Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (2025)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice

Advice

Search Thread

Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (5) Senko Nov 3, 2022, 02:54 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just looking to expand my knowledge and experience with classes and options particularly ones I don't normally play. So trying to put together a 6 person party to build up while playing through an adventure path by myself (probably jade regent or winter war). I just wanted to see if other people thought this a good combination with the focus being on covering a range of options to explore building different concepts more than anything else. Party is . . .

1) Abyssal Bloodrager: Melee combat survival focus (fighter/tank/defender style role).
2) Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemist: Melee combat high damage focus (rogue/striker/support role)
3) Lion Shaman Druid: Divinish caster focus (Utility/Support/Healer Divineish role).
4) Blood Arcanist: Arcane caster focus (utility/support arcane role).
5) Archeologist Bard: Skills and trap finding focus (Healer/Traps/Skills and face role).
6) Slayer: Ranged Combat high damage focus (Ranged damage/Scout role).

Obviously I want them to be able to actually handle what they face but I'm not concerned too much with relative power levels as the point of this is to experiment building them up from 1st to 20th level. Just want to see if people think this is a reasonably balanced party to do this with.

Liliyashanina Nov 3, 2022, 03:51 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bloodrager can be a face with relatively modest investments in terms of traits (extremely fashionable trait for the face skill of your choice, maybe be a half orc for overlooked mastermind, fey magic also provides extra class skills).
Abyssal Bloodragers are pretty bad at tanking, their size increase, as well as the level 12 bloodline power seriously gimps their AC. They are incredible, probably best in the game, reach combatants though, fairly easily getting 25 feet reach at level 4. Yes, they do get access to shield (or can get it from the vivisectionist), but that just counteracts the mali they get from bloodraging at that level.

Bards are a great class, but you are imho wasting their potential by having them heal. You could consider a Swashbuckler dip for the Bard, and have a proper High AC dodge tank. Dex based Bards can get pretty good dodge wise. You could also swap the Bard for a spell warrior Skald, can wear medium armor, and the weapon song will quite sizeable improve DPR for the party, typically more then a Bard would, unless you are facing very hard to hit targets that resist multiple elements.
Probably turn the bard into a melee off tank, so that there is an extra body and flanking friend.

You do have an animal companion I think, and an alchemist who can greatly boost it via extracts, thats also an extra tank.

Mysterious Stranger Nov 3, 2022, 05:20 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Archeologist Bard is probably best at the rouge and scout roles than what you have for those roles. Sneak attack is not the defining aspect of a rogue. They should also have a decent number of utility spells. A DEX to damage build will boost his combat ability. Make sure to take Heroism as soon as you can. You don’t need a dip in swashbuckler to achieve this. The Archeologist does not have bardic performances so does not boost the party. Swapping it with a skald is going to mean it is not covering the stated role.

The role of healer can and should be spread among characters. If the Alchemist has the infusion discovery he can also help with that role.

The party looks fairly decent. You have multiple characters who can handle all the roles so one character going down does not cripple the party. You have 2 full casters, 2 6/9 casters and 1 4/9 caster. 5 out of the 6 characters are decent in combat. 2/3 of your party will have decent skills.

TxSam88 Nov 3, 2022, 06:23 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IMO: you are weak on healing, Druids and Bards can heal, but not in the same capacity as Clerics or Oracles, and it sounds like you intend for them to be using their spells for other things in addition to healing.

Your slayer will do ok as ranged damage, but there are other ranged builds that will far outclass him.

I probably have a different play style than you do, but it looks like each character suffers from not being focused, they all can do a variety of things, some above average, but few things exceptionally well. (Think of the old saying, "Jack of all trade, but Master of none"

I prefer characters that are hyper focused on a singular task, and then have secondary abilities that compliment those and the party.

Temperans Nov 3, 2022, 08:26 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah it sounds fine. The only potential issue you might face is characters dying. But that is something literally every party without a cleric has to face.

You have 6 characters and as long as nothing dumb happens they should be able to survive encounters in an AP.

DeathlessOne Nov 3, 2022, 09:25 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I had to offer any advice, I'd suggest combining the concept for #3 and #6 into one, specifically a Nature Fang druid and use that free slot to fit in another ranged focused Cleric or Oracle of some sort. I'd lean into a Spirit Guide Oracle so you can devote some resources to channel energy but save the actual core mystery and revelations to combat potential.

Derklord Nov 3, 2022, 11:47 am

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Step one to building a balanced party: Stop using a party roles concept. There is no such thing as a party role in a party build by anyone with the brain capacity to understand that this isn't the 80's and we aren't playing AD&D. You've already subconsciously realized that, or else you wouldn't write two to three different things for each character. Now do the next step and remove the word from your vocabulary. "Role" implies that you have one character who does that and for whom that's the defining characteristic. In Pathfinder, you don't have distinct roles in a party that you fulfill with one character - you have multiple jobs that you want handled, but those can be split up between and doubled on by different party members.

