Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Man from Uncle 12-12-04, 12:53 AM	We've all played in that architiple group of a wizard, a fighter, a cleric and thief. But what i want to know is, what do you guys think is the best balanced group amoung the size catagories of 3, 4, 5 and 6. (I know some people play in larger groups, but most tables tend to be one of these sizes.) Stick to the core classes if you can and try and keep it a single class unless you think multi-classing is really necessary (like maybe in a group of 3). I'll open with my first glance opinions. Group of 3 : Cleric, Sorc and a fighter/rogue Group of 4 : Cleric, Wizard, Barbarian, rogue Group of 5 : Druid, ranger, sorc, rogue, monk Group of 6 : Cleric, Paladin, Wizard, rogue, ranger and bard All the classes are balanced differently so that some are tanks, some are divine, some are skilled, some useful, ect (eg Ranger 60% fighting, 30% skilled, 10% divine). Though there are plenty of other ways to describe the balance. I tend to think a group can get by with a single heavy arcane caster, but needs around 40-50% combat speciality. These really are my frist thoughts, but i'd like to hear what other people think.
Board_Rider 12-12-04, 01:19 PM	Here is what I found works...... Group of 3 : Paladin, Wizard, Rogue Group of 4 : Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric Group of 5 : Ranger/Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter(or Paladin), Monk Group of 6 : Ranger, Fighter(or Paladin), Bard, Rogue/Monk, Wizard, Rogue I find that classes like Monk, Bard and Druid are better suited for larger groups. Admittedly I really don't care for those classes as I see them as more of a flavor thing. True, they have some potent things and all but IMO it just takes to long to get them.
Edvin 12-12-04, 01:31 PM	I've played with a whole party of halfling rouges. (4 of them) Worked out great. They just had to accept that they had to keep their distance to their foes. And when they did go to melle they had awesome cover. And feats such as point blanc and expertise helped out a bit for them. All in all it jsut forced them to think more tactical. Was awesome.
D_Martin 12-12-04, 05:34 PM	Our Group of 3 is a Clr/Ftr, Dru and a Rgr/Wiz(now has a Ftr/Rog/DwS cohort though). That seemed to work pretty good. The lack of a rog didn't help much, but we had enough spellpower to make up for it. That is why we are still going. 4) Clr, Ftr, Wiz or Dru, and Rog 5)Same 4 plus a Brd. 6) Clr, Ftr, Rgr(archer), Rog, Wiz or Sor, Dru or Brd( a Mnk could be subbed for the Rgr or Brd or a Wiz/Rog and Brd or a Rgr/Rog and Mnk). There are so many Multi-class combos that could make it easier for all involved. A party of 3 almost has to be multi-classed. Clr and Dru makes a solid healing and spellpower foundation for any party. Druids are so good, it is arguable if a Wiz is necessary in a party.
The Man from Uncle 12-12-04, 11:00 PM	I was in a very successful group of 3 that later aquired a 4th member (we went up to 20 just like this). It was fighter, rogue (with 1 fighter level) and a cleric/templar. We were a force to be rekoned with in combat and though we had no serious offensive spells we had pletny of buffs and healing. Our fouth member came along (i think you can guess what we needed) but did we get someone with fireball? Did we squat. We got another out and out fighter. The team actually came together pretty well though. I think there is probably a mathematical balance (everything being equal) for an optimised group. X amount of fighting ability (where each class has) X amount of skills, X amount of knowledge, X healing ability, X tactical fighting, X buffs, X offensive spells. Hmmm.....i think this is quite a good way to look at it. If we can just come up with the right catagories, we can explain a class in terms of its unique balance. Though i admit it may turn out that there are as many factors as there are stats and skills points.
bookwurm 12-13-04, 09:35 AM	i've honestly never believed that there is a balance to a group. i was just in a game that had 2 ftrs, one cleric, and one mechanist(skill oriented rogue) and we whooped one anything and everything that got in our way. Its relizing a groups limitations and playing it smart. I actually enjoy those groups that dont balance out cause then you;ve got to figure out how to do things without that fireballer behind you :D
Board_Rider 12-13-04, 11:52 AM	I too think there is no exact science in creating the perfect party. Way too many variables. Skills, Feats, possible PrCs, spells and arms and armor all come into play. Most importantly are the players. Remember that this is a fantasy game and even the best min/maxed class can be weak if played by a weak or possibly inexperienced player. Another thing that I would like to point out is balance is somewhat relative. At first level 4 fighters (or fighter types) would probably blow through the first couple of levels where 4 mages would/might struggle. Flip that to later levels and the roles are reversed. Additionally,MFU, you brought up a very good point that Wizards, while powerful at high levels, still need others because sooner or later spells run dry. This is where fighters are good becase they keep fighting. Of course none of this would be possible without the rogue who successfully Disabled a trap that would have plunged all of the 400ft into lava. All classes,IMO, need each other. ESPECIALLY at low levels.
