I have no issue with a ranger and they are a core class and can fulfil the role of a tank and some of the role of a rogue. The alchemist is more of a blaster (yes we have one) and the bard is more of a buffer. None of these will ever match the all around 8+ Int modifier in skill points of a rogue that can do so many things well to say nothing of the things he does better than anyone like finding traps and disable device. A ninja is sneaky but not using oriental characters or weapons. Been playing a thief/rogue since 1E for 32 years and I tell ya no one out rogues a rogue!
Pathfinder 1E So far not impressed with Pathfinder
I have no issue with a ranger and they are a core class and can fulfil the role of a tank and some of the role of a rogue. The alchemist is more of a blaster (yes we have one) and the bard is more of a buffer. None of these will ever match the all around 8+ Int modifier in skill points of a rogue that can do so many things well to say nothing of the things he does better than anyone like finding traps and disable device. A ninja is sneaky but not using oriental characters or weapons. Been playing a thief/rogue since 1E for 32 years and I tell ya no one out rogues a rogue!
pathfinder rogue is less useless then a 3e rogue but still not a worthwhile member of the party most of the time. I've ran some modules with pretty high trap DC's and the party had no trouble at all with the ranger detecting them all and then just using common sense to bypass the traps in most cases or at worst using a summoned monster trigger them harmlessly.
No one needs a rogue to disable traps when they have a summon monster 1
No one needs a rogue to disable traps when they have a summon monster 1
Herobizkit
Adventurer
I would like to echo the general attitude of the thread and suggest that you adjust the game to match the player's capabilities rather than stressing about who doesn't have "a tank" or "a lockpick". In fact, missing these roles can make adventures more interesting if encounters that rely on them are used sparingly - throwing a few really tough creature with high HP and defence or having dungeons with high DC traps and locks will make them sweat and force them to be creative.
Pound for pound, magical characters always trump non-magical characters, so let them shine. You've already learned that Summoners are terrible for large groups, but you can adjust encounters to deal with them as well.
Pound for pound, magical characters always trump non-magical characters, so let them shine. You've already learned that Summoners are terrible for large groups, but you can adjust encounters to deal with them as well.
Last edited:
The Urban Ranger gets pretty much the same skills, 2 less skill points, trapfinding, favored enemy, a full BAB, and a higher DPR than the rogue with either archery or melee, and an animal buddy if he wants it. Oh yeah, and throw in spell casting on top of that. The rogue just can't stand up over time. It's not the rogues fault, they just gave away his core abilities to other classes through archtypes.
UKogre
First Post
Despite been a PF Rulebook collector, my main group is strictly Core rules. Yea, we have some class "experts" but everyone does play differant roles at one point or another. I personally used to get frustrated that we were limiting our experiance, but the older and wiser me has started to bring APG classes in to the game as Bad Guys. It means my players get to see the mechanics then varied class mechanics before killing them 
Ysgarran
Registered User
Our game has 8 players around the table. We agreed to drop all classes that have companions, extra critters and the leadership feat. The whole point is that it can get slow with that many players and keeping the number of entities that a player is responsible for can speed things up. We don't have the core classes problem though, our group has tendency to stick to the core rules with using the archetypes. Our group consists of: (Bard, Paladin, Cleric, Sorcerer, Rogue, Fighter, Arcane Trickster, Ranger).
3.0/3.5/Pathfinder all seem to suffer from the game slowing down at higher levels. Our group pretty quickly settled on the above agreement (i.e. everyone is responsible for one character) to keep the game moving.
3.0/3.5/Pathfinder all seem to suffer from the game slowing down at higher levels. Our group pretty quickly settled on the above agreement (i.e. everyone is responsible for one character) to keep the game moving.
I think PF has an alternative to companions for all the classes, so no one has to have one, which is nice for large groups.
Class skills are far less critical in Pathfinder than in previous iterations. A non-class skill or two are much more viable in pathfinder than in 3e, even without the various traits and feats that can make non-class skills into class skills. No rogue, but 7 or 8 characters? Surely one or two can invest skill points in Disable Device. Even if no one has Trapfinding, ranks in Disable Device and, perhaps, liberal use of Find Traps spells (Detect Magic and Dispel Magic for magical traps) can substitute. Some wands may be in order.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Yeah, this seems like a bunch of strange player choices, not so much a problem with the system. I've been running PF games since Beta, so about 3 years now (been playing D&D since 1977). I've only got one player to ever play a summoner, and no one else has opted to play a non-core class. Mostly rangers, rogues, sorcerers, and a psionicist. I've had a group of 8 once, and I fixed it by kicking 2 of the players out since more than 6 is unwieldy for the entire table. As far as a formula requirement for x number of players to fit a specific role - all a bunch of bunk, IMO. While our group naturally forms a mix of martial and casters, we attempt no specific role requirements. Play what you want. We've had parties entirely of rogues or rangers, or entirely spellcasters, all worked fine. There is no need to fit specific roles in a party - that is a weakness on your GMing if that is the case.
Let me clarify to say, that roles can help your party make-up, but is by no means a requirement to have the game to be fun and balanced. If you use roles in your party, great, but the system plays fine without a need for specific roles to be filled (they do not need to be filled).
Let me clarify to say, that roles can help your party make-up, but is by no means a requirement to have the game to be fun and balanced. If you use roles in your party, great, but the system plays fine without a need for specific roles to be filled (they do not need to be filled).
Last edited:
This was discussed at the last game and now I have one of my players threatening to quit because he can't play his summoner. Sounds like you have a pretty decent group there.
And yes generally you don't need to assign roles to people but when the players make a group that is so far off balance and is going into a place that requires a balanced group then it becomes an issue. I admit that I have only been running Pathfinder for 7 months, but I did run 3.x for 12 years and never had this issue with a group before. This is why I see it more as a system rather than a group issue and my party leader agrees. He isn't impressed with Pathfinder either and sees that it has fixed very little if anything. Between us we have more than 60 years of experience.