Seriously, checking for some overly broad "role" designation checkboxes doesn't help you at all to "be able to actually handle what they face". What you should think about, if you want a party that covers all bases, to take each base and see if the party as a whole can cover it.
When the chips come down, you don't give a f#&* about who has what as their "role", you want a job done. When you're suffering from blindness or something, you don't care how good at HP healing your "healer" type guy is.

In your party, to pick up the above example of blindness, "healer" Bard can't remove that, and the "healer" Druid can't do so until 13th level - but the Alchemist can remove it (starting at 7th level) if he has the Infusion discovery! Is the Alchemist a healer? Are the others healers if you go to someone else for healing?

Meanwhile, most of your "roles" don't even describe what the character does. Traps, skills, and scouting seem to be seperate roles, so what exactly is the "rogue" role?

All that said, there is no glaring weakness in the group, at least none that's discernible from what you wrote. The beauty of pathfidner is that building versatile characters that can do multiple jobs to soem degree is really easy without sacrificing combat prowess, and you have enough such versatile characters to be able to meet almost any challenge.
­

Liliyashanina wrote:

Abyssal Bloodragers are pretty bad at tanking, their size increase, as well as the level 12 bloodline power seriously gimps their AC.

"tanking" as a verb has absolutely nothing to do with AC, it's about preventing opponents from being able to attack allies by body blocking, drawing attention away, or a smiliar method.

That's different from being a "tank", a noun that describes a character with strong focus on personal defense, but being a "tank" when you can't do "tanking" is worthless unless the character is alone.

DeathlessOne Nov 3, 2022, 12:03 pm

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Derklord wrote:

There is no such thing as a party role in a party build by anyone with the brain capacity to understand that this isn't the 80's and we aren't playing AD&D.

I'm fairly sure this kind of dismissive language is entirely unnecessary, and if I had any emotional investment in the opinions of others, might be considered offensive. Let's do better, yes?

Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (13) Senko Nov 3, 2022, 12:51 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

DeathlessOne wrote:

Derklord wrote:

There is no such thing as a party role in a party build by anyone with the brain capacity to understand that this isn't the 80's and we aren't playing AD&D.
I'm fairly sure this kind of dismissive language is entirely unnecessary, and if I had any emotional investment in the opinions of others, might be considered offensive. Let's do better, yes?

Thank you, and I'm pretty sure whatever term you want to use your still having people do a role. They may be capable of other things but if a wizard is using spells to control the battle field in most fights because that's where they're most effective then that's their role, if a fighter is using feats to push, pull and manipulate enemies then they also are fulfilling a battlefield control role, if a character has 0 ranks in disable traps and perception then using them to find and disable traps so they are not trapped in a role is just poor use of the character. I used role to make it clear where I saw them going in the party so people could know what I would be doing with them e.g. how I'd be assigning skills and feats so they can respond with that in mind. Whereas if I just said archeologist bard its far less communicative.

@Mysterious Stranger and TXSam88
I had the druid and bard doing healing because I didn't think they were the best at it and spreading it out helps on them needing to be less focused solely on that.

@Liliyashanina, Mysterious Stranger and TXSam88
I see, I'll take a look at Skald and see what I think of them after work. I might keep the archeologist bard and move them to scout/off tank and change the slayer to a dedicated healer then.

@Thedeathlessone
I'll take a look at oracle after work.

@Derklord
The roles are what I'd be aiming for with them e.g. they'd have skills and feats assigned to make them good at sneaking around, locating things and disabling traps so the rest of the party don't walk into them. They would have less focus on making them heavy combat capable.

Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (15) Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 Nov 3, 2022, 03:37 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Archaeologist should have Lingering Performance, and Fates Favored is often called a 'must have'.

I'd suggest the Bloodrager, if he can, and the bard should have maxed UMD to handle wands/scrolls of healing the party can't get.

Dragonchess Player Nov 3, 2022, 05:34 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The "best" healer in that group is the alchemist, not the bard. Just take the Infusion discovery and hand out free "healing potions" (infused extracts) to the rest of the party. An alchemist has all of the most important healing "spells" on their extract formula list, plus can use spell-trigger magic items (wands) as if they are spell casters.

Also, a party does not need a "dedicated healer" to function; in fact, a party is stronger when multiple characters share healing responsibilities because you don't have all of your "healing eggs" in one basket. The alchemist, bard, and druid can all share healing responsibilities in between fights.

