My PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion party started with two rogues.
The halfling rogue had the scoundrel racket and specialized in Diplomacy and Deception. At 2nd level he took a Sorcerer Multiclass Dedication and at 4th level he took Magical Trickster. He is viewed as the party expert in Arcane and Occult knowledge and usually attacks with cantrips.
The gnome rogue had the thief racket and specialized in Stealth and Thievery. She became an expert in Stealth at 2nd level and learned Quiet Allies to lead the party in Avoid Notice during exploration. She catches her targets flat-footed with her shortbow by Hiding before the first shot and then using Precise Debilitation to render them flat-footed longer. The rest of the party appreciates the -2 to AC for everyone, especially the halfling rogue who then can add sneak attack damage to his cantrips via Magical Trickster.
The rogue class had enough customization that the two rogues fill different niches. Two investigators could split niches, too. For example, a investigator with Alchemical Sciences or Forensic Medicine could be the party healer and an investigator with Empiricism or Interrogation could be the information expert.
For example two investigators. Would they step on each other toes too much or is there enough variety for each one to find his niche? Would you advise against something like that?
Not necessarily. I wouldn't shoot for multiple casters of the same tradition, or multiple masters of the same skill. But it is less about what do you have redundancies in and more about what is your party missing.
Also, some classes just have more build variety than others. Rogues, Rangers, Fighters, and Sorcerers can be built more ways than Barbarians, Champions, Gunslingers, and Wizards.
|
Unless you have a large group, doubling down on one class will probably hurt the party a bit: For instance, multiple rogues have their advantages, but they both will have a fairly fragile chassis and will basically be shut-down by foes you can't get flat-footed or are actually immune to Precision damage (not exactly a common event, but it will happen from time to time).
If you want to do it then go for it. Just don't do it with hyperspecialised characters. Build rounded characters, or characters with resonable secondary options. Which you should really be doing anyway.
If you are talking about two barbarians, then don't build two melee heavy barbarians with no useful ranged attacks.
If you are talking about two clerics, then don't build two super passive buffers. Make sure they have offensive spells and moderate weapon use.
If the players work together so they're not stepping on each other's toes, I don't know if there's a class that you couldn't make the entire party out of and have fun while finishing the campaign.
Like "Fighter Squad" is pretty fun in 2e, while it would have been a nightmare in 1e.
Unless you have a large group, doubling down on one class will probably hurt the party a bit: For instance, multiple rogues have their advantages, but they both will have a fairly fragile chassis and will basically be shut-down by foes you can't get flat-footed or are actually immune to Precision damage (not exactly a common event, but it will happen from time to time).
That seems like an oversimplification. A party with two rogues isn't necessarily that different than a party with a rogue and an investigator. And a party with an a 2H melee fighter and a barbarian has less coverage than a 2H fighter and an archer fighter. Role and build matter more than class, IMO.
Plus doubling down on classes can have neat synergy. It no one plays the beefy front line character, then the party doesn't need to try and engage in front line combat. Use stealth and skirmishing instead. One ruffian grappling in an all rogue party boosts everyone's damage. An all monk party can hit and run as a group, and so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think diversity makes things more fun/interesting in general, but I'm against rote "party balance" for its own sake. I prefer a more organic, story-driven party composition. Play what you want and enjoy the results. Unless the group is hand-picked by an outside force, it doesn't make sense to always have a formulaic party.
For example two investigators. Would they step on each other toes too much or is there enough variety for each one to find his niche? Would you advise against something like that?Not necessarily. I wouldn't shoot for multiple casters of the same tradition, or multiple masters of the same skill. But it is less about what do you have redundancies in and more about what is your party missing.
I remember when my Ironfang Invasion party had three primal casters. Just after the Summoner playtest while the beast-eidolon summoner was still in the we gained two new players, who chose a monk and a fey-blooded sorcerer. The druid, the summoner, and the sorcerer were all primal casters. Their only casting of another tradition was from multiclassing: the druid has cleric dedication and the scoundrel rogue has arcane sorcerer dedication.
Currently, the playtest summoner is gone, though he seems to keep cropping up as a good friend of the party, and we have a playtest air- and water-gated kineticist instead. This means that in Prisoners of the Blight where the darkblight disease requires Remove Curse to cure, the PCs have no way to cast Remove Curse from their own abilities. The 15th-level druid/cleric cannot cast 4th-level divine spells.
Thus, I resorted to aid from their old friends:
Finally, local Chernasardo liaison Cirieo Thessadon had an errand for Amelia. From a dream message from the elite Chernasardo Rangers [.i.e., the party], he learned that they desperately needed a way to remove curses before they visited the Blighted region in the Fangwood. He had found a Wand of Remove Curse, but needed someone to travel 70 miles through the fringes of the dangerous Fangwood to deliver the wand. Amelia was willing to make the run.
Thus, Captain Morgan's concern about what the party is missing. Lack of variety can leave a serious gap in the party's ability to deal with a particular unavoidable problem.
Another gap was that at 2nd level when the party had only a ranger, druid, and two rogues, all the enchanted martial weapons looted from enemies and treasure caches had to go to the ranger. The druid could was trained in only simple weapons and the rogues were trained in only simple weapons and a very short list of martial weapons. Later I supplied them with the magical materials to transfer weapon runes to other weapons.