ck2001wendt 12-13-04, 02:50 PM	My rule of thumb is generally that the following are essential (in this order): 1. Trapfinding 2. A Healer 3. Arcane power 4. A tank As for "optimal" parties, I'd probably try and go with something like: 1) Divine Trickster 2) Druid (good tank and backup healer) Arcane Trickster 3) Druid/Cleric (the tank), Ranger/Rogue, Wizard 4) Druid/Cleric, Ranger/Rogue, Wizard, Tank (probably also a Cleric) 5) Cleric, Ranger/Rogue, Wizard, Tank, Archer (possibly also a Cleric :D) 6) Cleric, Ranger/Rogue, Wizard, Tank, Archer, Buffer/Face I've also played in parties of all spellcasters, with no rogue and so on, so I'll happily violate any of these rules based on the needs and wants of the party.
Kolo 12-13-04, 03:34 PM	I'll just put my favorite combo forst; size 4; Cleric, Druid, Bard, Wizard. -Two mediocre/good tanks with healing and misc. spells, arcane support, bard skills and abilities- all of which are useful. I know, I know, It's not exactly "balanced" per se. but it does all that the classic four does, and does it well- possibly even better, excepting only sneak attack. As for the other sizes; Size 3; Cleric, Druid, Wizard. -Two mediocre tanks w/healing and misc. spells, arcane support. All this group lacks is rogue skills, which can be achieved fairly early with spells- with this setup, you got plenty to spare. But it's not quite the same. In all other areas, the cleric/druid/wizard combo simply rocks. Size 5; Cleric, Druid, Bard, Barbarian (or Ranger), Wizard. -As size four, except now with a choice; Ranger is good ranged support/scouting with some tricks thrown in, while the Barb is an absolute god while the healing lasts-and it will. Size 6; Cleric, Druid, Bard, Barbarian, Wizard, Ranger. As size five, except now you have it all. Alternatively, if you find that you don't need the Ranger's excellent scouting and support or the barbarian's tanking ability (what with the druid's wildshape and all), you can pick the Sorcerer for some real arcane firepower. This would free the wizard's choices for the day considerably for all sorts of strange and wonderful niche spells, not to mention the common utility spells. Buffs and Wall spells come to mind. This is all core only, of course; If the PrC's are mixed in, we end up with a big mixed bag of abilities that I don't want to sort through.
The Man from Uncle 12-13-04, 10:19 PM	Thats a intersting party of 4 kolo, no fighter/barb/pal or rogue. But i can see that, if the druid and cleric were tough and between all members they had the right spells, it would probably make up for both. As Board rider points out though, the wizard and the bard would not be all that at low level and while at VERY low level a druid and cleric might be ok for melee you might find those middle levels 3-7 or 9 a little tricky. Once you've got the hp though and the spell versitility that would be a good party with most of the bases well covered. I'd be tempted to swap the the druid or bard for a barb though. I also notice the distinct lack of rogue in any group size; that is brave. I am not saying it would not work, far from it, the way you could balance other classes spells and skills could take up the slack. But after you get to 5 or more, maybe a rogue would be more economical than lots of other classes handicapping themselves to make up for all the rogues abilities. I know for a lot of people, a rogue is as essential as a cleric in any party. I don't quite see them as that needed, but a high level rogue with a bunch of Cure wounds wands and maybe a fire-ball wand, suddenly becomes a true jack-of-all-trades and master-of-some too. Its funny how we all know that a wizard or sorc can be monsterous at high levels, but we only seem to need one in a party. Even with a party of 6 i'd rather have multiple divine casters than multiple arcane. I guess arcane casters come across as too frail and if you have too many you can't protect them all. Thats why a bard seems to be a good second arcane choice. I think that an exact science (even one limited to core classes) is probably too much to ask. The possibilties of balancing a group seem to be open enough and not a single combination in any size seems to be unquestionally the best. If it was just one character i'd probably go for a cleric, but a rogue/mage (or divine trickster) might just as good if in a totally different way. I am joining a group soon that has a wizard, a barbarian and a rogue (might be a marshal). I know that the cleric slot will be covered by the time i arrive so what do you reckon would be the best choice of 5th character?
bard_4_life 12-13-04, 10:28 PM	(in order of importance, IMO) 3: fighter, cleric, rogue 4: fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue 5: barbarian, druid, wizard, bard, rogue
EvilDuck 12-13-04, 10:56 PM	Suprisingly enough, I've been in a party where barbarian, monk, and druid worked. I think the druid is really good for parties with less people, as it can fill in for a healer, it can blast and summon, and it can fight in later levels. Drop a level of rogue in and bam! One-man party.