Basically, especially with a party of six, every "role" should have at least two characters that can function in it (even if one is the "primary"):

Battlefield Control- basically adding or taking away combat options (barriers, flight, preventing enemy attacks or movement, etc.); the wizard is usually a class people think of for this function, but also covers maneuvers such as disarm and trip or "tanking" to reduce attacks on "squishier" PCs

Buffing- giving the PCs bonuses; most casters have at least a few spells for this function; the bard and the cleric are usually two classes people think of for this function

De-Buffing- imposing penalties on opponents; again, most casters have at least a few spells for this; however, this can also cover using Intimidation to demoralize and the dirty trick maneuver

Direct Damage- includes both blasting and weapons; can be either melee combat (such as a raging barbarian) or at range (such as an archer or blaster sorcerer)

Healing- in addition to restoring hp, includes removal of status effects, disease, poison, etc.; the cleric is usually thought of for this function, but many classes (or almost any character with a high Use Magic Device skill check) have the ability to perform this function

Skills- the three main categories for most campaigns are usually infiltration (Disable Device, Perception, Stealth), information (Knowledge skills), and social (Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive)

Note that there is a lot of crossover between functions. For example, summon monster and summon nature's ally spells can act as battlefield control and direct damage, the "tank" usually does direct damage in melee, many spells both do damage and impose penalties, etc.

Pretty much any given class can perform any given function. It may be easier for some classes to perform some functions and some classes may not be able to perform at the same level of ability in a given function as others, but that's a different argument.

Dragonchess Player Nov 3, 2022, 06:44 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Personally, I'd go with:

1) Alchemist (beastmorph vivisectionist); melee direct damage, healing, utility, skills/infiltration
2) Ganzi (Weaponplay oddity) Arcanist (blood arcanist [Orc bloodline]) 6/eldritch knight 3/arcane archer 4/eldritch knight +7; archer/blaster
direct damage, battlefield control, de-buffing, utility, skills/knowledge
3) Bard (archivist*); buffing, de-buffing, healing, skills/infiltrator and social
4) Bloodrager (primalist to pick up barbarian rage powers) X/fighter (mutation warrior**) 3/bloodrager +Y; melee direct damage, battlefield control (probably some focus on tripping), de-buffing (Intimidate to demoralize, Intimidating Glare, Terrifying Howl)
5) Occultist (Trappings of the Warrior panoply); melee direct damage, battlefield control, buffing, skills/infiltration and knowledge
6) Elf Oracle (ancient lorekeeper; Wood mystery***); archer direct damage, buffing, healing, skills/social

*- the issue I have with archaeologist in a larger party is that the archeologist basically loses the ability to buff the rest of the PCs outside of spells, which is the strength of the class; archivist can also use Disable Device to disarm magic traps at 2nd level

**- to boost Str a bit more with a mutagen; if you really want to stack Str, take Eldritch Heritage/Improved Eldritch Heritage (Strength of the Beast) in the Orc bloodline

***- ancient lorekeeper to pick up gravity bow, true strike, etc. spells from the sorcerer/wizard list; the elf FCB and Wood Bond revelation basically give the character an attack bonus with bows equal to a full BAB class at almost every level (except for the last iterative), and then stack divine favor or divine power on top of it

Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (19) Taja the Barbarian Nov 4, 2022, 06:18 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

The "best" healer in that group is the alchemist, not the bard. Just take the Infusion discovery and hand out free "healing potions" (infused extracts) to the rest of the party. An alchemist has all of the most important healing "spells" on their extract formula list, plus can use spell-trigger magic items (wands) as if they are spell casters.

...

This somewhat depends on your definition of a 'healer':

  • For 'Downtime healing', anyone who can use a wand of CLW is fine.
  • For 'Battle Healing', the Alchemist is not very good as drawing and using an infusion will cost the target an entire round, requires a free hand, and will provoke AoOs in melee, probably making the entire attempt a net loss of HP (in combat healing's usefulness is questionable (particularly at lower levels), but I once took our party paladin from 'dead' to 'very healthy' in one round on my oracle (with the help of a quickened metamagic rod) so it probably shouldn't be ignored entirely).
  • For 'Condition Removal', the Alchemist's flexiblity is really good (except for those few levels where a '9 level' caster would have access to a spell but the '6 level' alchemist still has to wait a bit, but the party Bard has the same issue)

Alchemists are great at two of these roles, while the Bard would be better at 'Battle Healing' (assuming he/she learns all the relevant healing spells).

Derklord Nov 4, 2022, 08:31 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

DeathlessOne wrote:

Derklord wrote:

There is no such thing as a party role in a party build by anyone with the brain capacity to understand that this isn't the 80's and we aren't playing AD&D.
I'm fairly sure this kind of dismissive language is entirely unnecessary, and if I had any emotional investment in the opinions of others, might be considered offensive. Let's do better, yes?

I consider it highly necessary. People need to understand that Pathfinder doesn't have party roles.

Also, I couldn't care less if I offend people who go around claiming that you need a specific role. Those people are bullying players into playing something they don't want to play. You see it all the tiem that people lament that they had to play a healer, arcane full caster, or whatever, and virtually every time it's because of some old farts stuck in nostalgia mode shoving some bull s+%~ party roles crap down other people's throats.
Think about who actually makes the game and these boards worse before you say stuff like "Let's do better"!

