Alternative core party

[Mathew_Freeman]

The default (by which I mean 'iconic', 'assumed' or other such phrases) assumption for D&D is:

One fighter
One cleric
One wizard
One rogue

Subsitute sorcerer for wizard if you really want to.

I was wondering, with the new PrC's in the 3.5e manual, how well this party would do in comparison:

Arcane Trickster (wizard/rogue)
Eldritch Knight (fighter/wizard)
Mystic Theurge (cleric/wizard)
Shadowdancer (fighter/rogue)

My guess is that, like most things, you'd be giving up sheer power for more flexibility. It'd be an interesting experiment, though. I guess that at low levels the more specialised party might have the advantage, but at higher levels I think the second group would have the advantage. They're tough in a stand up fight, but give them time and they're incredibly nasty. I would imagine it'd be a bit of a headache for the DM.

What do people think? Which party would you rather play in? Which would you rather go up against? Also, feel free to substitute other multiclass style PrC's if you want.

 

[gfunk]

Personally, I would prefer to play in the 2nd party for something new. But, at the same time, I would rather fight them as well because multi-classed spellcasters tend to be far easier opponents than single-classed ones.

As to the viability of the party, I think there will be a slight lag in healing because the MT isn't a straight cleric. But, this seems to be compensanted by the ton of arcane magic that everyone has. Overall, I think it is viable.

 

[Voadam]

No one in the second group can really wear heavy armor without drastically reducing their effectiveness, none of them is a tank while both the straight fighter and even the straight cleric can take front rank duty against tough monsters.

Now if you were comparing two person parties I might go for two of the multiclasses over two iconics although the cleric is still a good choice.

Do you really consider the shadowdancer a fighter/rogue? I consider them a rogue with a few neat abilities but no sneak attack, so they are less of a fighter than a straight rogue.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

The default (by which I mean 'iconic', 'assumed' or other such phrases) assumption for D&D is:

One fighter
One cleric
One wizard
One rogue

Subsitute sorcerer for wizard if you really want to.

I was wondering, with the new PrC's in the 3.5e manual, how well this party would do in comparison:

Arcane Trickster (wizard/rogue)
Eldritch Knight (fighter/wizard)
Mystic Theurge (cleric/wizard)
Shadowdancer (fighter/rogue)

sounds interesting, and leads to another question of what happens when you replace the "core" party with a group from the many other core classes. So:

One barbarian
One druid
One bard
One ranger

Swap out palidan for barbarian if you want a less "primal" party... I've wanted for a while to have a campaign with none of the "core" classes.

Kahuna burger

 

[Mercule]

One barbarian
One druid
One bard
One ranger

Sounds like a group I don't want to screw with in the dark woods.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Sounds like a group I don't want to screw with in the dark woods.

you would want to screw with them in a lighted woods?

 

[Desdichado]

Experiment? Do you mean you normally play with the "iconic core party?" I can't think of the last time I played in a group that even sorta resembled that...

 

[Zappo]

Heh... I, too, can hardly remember a time when we played with 1 rogue, 1 cleric, 1 wizard, 1 fighter. Usually, they have the cleric and the wizard/sorcerer, but for the rest... could be another cleric, another wizard, a fighet/rogue, a barbarian, or any other thing really. Sometimes they even go without wizard, or without cleric! Currently, the main party is a wizard, a barbarian/cleric, a rogue and a fighter/rogue, and I think this is as close to the "standard" as we ever got.

 

[Nifft]

Current Group:

Druid
Rogue/Sorcerer
Monk/Paladin
Monk/Ranger

High stealth, low armor. It's more fun for me as a DM that way, too -- they can better choose their battles, so I don't have to worry about throwing things far too tough for them in their way.

-- N

 

[Henry]

I prefer

Warmain
Magister
Greenbond
Mage Blade

but that's just me.


Alternately,

Druid - still good healing power, and backup fighting power with the spontaneous summon spells.

Ranger - good fighting, plenty of versatility as well.

Druid - Why a second druid? because more healing is preferable, and there is a bonus to having two divine casters with some good offense in their spell mix.

Barbarian - because you can never too much meat shield.