Polaris 12-13-04, 11:03 PM	Everyone, I will give you my two coppers for what works in a typical dungeon-crawl environment and what doesn't and why. 3 People: You need everyone to be able to contribute to combat because there is no "back rank" available. You need to be able to hold your own in toe to toe combat, or be able to avoid it (or both). Trapfinding and healing are also essential. What works: Cleric, Cleric, Rogue Cleric, Druid, Rogue You can have one of the cleric or the rogue be mutliclassed into a fighter (having the rogue mutli into Barbarian and/or Ranger works well). What doesn't work: Arcane Casters These classes can't hold their own in the line of battle (not even bards) and don't return enough to the party. If you want an arcane person have the rogue MC into Arcane Trickster later or have one of the clerics MC into Mystic Theurge later when it isn't so critical. Four People: With four people, you have just enough to allow for a "middle rank" but just barely. This means that Arcane casters aren't an upfront liability but still not the best choice because of the small size of the group. What Works: Cleric, Cleric, Cleric, Rogue (classic) [or MC Fighter Rogue] Cleric, Cleric, Druid, Rogue (another classic) [or MC Fighter Rogue] The following also work but aren't as good as the above two: Cleric, Cleric, Warrior Type (Ftr, Pal, BBn, Ran), Rogue Cleric, Druid, Warrior Type, Rogue Cleric, Cleric, Wizard Type [Wiz, Sor], Rogue Cleric, Druid, Wizard Type, Rogue Cleric, Warrior Type, Wizard Type, Rogue [the WOTC classic] 5+ players give you enough flexibility to make more combinations viable. Make sure you have at least one cleric per four people rounding up, however. -Polaris
The Man from Uncle 12-13-04, 11:30 PM	I think that polaris has a favourite class. Its my favourite class too. But for the selfish reason that i don't want to share my class with others i will have to disagree. Clerics are good, but one thing they lack is stealth and speed. Dex is almost always a dump stat for a cleric and that leaves for a very imobile party if you go cleric heavy. Though it won't win you many battles by itself, having 2 stealthy and fast types (rogue ranger, monk and even barbarian) is a great asset. You can not only scout with it, but you can actually attack with it too, or at least handle yourself if you get rumbled. A bit of Blitzgrieg never did anyone any harm or to put it another way, Blitzgrieg can harm a lot of people very well indeed. (Cunning, i knew i could make that make sense!) I think i'd agree though that from groups size 5 and up two divine casters (druid or cleric) are better than one. In group of only 4 however, two divine casters will need to spend time at the gym or they won't get through those medium levels too well.
Melpomene 12-13-04, 11:43 PM	Oddly enough, I find that you can squeeze in a bard early on as a face/healer/enchanter/trapspringer to great effect, then it loses power as you become more specialized, then it becomes more powerful once you have a large party which can benifit from the music.