Seriously, just look at Senko's last post. The original party has five characters that can use healing spells and wands, and there's a fair amount of condition removal across the four 6/9 and full casters, and yet Senko writes "move [the archeologist bard] to scout/off tank" becasue they clearly think those and doing healing are mutually exclusive things, as well as "I might [...] change the slayer to a dedicated healer then.", displaying a false believe that there needs to be a healer role. This obsession with roles is actively preventing Senko from doing what they set out to do, building a balanced party while "explore building different concepts".

I honestly don't get why people vehemently insist on shoehorning the term "role" into an utterly different concept. It's a role, not one of your roles. And in the context of a group, it's your role, not yours and three other guys' role.

Derklord Nov 4, 2022, 08:31 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Senko wrote:

The roles are what I'd be aiming for with them e.g. they'd have skills and feats assigned to make them good at sneaking around, locating things and disabling traps so the rest of the party don't walk into them.

So what is the role of "rogue"? Be useless? Be a liability to the party? That's what I connect with the word...

Senko wrote:

if a wizard is using spells to control the battle field in most fights because that's where they're most effective then that's their role

Except you haven't written one thing for each character to indicate what they mainly do in combat, you've written multiple things, so you're not using your own definition. You've also written a lot of alleged "roles" that are things entirely done out of combat, which also breaks your own definition.

Senko wrote:

I used role to make it clear where I saw them going in the party so people could know what I would be doing with them e.g. how I'd be assigning skills and feats so they can respond with that in mind. Whereas if I just said archeologist bard its far less communicative.

OK, I give up. If you do not understand that you can describe a character beyond the class and archetype without using the word "role", there is nothing I can say to you that helps you. You seem to be so obsessed with misusing the word roles that your mind is closed to actually learning things.

Also, I have literally no idea whether your idea of a "healer" Bard means learning every cure spells, or carrying a wand of CLW and learning Purging Finale. I also have no idea whether the Alchemist's "support" role means movign into flanking position, or handing out iunfusion extracts. So not, your overly broad term s"healer role" and "support role" don't tell me at all who has which condition removal, which is something I consider one of the most notable blind spots in parties.

DeathlessOne Nov 4, 2022, 09:54 am

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Derklord wrote:

I consider it highly necessary. People need to understand that Pathfinder doesn't have party roles.

Pathfinder does not have to have party roles. It is a system that has expanded enough that almost any type of character can fit (even if barely) into most traditional ideas of what a 'role' is. That doesn't change the fact that certain classes are better at it than others, or if you prefer, they fit into those 'roles' easier and with less micromanaging.

I've found that Pathfinder works best when people specialize into a specific area (this is what most people consider a 'party role') and tack on a few extra 'roles' in which they can adapt on the fly. Whether or not some people find the terminology palatable or not is none of my concern. Nor is it the alleged petulant whining of hypothetical players that demand someone fill a particular 'role' in the party. Past personal experiences, mine or your's, really have no relevance beyond a cautionary warning or disclaimer before we move to further assist the OP in their request.

tl;dr: Chill out and let them play their game. Stop accusing people of being close minded because they aren't eager to adopt your viewpoint on how the game is supposed to work.

TxSam88 Nov 4, 2022, 11:31 am

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

Basically, especially with a party of six, every "role" should have at least two characters that can function in it (even if one is the "primary"):

Battlefield Control- basically adding or taking away combat options (barriers, flight, preventing enemy attacks or movement, etc.); the wizard is usually a class people think of for this function, but also covers maneuvers such as disarm and trip or "tanking" to reduce attacks on "squishier" PCs

Buffing- giving the PCs bonuses; most casters have at least a few spells for this function; the bard and the cleric are usually two classes people think of for this function

De-Buffing- imposing penalties on opponents; again, most casters have at least a few spells for this; however, this can also cover using Intimidation to demoralize and the dirty trick maneuver

Direct Damage- includes both blasting and weapons; can be either melee combat (such as a raging barbarian) or at range (such as an archer or blaster sorcerer)

Healing- in addition to restoring hp, includes removal of status effects, disease, poison, etc.; the cleric is usually thought of for this function, but many classes (or almost any character with a high Use Magic Device skill check) have the ability to perform this function

Skills- the three main categories for most campaigns are usually infiltration (Disable Device, Perception, Stealth), information (Knowledge skills), and social (Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive)

Note that there is a lot of crossover between functions. For example, summon monster and summon nature's ally spells can act as battlefield control and direct damage, the "tank" usually does direct damage in melee, many spells both do damage and impose penalties, etc.

Pretty much any given class can perform any given function. It may be easier for some classes to perform some functions and some classes may not be able to perform at the same level of ability in a given function as others, but that's a different argument.

yeah, I fundamentally disagree with some of these. De-Buffing is a trap, at somewhat mid-high levels, the bad guy will always pass his saves, so this is a waste. Battlefield control falls into this somewhat to, most of the time these are just things that delay the enemy, a spell that helps to kill the enemy (Damage or Buffs) is Action economy better spent. Even blasting spells can be a trap due to spell resistance and good saves. Better to spend spells on things that are certain (again, buffs).