Plus doubling down on classes can have neat synergy. It no one plays the beefy front line character, then the party doesn't need to try and engage in front line combat. Use stealth and skirmishing instead. One ruffian grappling in an all rogue party boosts everyone's damage. An all monk party can hit and run as a group, and so forth.
That happened during my PF1 Iron Gods campaign. The party was a magus, gunslinger, skald (barbarian/bard hybrid), bloodrager (barbarian/sorcerer hybrid), and fighter/investigator. No-one in the party was a squishy who had to be protected, so the party adopted a skirmishing style of combat, always on the move, without a solid front line.
It can be fine, or even good to have two characters of the same class but it's something to be cautious about.
Avoiding having the same skills, and the same sort of combat build is important.
Some class chassis lend themselves much better to having distinct builds than others.
This is a scenario where your players have to talk a bunch and avoid too much overlap.
I think diversity makes things more fun/interesting in general, but I'm against rote "party balance" for its own sake. I prefer a more organic, story-driven party composition. Play what you want and enjoy the results. Unless the group is hand-picked by an outside force, it doesn't make sense to always have a formulaic party.
For sure making do with whatever you have can be an interesting challenge. But story wise the party needs a reason to hang together and the mechanics do drive story events.
Example: an all caster party is going to want to get a soldier to help with mundane threats, an all martial party is going to want at least one caster to do the same. One session you can maybe deal with want you have, but logically speaking the story can require changes to the party.
I think diversity makes things more fun/interesting in general, but I'm against rote "party balance" for its own sake. I prefer a more organic, story-driven party composition. Play what you want and enjoy the results. Unless the group is hand-picked by an outside force, it doesn't make sense to always have a formulaic party.For sure making do with whatever you have can be an interesting challenge. But story wise the party needs a reason to hang together and the mechanics do drive story events.
Example: an all caster party is going to want to get a soldier to help with mundane threats, an all martial party is going to want at least one caster to do the same. One session you can maybe deal with want you have, but logically speaking the story can require changes to the party.
I guess I posted comment #17 about my Iron Gods campaign too soon. Because they started as just magus, skald, and gunslinger. They had not developed their skirmishing style in their first cave encounter in Fires of Creation and encountered the problem that no-one wanted to be a primary melee combatant, just like Gortle's hypothetical all-caster party. All PF1 1st-level characters are short on hit points.
Thus, they recruited an NPC bloodrager as their token melee character. One month later real-world time we recruited a 4th player. He was a newbie, so the other players suggested that he play a fighter. They kept the NPC bloodrager, too.
Yet in the long run, the bloodrager preferred to assist other party members rather than to stand boldly (NPCs should not steal the limelight) and the fighter never mastered holding the front line. They gave up the usual front line, and instead grew organically around the best combat role of each character. The fighter and magus had the high-damage hits that could cut through the hardness of robots. The gunslinger with a grapple gun and later targetted shots became a battlefield controller. The skald was both combat support and healing through song and a deadly swing of a lucerne hammer from above (she was a strix and could fly). And the bloodrager darted around the battlefield wherever her damage was most needed (air elemental bloodline let her fly, too).
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is more flexible than Pathfinder 1st Edition. Break the formula. Combat roles can change.
If the players work together so they're not stepping on each other's toes, I don't know if there's a class that you couldn't make the entire party out of and have fun while finishing the campaign.
Like "Fighter Squad" is pretty fun in 2e, while it would have been a nightmare in 1e.
Fighter is probably the best class to do this with frankly. I don't think there's any other class that is so well-suited to speccing for damage, tanking, or CC depending on what weapon you choose to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter is probably the best class to do this with frankly. I don't think there's any other class that is so well-suited to speccing for damage, tanking, or CC depending on what weapon you choose to use.If the players work together so they're not stepping on each other's toes, I don't know if there's a class that you couldn't make the entire party out of and have fun while finishing the campaign.
Like "Fighter Squad" is pretty fun in 2e, while it would have been a nightmare in 1e.
Ranger deserves a mention. While their combat repertoire isn't quite as versatile, they get much better skill options to fill role out of combat. A ranger can be a tank, striker, sneak, face, tracker, know it all, hazard spotter, snare setter... And that's all in class. An all ranger group also has synergy for collectively moving through difficult terrain at high speeds without leaving a tracks, making them extremely effective and wilderness guerilla warfare game like Ironfang Invasion. And they could leverage just about any weapon the party finds, as well.
Ranger deserves a mention. While their combat repertoire isn't quite as versatile, they get much better skill options to fill role out of combat. A ranger can be a tank, striker, sneak, face, tracker, know it all, hazard spotter, snare setter... And that's all in class. An all ranger group also has synergy for collectively moving through difficult terrain at high speeds without leaving a tracks, making them extremely effective and wilderness guerilla warfare game like Ironfang Invasion. And they could leverage just about any weapon the party finds, as well.Fighter is probably the best class to do this with frankly. I don't think there's any other class that is so well-suited to speccing for damage, tanking, or CC depending on what weapon you choose to use.If the players work together so they're not stepping on each other's toes, I don't know if there's a class that you couldn't make the entire party out of and have fun while finishing the campaign.
Like "Fighter Squad" is pretty fun in 2e, while it would have been a nightmare in 1e.
It's also good with in class pet abilities which can fill in some gaps too.