S
Sunseeker
Guest
That's a very real possibility when you/the group decides something has to change.
Pathfinder 1E So far not impressed with Pathfinder
MichaelSomething
Legend
Wouldn't the "tank" role be fulfilled by all the summoned monsters anyway?
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Then you shake hands and wish him luck in his next game. You already have more than enough players already.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
Pathfinder has good flexibility when it comes to character creation, but is bad at ensuring minimum role competency.
Since you are an experienced DM, there is a fix. Gestalt characters. Allow gestalt characters, but ban multi-classing to keep things simple. With gestalt, there really should be no need for multi-classing anyway. If you aren't familiar with the gestalt rules, every PC takes two classes simultaneously. They gain all the features of both classes and if a feature overlaps, such as Hit Dice, or saving throws, they choose the better option from both classes. You can read about it here.
It does make PC's slightly tougher (but not as much as you would think), but the real advantage is the gain in broad competence the party gets. I ran the entire Rise of the Runelords campaign with five players all using 3.5 gestalt PCs allowing every WotC book, and never had an issue. But I'm also an experienced DM who knows how to manage the game well. I no longer DM Pathfinder, but if I did run it again, I would absolutely use gestalt rules again.
Your next problem is one of the action economy being bogged down by too many players taking too long because they are managing too many characters. Unfortunately, I only see a couple of approaches. Limit your group size to about 3-4 PCs, 5 at the most. Or ban players from running multiple creatures.
really the answer to this is learning to be a competent GM.
No one wanted to play a trap monkey? guess what that means? NO ONE WANTS TO BE A TRAP MONKEY IN YOUR GROUP. Dont through traps like that often enough to screw up the game.
No one wanted to play a tank? Be a decent GM and adapt a little and make the encounters and stories easier for non tanks. This is not a difficult problem. Its not even in the top 10 of problems a GM has to deal with. If this stuff is really a big deal then its not a failing of pathfinder, its a failing of the GM.
No one wanted to play a trap monkey? guess what that means? NO ONE WANTS TO BE A TRAP MONKEY IN YOUR GROUP. Dont through traps like that often enough to screw up the game.
No one wanted to play a tank? Be a decent GM and adapt a little and make the encounters and stories easier for non tanks. This is not a difficult problem. Its not even in the top 10 of problems a GM has to deal with. If this stuff is really a big deal then its not a failing of pathfinder, its a failing of the GM.
It is a failing of PF if it's a result of running an AP that requires those roles for successful completion. Although I have never encountered any issues with lacking roles in large party groups in APs, I could certainly see it as an issues with smaller groups, but they'll have other issues as well.
This is Rappan Athuk. The traps are dangerous and the foes are worse. If the party won't make sure they have the proper skill set they will learn why it is called the Dungeon of Graves. So far they have dug 12. This is a sandbox not an AP. They better figure out when they don't belong and when they do. They were wise enough not to release the demon from its trap even though it offered them a fortune in treasure only to have one die to a handful of goblins.
Actually no it would still be a failure of the GM to adapt to the system. But since pathfinder does not require those roles its even more a failure of the the GM. At this point pathfinder really isnt 3.7 anymore. Its its own game and people who want to run it really need to actually read it and learn it, not skim for whatever jumps out a difference from 3.5
I'm running Rappan Athuk right now with a ranger as the trap monkey. Their doing fine, and thats without any of the casters investing in find traps and such.
As a sandbox you are even less locked into having certain roles to fulfill your objective, thats the whole point of a sandbox. If for some reason they absolutely need one role at one certain strength then the GM trying to run a sandbox is doing it wrong and its his fault if things arent working out