AS for the overall concept that roles scan be shared among the party, this is a good idea, but I have found it to be somewhat unnecessary and it does come with trade offs. when a character diversifies, they do take away from their primary ability/role and that's not always a good thing.

Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (25) Senko Nov 4, 2022, 01:14 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Derklord wrote:

Senko wrote:

The roles are what I'd be aiming for with them e.g. they'd have skills and feats assigned to make them good at sneaking around, locating things and disabling traps so the rest of the party don't walk into them.

So what is the role of "rogue"? Be useless? Be a liability to the party? That's what I connect with the word...

Senko wrote:

if a wizard is using spells to control the battle field in most fights because that's where they're most effective then that's their role

Except you haven't written one thing for each character to indicate what they mainly do in combat, you've written multiple things, so you're not using your own definition. You've also written a lot of alleged "roles" that are things entirely done out of combat, which also breaks your own definition.

Senko wrote:

I used role to make it clear where I saw them going in the party so people could know what I would be doing with them e.g. how I'd be assigning skills and feats so they can respond with that in mind. Whereas if I just said archeologist bard its far less communicative.

OK, I give up. If you do not understand that you can describe a character beyond the class and archetype without using the word "role", there is nothing I can say to you that helps you. You seem to be so obsessed with misusing the word roles that your mind is closed to actually learning things.

Also, I have literally no idea whether your idea of a "healer" Bard means learning every cure spells, or carrying a wand of CLW and learning Purging Finale. I also have no idea whether the Alchemist's "support" role means movign into flanking position, or handing out iunfusion extracts. So not, your overly broad term s"healer role" and "support role" don't tell me at all who has which condition removal, which is something I consider one of the most notable blind spots in parties.

Let me put it to you this way then. What tells you more about how I'll allocate feats/skill points/spells when leveling up . . .

Bard

or

Bard with a role of offtank/scout.

Unless I want to write out every single choice I'm making the first doesn't help someone else know how I'd be desigining the class. Yes you can do lots of things and describe something beyond the mechanics but giving a "role" is helpful in giving other people a clear idea of what your going to be focusing on primarily in the group.

Derklord Nov 4, 2022, 03:22 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

DeathlessOne wrote:

I've found that Pathfinder works best when people specialize into a specific area (this is what most people consider a 'party role')

Yes, this is what most people consider a 'party role'. It's not a problem when you play a buff heavy Bard and call it a "party buffer role" or "martial supporter role" or whatever. It's not a proper use of the term, as (as you've said) the character has some more areas of expertise, but that's not the issue.

The problem is that people who believe in "party roles" rarely stop there - they almost always also talk about needing certain roles. And if you define a party role as a character's main specialization, and say you need a "healer", you say you need a character's whose main specialization is healing. And then people play something they don't really want to play because they think the group can't succeed otherwise (because that's what it means to "need" something) or that they let the others down; or even worse worse people get outright pressured by others into playing something specific in the name of a balanced party.

Also, calling everything a character does a "role" quickly turns into a joke.
"My character's role is healer. And party face. My character's role is healer and party face. And tank. My character's role is healer, party face, and tank. And Damage dealer. My character's role is healer, party face, tank, and damage dealer. And support caster. My character's role is healer, party face, tank, damage dealer, and support caster. And scout. My character's role is healer, party face, tank, damage dealer, support caster, and scout. And party transportation. My character's role is healer, party face, tank, damage dealer, support caster, scout, and party transportation. And battlefield controller. My character's role is healer, party face, tank, damage dealer, support caster, scout, party transportation, and battlefield controller. And trap finder. My character's role is...
That's not a role description, that's a Monty Python sketch!

And yes, it's a real character, my Summoner from my last campaign: Infernal Healing allowed her to heal people. 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 and take a beating, while pounce plus multiple attacks results in high damage. Early-access Haste allow good party support. Invisibility and Fly allow sneaking. Phantom Chariot, Teleport etc. allow party transportation. Wall of Fire + Lesser Rod of Dazing can controll the battlefield pretty well. Half-Elf with Skill Focus plus Seeker trait resulted in high perception, which in PF works against all traps.

Derklord Nov 4, 2022, 03:22 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Senko wrote:

What tells you more about how I'll allocate feats/skill points/spells when leveling up . . .

Bard

or

Bard with a role of offtank/scout.

They tell me exactly the same. I have no idea what an "offtank" is supposed to be (melee? summoner? maybe that's how you clal everything that prevents dmaage on party members, and it's really a battlefield controller?), and I also have no idea whether "scout" means a dex-based character with maxed out stealth, or a guy who learned Invisibilty, or anything else or in between.

Also, false dichotomy. You act as if no sentence in the English language exists that can describe what the Bard does without using the term "role". This is what insisting on "roles" reduces you to - the inability to think outside of a very tiny box. You apparently think you must describe the character with one or more out of a set of a dozen or so words, followed by "role". Free yourself from those shackles and use some other words to describe the characters!

Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (29) Senko Nov 4, 2022, 03:39 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It means the same thing though regardless of the word you use you are describing the role/part/function/duty/contribution/etc that the character will perform in a party. It is why even in real life people have general roles that they perform e.g. engineer/doctor/lawyer. It is a way to try and tell other people what you are going to be doing. It is not a shackle it is a means of communicating with other people by generally understood terms to help convey a concept. Trying to stop using them just results in general confusion as no one has any idea what your talking about.

Dragonchess Player Nov 4, 2022, 04:02 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

The "best" healer in that group is the alchemist, not the bard. Just take the Infusion discovery and hand out free "healing potions" (infused extracts) to the rest of the party. An alchemist has all of the most important healing "spells" on their extract formula list, plus can use spell-trigger magic items (wands) as if they are spell casters.

...
This somewhat depends on your definition of a 'healer':
  • For 'Downtime healing', anyone who can use a wand of CLW is fine.
  • For 'Battle Healing', the Alchemist is not very good as drawing and using an infusion will cost the target an entire round, requires a free hand, and will provoke AoOs in melee, probably making the entire attempt a net loss of HP (in combat healing's usefulness is questionable (particularly at lower levels), but I once took our party paladin from 'dead' to 'very healthy' in one round on my oracle (with the help of a quickened metamagic rod) so it probably shouldn't be ignored entirely).
  • For 'Condition Removal', the Alchemist's flexiblity is really good (except for those few levels where a '9 level' caster would have access to a spell but the '6 level' alchemist still has to wait a bit, but the party Bard has the same issue)
Alchemists are great at two of these roles, while the Bard would be better at 'Battle Healing' (assuming he/she learns all the relevant healing spells).

In-combat healing is usually an inefficient use of actions. Also, if it is needed on a regular basis, then that may indicate the party should work on tactics and teamwork so that they don't need to be healed in the middle of combat so often.

On a "party role" note, not everyone wants to be a "heal-bot."

Dragonchess Player Nov 4, 2022, 04:28 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

TxSam88 wrote:

yeah, I fundamentally disagree with some of these. De-Buffing is a trap, at somewhat mid-high levels, the bad guy will always pass his saves, so this is a waste. Battlefield control falls into this somewhat to, most of the time these are just things that delay the enemy, a spell that helps to kill the enemy (Damage or Buffs) is Action economy better spent. Even blasting spells can be a trap due to spell resistance and good saves. Better to spend spells on things that are certain (again, buffs).

AS for the overall concept that roles scan be shared among the party, this is a good idea, but I have found it to be somewhat unnecessary and it does come with trade offs. when a character diversifies, they do take away from their primary ability/role and that's not always a good thing.

So, the consensus that battlefield control wizards ("God" wizards) and de-buff witches are two of the strongest classes in the game is wrong? Fancy that...

"[T]he bad guy will always pass his saves..." Is the caster targeting a good save or a poor save? Looking at Table 1-1 in the Bestiary, a poor save should range from +1 at CR 1 to +17 at CR 20. A modestly optimized 1st level caster starting with a casting stat of 18 (16 with a +2 racial) and Spell Focus will have a 1st level spell DC of 16; that's only a 30% chance of a successful save by a CR 1 or CR 2 creature. A 9th or 10th level caster (two increases to casting stat, headband granting a +2 enhancement bonus, Greater Spell Focus) can cast a 5th level spell with a DC of 23 vs. a +9 poor save for a CR 10 creature or a +10 for a CR 11 creature; that's a 30% chance of a successful save by the CR 10 creature and a 35% chance of a successful save by the CR 11 creature.

Here's a thought: Why don't you tell us how you define "roles" (I prefer to consider them capabilities/functions) in a party and how you would go about making a "well rounded" group of six PCs so that they can meet a variety of challenges in play (both in and out of combat)?

Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (33) Senko Nov 4, 2022, 09:08 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So now that I've had time to look things over how does this revised organization sound?

1) Archeologist Bard Scout and Front line fighter
2) Abyssal Bloodrager Front line fighter using reach to limit and influence enemy movemnt if I can find feats to do that.
3) Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemist Front line fighter providing flanking and healing as needed
4) Blood Aranist arcane caster - battlefield control/buffs/debuffs
5) Spirt Guide Oracle divine caster - buffs/debuffs, primary healer

Still debating the last slot perhaps a zen archer for ranged attacking or keep the druid for a pet . . .. I'll think on this more.

Mysterious Stranger Nov 5, 2022, 06:49 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can understand Derklord’s dislike of the term role. From what he is saying most of the people he interacts with use it to limit the character. When roles are narrow exclusive it does tend to limit characters. If you have one and only one character taking care of a role it does become incredibly restrictive on the characters. If you only have one healer in the party that takes up so much of a character resources, they often don’t have enough resources for other things. This type of specialization does not lead to a balanced party, it leads to the opposite. The classic party of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue is the opposite of a balanced party and should be avoided.

