I've found "alternative" parties work better with more members in it. One I like is Ranger, Monk, Bard, Druid, especially in 3.5. It's a little light on the spellcasting damage, but higher on the combat damage than a "normal" party and the Druid is still a respectable battle caster, especially with stuff from Masters of the Wild. Throw the Bard into the mix and you have lots of healing magic. And for a 5th party member, I like to add a Barbarian/Rogue. Rage, extra movement, and Sneak Attack is really, really gross, especially teamed up with a monk.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Alternative core party
- Thread starter Mathew_Freeman
- Start date
Voadam
Legend
Henry said:I prefer
Warmain
Magister
Greenbond
Mage Blade
but that's just me.
Mage Blade should be Akashic or you got no skill man. If you are trying to make up an iconic four mix that is. Mage blade does not add anything not already present in the Warmain or Magister.
Compare that to
Mage blade
Unbound
an all racial class level character (viable through 3rd level)
and hmm, I'd have to think on it to come up with a fourth that would not fit an iconic niche well.
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
My guess is that they would fare very poorly as iconics. And the higher level, they got, they worse they'd fare.
Why? There isn't a single straight-up spellcaster in the bunch. All of the spellcasters are at least two levels caster levels behind where they're expected to be and most of them are actually behind by three or more. Which means that they'll still be throwing single magic missiles when fireball is expected, flaming spheres or 4d6 scorching rays when they are expected to have Phantasmal Killer, and will just be latching on to Prismatic Spray or Holy Word when they're expected to have Meteor Swarm, Shapechange, Gate, and Miracle. Instead of having a 60% chance to penetrate their foes SR with Greater Spell Penetration, they'll have a mere 40-50% chance. And, since they're all splitting their stats up more and are gaining strengths other than spellcasting, they'll be less likely to have Spell Focus or DC increasing abilities so their foes will make their saves more often.
Also, since their caster levels are lower, despite each individual character having more options, the party as a whole will have fewer options. Sure it's nifty when 3/4 of your tenth level party can cast fly but compared to the group where one party member can cast teleport or Shadow Walk and another can cast Wind Walk, you've actually got fewer significant options.
If they have advance notice of a fight and have the opportunity to buff up, they'll excel but in most normal situations, they'll lag significantly behind the single-classed party in terms of effectiveness.
Now the interesting thing is that I don't think they're weak prestige classes. The Arcane Trickster can work well in a rogue's role. And the Eldritch Knight can fill the role of a fighter and backup arcanist (but don't expect him to do well with high powered offensively oriented magic). The Shadowdancer adds a lot of abilities to a rogue. Of course, I actually do think that the mystic theurge is generally weak all-around but it can probably be made to work as long as the player realizes that it's a mystic theurge rather than a cleric, a wizard, or a cleric and a wizard in one. The problem is that, by combining all of the partial progression spellcasters into one party they end up forced into roles they aren't suited for.
This is not to say that it wouldn't be a fun party to play in or that it wouldn't make a good campaign. However, it's not suited to the same challenges as the iconic party is and such a campaign would need to deviate from some of the standard, iconic assumptions in order to work.
The other suggestion (bard, barbarian, druid, ranger), has more potential as an iconic party.
Why? There isn't a single straight-up spellcaster in the bunch. All of the spellcasters are at least two levels caster levels behind where they're expected to be and most of them are actually behind by three or more. Which means that they'll still be throwing single magic missiles when fireball is expected, flaming spheres or 4d6 scorching rays when they are expected to have Phantasmal Killer, and will just be latching on to Prismatic Spray or Holy Word when they're expected to have Meteor Swarm, Shapechange, Gate, and Miracle. Instead of having a 60% chance to penetrate their foes SR with Greater Spell Penetration, they'll have a mere 40-50% chance. And, since they're all splitting their stats up more and are gaining strengths other than spellcasting, they'll be less likely to have Spell Focus or DC increasing abilities so their foes will make their saves more often.
Also, since their caster levels are lower, despite each individual character having more options, the party as a whole will have fewer options. Sure it's nifty when 3/4 of your tenth level party can cast fly but compared to the group where one party member can cast teleport or Shadow Walk and another can cast Wind Walk, you've actually got fewer significant options.
If they have advance notice of a fight and have the opportunity to buff up, they'll excel but in most normal situations, they'll lag significantly behind the single-classed party in terms of effectiveness.
Now the interesting thing is that I don't think they're weak prestige classes. The Arcane Trickster can work well in a rogue's role. And the Eldritch Knight can fill the role of a fighter and backup arcanist (but don't expect him to do well with high powered offensively oriented magic). The Shadowdancer adds a lot of abilities to a rogue. Of course, I actually do think that the mystic theurge is generally weak all-around but it can probably be made to work as long as the player realizes that it's a mystic theurge rather than a cleric, a wizard, or a cleric and a wizard in one. The problem is that, by combining all of the partial progression spellcasters into one party they end up forced into roles they aren't suited for.
This is not to say that it wouldn't be a fun party to play in or that it wouldn't make a good campaign. However, it's not suited to the same challenges as the iconic party is and such a campaign would need to deviate from some of the standard, iconic assumptions in order to work.
The other suggestion (bard, barbarian, druid, ranger), has more potential as an iconic party.
Tallarn said:
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Double Post
Last edited:
Elder-Basilisk
First Post
Make that a triple post.
Last edited:
Thanee
First Post
Viable, yes; better, no.
Nothing beats Cleric/Druid and Wizard/Sorcerer in high levels, so parties without those are at a weakness. The rest is replaceable.
A very good party would be a mixture of both, for example:
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster
Ranger/Shadow Dancer
Bye
Thanee
Nothing beats Cleric/Druid and Wizard/Sorcerer in high levels, so parties without those are at a weakness. The rest is replaceable.
A very good party would be a mixture of both, for example:
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue/Wizard/Arcane Trickster
Ranger/Shadow Dancer
Bye
Thanee
buzz
Adventurer
Current campaigns:Joshua Dyal said:
- Paladin
- Barbarian/Fighter
- Rogue/Ranger
- Cleric
- Wizard
- Fighter
- Barbarian
- Ranger/Rogue
- Cleric
- Wizard (he may have ranger or fighter levels, too; he just joined the group)
- Monk
- Fighter (Exoticist variant from recent Dragon)
- Ogre mage (Savage Species)
- Salamander (ditto)
- Litorian (AU racial class)
D&D without a capable healer is just brutal.