Kolo 12-14-04, 12:05 AM	Thats a intersting party of 4 kolo, no fighter/barb/pal or rogue. But i can see that, if the druid and cleric were tough and between all members they had the right spells, it would probably make up for both. As Board rider points out though, the wizard and the bard would not be all that at low level and while at VERY low level a druid and cleric might be ok for melee you might find those middle levels 3-7 or 9 a little tricky. Once you've got the hp though and the spell versitility that would be a good party with most of the bases well covered. I'd be tempted to swap the the druid or bard for a barb though. A low-level cleric is fairly good in melee, a mid-level druid is a great tank and high-levels of both are simply amazing in combat- and the best bit is that although they lack the hitpoints to out-and-out tank, they can easily support each other with spells while the wizard provides cannon fodder/battlefield control. The bard then provides his unique abilities to both boost his friends' skills and their damage in combat-and out! And that's still not counting his spells. ;) I can see how a group might want a barb rather than a bard though... after all, having a tank is pretty much standard fare. I suppose I'm going more for flexibiity than pure strength, plus I have to have some rogue skills in there somewhere. :) I also notice the distinct lack of rogue in any group size; that is brave. I am not saying it would not work, far from it, the way you could balance other classes spells and skills could take up the slack. But after you get to 5 or more, maybe a rogue would be more economical than lots of other classes handicapping themselves to make up for all the rogues abilities. I know for a lot of people, a rogue is as essential as a cleric in any party. I don't quite see them as that needed, but a high level rogue with a bunch of Cure wounds wands and maybe a fire-ball wand, suddenly becomes a true jack-of-all-trades and master-of-some too. The thing is that the other classes wouldn't be handicapped by it at all. Once a cleric can prepare find the path and detect traps (preferably extended), the wizard has a wand of knock and the druid can shapechange to a higher STR creature, the lack of rogue skills simply doesn't show all that much-and that's pretty minimal preperation for the average dungeon. And we've still got that bard around in size 4+... He can be pretty good when some actual down-to-earth skill is called for. Its funny how we all know that a wizard or sorc can be monsterous at high levels, but we only seem to need one in a party. Even with a party of 6 i'd rather have multiple divine casters than multiple arcane. I guess arcane casters come across as too frail and if you have too many you can't protect them all. Thats why a bard seems to be a good second arcane choice. One arcane know-it-all is annoying enough. Take it from a long-time wizard player. :D The bard is much better as a second arcane choice both for his ability to survive and for his flexibility; he's not just about his spells, but can fill all sorts of niches as needed without pigeonholing himself, as many of the classes are wont to do. And I'd rather have a bunch of clerics discussing religion in the party than a bunch of wizards who are all looking for more power. (at least I know which group I'd rather be in the middle of when an argument breaks out... at least the divines can heal afterwards. :eek: ) I think that an exact science (even one limited to core classes) is probably too much to ask. The possibilties of balancing a group seem to be open enough and not a single combination in any size seems to be unquestionally the best. If it was just one character i'd probably go for a cleric, but a rogue/mage (or divine trickster) might just as good if in a totally different way. Exactly. It mostly depends on what you are most comfortable with; If you don't like a class, you won't use it to the fullest. So when in doubt, just pick the one you think is better because it guarantees you'll get better mileage from a mechanics standpoint. I am joining a group soon that has a wizard, a barbarian and a rogue (might be a marshal). I know that the cleric slot will be covered by the time i arrive so what do you reckon would be the best choice of 5th character? For a fifth character... a Ranger might be a good choice, but it wouldn't fill a niche that couldn't be done by someone else (a scout and a tank already being present, as they are). My recommendation would either have to be a Druid (ranger+ :)) as he is both a healer and secondary tank, both needed in large groups, plus he's also good for some direct damage magic; or a Bard. Bards get exponentially better the larger the group (more people getting bonuses at the same time), are also good secondary healers and can cover any base not already covered by the rogue and the wizard -at the same time- and can use the wands and scrolls of both arcane and divine classes, meaning that your casters are going to have a field day kitting you out. :) I'd personally take the bard, but if you think some real direct damage power is needed, the druid might be the better choice.
The Man from Uncle 12-14-04, 12:08 AM	To be honest i have really wanted the bard to be a decent class capable, in his own special way, of holding his own. But so far the test cases i've seen have all been pretty sucky, on paper i can't work out a build for them thats actually any good, i can't see a solution using multi-classing because their spell progression is so slow and i've never played in serious group larger than 5 characters where his party buffing abilities really start to shine. As much as i wish it was not true.....i just can't find a place for them that could not be done better with other classes. I am considering playing one though. He won't be into music, his skill will be talking and telling stories. His method of Inspiring Courage will be less of the frilly great music and more like shouts of 'Get in there my Son!' 'Oh, oh oh, he didn't like that did he? Oh oh, god. Ooowww..' and 'Thats right, you **** him up good and proper!'. That would be an awesome bard.
The Man from Uncle 12-14-04, 12:20 AM	The only problem playing a bard for me though (other than.....well....hes a bard) is that the Marshal is pretty much an abject coward (think Arnold Rimmer) but who has the abilty to talk a good fight in the tavern afterwards. He claims to be a great warrior or courage and leadership (and at first glance he is) but hes a total backstabbing lying little cnut who leaves his team high and dry as soon as the gonig gets tough but always comes up with a good excuse afterwards. The latest senario this group was in, involved the mage and barb getting teleported away 100 miles in a random direction (hoizontal that is) right towards the end of the quest and the marshal (who had no idea what happend to his friends, he just grabbed the loot and did legs leaving the big boss alive and well and ready to carry on doing destruction) going back to town and saying that he had bravely killed the tyrant who managed to slay his friends. Sadly though he could only stay in town long enough to collect his reward, sleep with the wenches and continuing his journey to help some more goodly people elsewhere. I feel a bard might not support this guy too well.....i might steal his thunder.
