's spells that are mainly on divine spelllists that tend to be semi-required (e.g. condition removal, resurrection spells, Speak with Dead), but those are often also on psychic or alchemical lists, or can be replicated via scrolls or hired spellcasting.
TL,DR version: Arcane casters are never required, they just make everything easier.
Yeah I think the need for dofferent types of magic etc isn't super important, but the need for different combat roles can be incredibly important.
Honestly, that stuff is highly overrated as well. The "Forge of Combat" thing is at best an entry-level document, to make the transition from a bad to a mdiocre party, with a big overfocus on distinct "roles" (ignoring that characters can often do many different things), and the usual gross underestimating of combining damage dealers that's been a thing ever since Treantmonk released his Wizard guide back in 2009.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I think the need for dofferent types of magic etc isn't super important, but the need for different combat roles can be incredibly important.Honestly, that stuff is highly overrated as well. The "Forge of Combat" thing is at best an entry-level document, to make the transition from a bad to a mdiocre party, with a big overfocus on distinct "roles" (ignoring that characters can often do many different things), and the usual gross underestimating of combining damage dealers that's been a thing ever since Treantmonk released his Wizard guide back in 2009.
There are 2 things here.
First is that if you read any of the Forge Of Combat guides they do tell you not to over-specialize. You should be good at your main role and passable at a secondary role just in case. I think this os good advice generally.
The second thing is that I agree with you =P ... This isn't really the "Sun Tsu of Pathfinder" as I've seen it said, but it is a good way for people to think about combat tactics if they haven't before.
Control is part of the Anvil role.
Yeah fair enough. I haven't read it for a while but I remember thinking they didn't put that in. I guess I miss-remembered it.
Either way I think positioning and battlefield control are some of the most important aspects of tactical game-play so it deserves a mention anyway.
For anyone who hasn't looked into tabletop combat tactics I recommend THIS VIDEO as a beginner's guide. For anyone who's more experienced I recommend it anyway because it's a fun video (and a great channel for general RPG stuff).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of the OP the group is fine. Their will be a lot of overlap but as levels progress the players can branch out and specialize more and more. Not having an arcane casters vast toolbox may feel limiting at times you'll feel less and less pressure. Its honestly more of an issue in the early levels where the divine lists can be rather small and largely overlapping in some areas.
At this point the group itself should be blossoming more completely into their classes as they begin to diverge and push towards their perso al visions. If anything they should be getting better.
First is that if you read any of the Forge Of Combat guides they do tell you not to over-specialize. You should be good at your main role and passable at a secondary role just in case. I think this os good advice generally.The second thing is that I agree with you =P ... This isn't really the "Sun Tsu of Pathfinder" as I've seen it said, but it is a good way for people to think about combat tactics if they haven't before.
Control is part of the Anvil role.Yeah fair enough. I haven't read it for a while but I remember thinking they didn't put that in. I guess I miss-remembered it.
Either way I think positioning and battlefield control are some of the most important aspects of tactical game-play so it deserves a mention anyway.
As mentioned earlier it was discussed as part of an anvils job. Though admittedly in the broadest sense as the role itself can be taken in a variety of different ways and classes from a polearm wielding fighter to a heavy debuffing hex magus. Whether you hit a group of enemies with slow or prevent passage to yourself with create pit the effect is largely the same. Controlling the pace and circumstances of the fight in your favor.
Also, its true that I emphasized not specializing too hard as that is one of the pitfalls noted early in the text. Overspecialization can lead you into becoming one trick ponies. In cases where you do wish to hard specialize, I emphasized versatility within that role, hence why the sample groups most dedicated hammer is a switch hitting ranger. Theirs rarely a time where that dwarf will be in a position where they cant do damage.
Lastly, if it seems fairly basic and fundamental, thats because it is. At the time it was meant as more of a definitive answer to the "what roles should a good party have?" Question.
So I took optimization concepts that were well understood and the expectations and guidelines the developers write underand removed the irrelevant or misleading bits that often lead to damaging ideas. Then attempted to fit them into a metaphor thats relatively easy to understand and remember (i kinda sorta looked at it from the concept of a dwarven arms treastise).
Its not until fueling the forge and tactics 101 that i started to get into the turn by turn nuances of your typical combat. Even then i wouldnt consider the whole as definitive as its largely incomplete.
And mostly, im surprised at its success. Over the years ive seen it used as a metric to judge groups at the concept stage or to help groups identify issues theyve been having in combat. Most often groups could solve their issues simply through a change of playstyle. The detractors ive noticed either take issue with what they feel is an ugly breaking down of their game, play at tables that conform to vastly different expectations than those the devs considered when writing (which is fine but hardly fair to others), or tragically misinterpret it as somehow limiting their play.
In any case, seeing it still even being mentioned long since ive stopped being active in so many aspects of this hobby is something else.
Yeah if nothing else I think the imagery of the forge really captured attention and helped to visualize the different roles in a way that obvilusly resonated with people. The massive success of "The Forge" really shows the power of story-telling as an *educational tool, and in that you've really outdone yourself.
Also if you do get any guff from the detractors, my understanding of Sun Tsu's great work - a treatise that's lasted centruies - is that it essentially boils down to: "If you don't think you'll win, don't fight."
Haters gonna hate.