To me a fully balanced party is where every character can fill every role. Filling a role does not mean you have to be the best at the role, it means you can do an adequate job at the basic function of the role. The cleric can fill the role of a frontline combatant assuming he has reasonable physical stats, appropriate gear and combat buffs spells. He may not be able to match the martial class, but he can function in the role. They typical wizard on the other had will not be able to fill the role of frontline combat. In all honesty I don’t think a fully balanced party can actually be achieved unless the game is using the gestalt rules. What you should be looking for is a reasonable balanced party. I consider a reasonable balance party one where between half and a third of the characters can fill all roles, and each role can be filled by at least two characters.

Roles should be based on dealing with specific situations and should never be based on game mechanics like character class or type of magic. The role of rogue or arcane caster should never be used.

Instead of using a list of characters assigned a role use a spreadsheet with the roles as the rows and the characters as the columns.

TxSam88 Nov 5, 2022, 07:00 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dragonchess Player wrote:

So, the consensus that battlefield control wizards ("God" wizards) and de-buff witches are two of the strongest classes in the game is wrong? Fancy that...

Here's a thought: Why don't you tell us how you define "roles" (I prefer to consider them capabilities/functions) in a party and how you would go about making a "well rounded" group of six PCs so that they can meet a variety of challenges in play (both in and out of combat)?

yeah, the God Wizard is a buffer and utility mage more than anything else, so "saves" are seldom an issue. As for de-buffing, monsters usually aren't too bad to beat their saves, but it's when the Adventure includes NPC's that they have a hard time. usually less than 50% success rate (compared to 100% success rate for buffs). I'll take 100% success over even a 70% success rate any day. Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoy a good blaster mage from time to time, but if you want to truly optimize a caster, you build it so that the bad guys don't get to roll a save (this generally means casting spells that don't target the bad guys.)

As for Defining roles etc, we still do that, We'll say oh, I'm gonna play a healer this time, or I'm gonna play a tank, but we have moved away from building a party around it. We prefer to let players play what they want and just deal with the lack of whatever it is we don't have covered in other ways.

Now, to be fair, we have 6 players, so it's pretty easy even with no planning on what everyone is going to play, that we have all the bases covered, sometimes too well. We currently have 6 characters, 4 are really good in combat, 3 can FART etc., 4 can cast heal spells, and 3 can cast other spells, plus we have 2 that can buff.

The GM is just grinning and is thinking that she gets to throw anything at us.

TxSam88 Nov 5, 2022, 07:10 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

If you only have one healer in the party that takes up so much of a character resources, they often don’t have enough resources for other things. This type of specialization does not lead to a balanced party, it leads to the opposite. The classic party of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue is the opposite of a balanced party and should be avoided.

To me a fully balanced party is where every character can fill every role. Filling a role does not mean you have to be the best at the role, it means you can do an adequate job at the basic function of the role. The cleric can fill the role of a frontline combatant assuming he has reasonable physical stats, appropriate gear and combat buffs spells. He may not be able to match the martial class, but he can function in the role. They typical wizard on the other had will not be able to fill the role of frontline combat. In all honesty I don’t think a fully balanced party can actually be achieved unless the game is using the gestalt rules. What you should be looking for is a reasonable balanced party. I consider a reasonable balance party one where between half and a third of the characters can fill all roles, and each role can be filled by at least two characters. .

I think we might be on a similar page, but coming from different directions. I think characters should be focused on a singular task enough that they are REALLY good at that one task. And them should the builds allow have other characters that can also do those tasks to a lesser degree.

You mention the Cleric being a frontline combatant, sure he can do that, but his huge 7d6 channel is awesome to have, as well as his access to resurrection and heal. so his main JOB is to keep everyone alive, his secondary job can be frontline fighting.

A paladin is the opposite, he's a great frontline combatant/striker with his access to smite, so that's his Primary JOB, his secondary job can be healing, but only in a more support role since his access to healing spells is less.

It's nice to have a party where everyone has a primary role and a secondary (or even a tertiary), and that does make thing more well rounded. But I do prefer PCs to focus on their primary job and excel at it.

Someone mentioned healing in combat being inefficient, and he's right, but a good GM will keep the party on their toes enough that without healing during combat, then they party will be dead.

Temperans Nov 5, 2022, 08:43 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think Derklord's point is that you should not base the character on what job or role you want it to be, but what abilities you want it to have. The role should follow from the abilities not the other way around.

Sometimes this is easy and can be described with a simple role (ex: striker or dreadnought) but other times doing that is overly restrictive to what a character is (ex: Sword Binder Wizard/Blackblade Magus/Blade bound Arcanist whose entire thing is being able to switch hit while casting buff spells and using a super cool flying sword).