Hairfoot 12-14-04, 12:35 AM	Anything will work as long as you have a cleric to patch you up when it doesn't.
Kolo 12-14-04, 12:36 AM	To be honest i have really wanted the bard to be a decent class capable, in his own special way, of holding his own. But so far the test cases i've seen have all been pretty sucky, on paper i can't work out a build for them thats actually any good, i can't see a solution using multi-classing because their spell progression is so slow and i've never played in serious group larger than 5 characters where his party buffing abilities really start to shine. As much as i wish it was not true.....i just can't find a place for them that could not be done better with other classes. I am considering playing one though. He won't be into music, his skill will be talking and telling stories. His method of Inspiring Courage will be less of the frilly great music and more like shouts of 'Get in there my Son!' 'Oh, oh oh, he didn't like that did he? Oh oh, god. Ooowww..' and 'Thats right, you **** him up good and proper!'. That would be an awesome bard. Hah! sounds exactly like what I would be doing in a fight, except I'd have some good throwing daggers mixed in. (See my sig for details on that one ;) ) All you'd need is a good mascot costume. speaking of mascots, did you know that halflings make absolutely wonderful bards? :P As for a good bard build... Well, if you're into spellcasting, the Sublime Chord from Complete Arcane really fils you out at the expense of singing. Multiclassing bars, on the other hand, is generally not a good idea; what's the point of generalizing a generalist, after all? Capitalizing on your skills, your good CHA and DEX scores and your bardic lore is fairly standard. Bards in combat is a mixed bag; you can use swords, but you shouldn't. Ranged is the way to go, especialy what with the light armor proficiency and all, so high DEX is fairly important. Inspire Courage lasts for several rounds, so it's enough to shout encouragement for a single round and then start supporting the other guys. Inspire Greatness is also good to avoid spell effects and give the fighters a boost. At the really high levels, inspire heroics can and will save lives- a +4 morale bonus to all saves? heck yes! Fascinate can be useful to first get close to an enemy before combat and then implant a suggestion (I like your sword, can I have it? :angelhide ) to bypass combat altogether. And then there's his spells... Cure Light Wounds is good to start with, but you may want more. Grease is brilliant due to it's utility, and Hideous Laughter is good for what it does. Silent image is an absolute must. You can, using this spell, make images of pretty much anything you can imagine; So go nuts. scare those kobolds away with your illusory balors. :D And that's just the first level spells! Or, if you don't want to deal with all that, you can always go druid. It's the more outright powerful choice of the two, after all. :)
Kolo 12-14-04, 12:45 AM	The only problem playing a bard for me though (other than.....well....hes a bard) is that the Marshal is pretty much an abject coward (think Arnold Rimmer) but who has the abilty to talk a good fight in the tavern afterwards. He claims to be a great warrior or courage and leadership (and at first glance he is) but hes a total backstabbing lying little cnut who leaves his team high and dry as soon as the gonig gets tough but always comes up with a good excuse afterwards. The latest senario this group was in, involved the mage and barb getting teleported away 100 miles in a random direction (hoizontal that is) right towards the end of the quest and the marshal (who had no idea what happend to his friends, he just grabbed the loot and did legs leaving the big boss alive and well and ready to carry on doing destruction) going back to town and saying that he had bravely killed the tyrant who managed to slay his friends. Sadly though he could only stay in town long enough to collect his reward, sleep with the wenches and continuing his journey to help some more goodly people elsewhere. I feel a bard might not support this guy too well.....i might steal his thunder. Hmm, didn't see that one before posting. Well, you could always go for the "heroic bard" theme; rather than being the sneaky kind of guy, you could be the kind of bard that specifically goes out and seeks danger purely so that he can sing his sings and say that he was there too. You could leave the bragging to the marshall. Or better yet; the two of you could form a double team of sneaky little (coc-violations). If you've ever seen Akira Kurosawa's the Hidden Fortress you'll know what I'm talking about. in case you haven't; There are two guys (roguish peasants basically) that constantly badger each other, get on each other nerves and threaten to kill each other... until the very moment they find gold. Then they're like best buddies when discussing how best to smuggle it around and spend it. :D Or, as I said, just go druid. :cool:
The Man from Uncle 12-14-04, 01:01 AM	Heroic bard? I believe the phrase you are looking for is 'optimistic bard, with limited life expectancy'. But maybe i can do some sort of co-coward act with him. I'll ask him if he likes the idea.