Lelomenia Nov 5, 2022, 04:54 pm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I’m going to agree with an earlier comment; in a big (weapon-oriented) group, generic bardsong for Inspire Courage is a big deal, and going archaeologist there hurts a lot. Slayer can take trapfinding if it’s important.

On a different topic, I think it’s (highly) misleading to suggest wizards can consistently target weakest saves using highest level slots benefiting from greater spell focus. For one thing, the schools (focus affects one school) tend to have particular saving throw focuses: evocation usually has reflex saves, enchantment generally will, necromancy hits fort, etc. So if you want to benefit from greater spell focus, you won’t be able to switch what save you are targeting between encounters. More problematically, reflex saves are the most common bad save, and reflex saves are generally damage based, and the damage is piddly unless you specifically build for blasting. Which is all a long winded way of saying if you plan to go after saves, plan for beating strong saves unless you build for dazing spell on evocations.

UnArcaneElection Nov 6, 2022, 01:50 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

TxSam88 wrote:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

So, the consensus that battlefield control wizards ("God" wizards) and de-buff witches are two of the strongest classes in the game is wrong? Fancy that...

Here's a thought: Why don't you tell us how you define "roles" (I prefer to consider them capabilities/functions) in a party and how you would go about making a "well rounded" group of six PCs so that they can meet a variety of challenges in play (both in and out of combat)?

yeah, the God Wizard is a buffer and utility mage more than anything else, so "saves" are seldom an issue. As for de-buffing, monsters usually aren't too bad to beat their saves, but it's when the Adventure includes NPC's that they have a hard time. usually less than 50% success rate (compared to 100% success rate for buffs). I'll take 100% success over even a 70% success rate any day. Now don't get me wrong, I still enjoy a good blaster mage from time to time, but if you want to truly optimize a caster, you build it so that the bad guys don't get to roll a save (this generally means casting spells that don't target the bad guys.)

. . . And I've heard complaints on these boards about Witches suffering from not being able to get their Hexes to stick. So even though this is the class made for debuffing, you are going to have to invest in Hex DC to make it work, and also give some thought to what to do when you come up against a really tough nut to crack. So this also means having some spells that don't give the enemies a Save (again, usually meaning spells that don't target them).

TxSam88 wrote:

As for Defining roles etc, we still do that, We'll say oh, I'm gonna play a healer this time, or I'm gonna play a tank, but we have moved away from building a party around it. We prefer to let players play what they want and just deal with the lack of whatever it is we don't have covered in other ways.

. . . And I think this is at least approximately what most people mean by roles, not as limitation for the sake of limitation, but having regard to what your character can do best for the party.

TxSam88 wrote:

Now, to be fair, we have 6 players, so it's pretty easy even with no planning on what everyone is going to play, that we have all the bases covered, sometimes too well. We currently have 6 characters, 4 are really good in combat, 3 can FART etc., 4 can cast heal spells, and 3 can cast other spells, plus we have 2 that can buff.

{. . .}

Now I've got this vision of a party with 3 Spleens in it . . . .

DeathlessOne Nov 6, 2022, 08:01 am

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Senko wrote:

1) Archeologist Bard Scout and Front line fighter

2) Abyssal Bloodrager Front line fighter using reach to limit and influence enemy movemnt if I can find feats to do that.
3) Vivisectionist Beastmorph Alchemist Front line fighter providing flanking and healing as needed
4) Blood Aranist arcane caster - battlefield control/buffs/debuffs
5) Spirt Guide Oracle divine caster - buffs/debuffs, primary healer

Still debating the last slot perhaps a zen archer for ranged attacking or keep the druid for a pet . . .. I'll think on this more.

I'd still recommend that Nature Fang Druid (or consider a Hunter) to pad out that roster and make them focused on ranged attacks. The addition of an animal companion would be somewhat invaluable even if its role is to merely protect the Arcanist and Oracle if something got too close for comfort. And the spells with more direct buffing of natural attacks that a Druid or Hunter has access to might assist with the Bloodrager, Alchemist, and Animal companion.

But, overall, it is a solid team provided you make sure they have the means to deal with flying and/or other ranged enemies.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

Recent threads in Advice

Homunculist- Keeping the game fun for everyone

Last post:7 hours, 31 minutes agoby Azothath

Owl's Witch Guide (now with working link)

Last post:Yesterday, 09:12 amby Northern Spotted Owl

Forums: Advice: Does this look ok for a 6 person party composition (Theory building for experience) (2025)

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Recommended Articles
Article information

Author: Van Hayes

Last Updated:

Views: 6622

Rating: 4.6 / 5 (66 voted)

Reviews: 81% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Van Hayes

Birthday: 1994-06-07

Address: 2004 Kling Rapid, New Destiny, MT 64658-2367

Phone: +512425013758

Job: National Farming Director

Hobby: Reading, Polo, Genealogy, amateur radio, Scouting, Stand-up comedy, Cryptography

Introduction: My name is Van Hayes, I am a thankful, friendly, smiling, calm, powerful, fine, enthusiastic person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.