Best 3-person party?

[Flatus Maximus]

Druid, Cleric, Wizard.

You should be able to cover all your basic party roles, in doors and out; and all three can summon meat shields, so you really don't need to have a strictly melee-type.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Option 1 (specialists) Cleric, Wizard, Rogue Option 2 (everyone heals) Paladin, Druid, Bard Option 3 (mix bag) Druid, Rogue 1/Wizard 2+, Cleric Option 4 (multi-class) Fighter/Cleric, Rogue/Wizard, Bard Option 5 (divine) Paladin, Druid, Cleric

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Much as I love rogues, I have to go with the majority. They're really not needed anymore. Pathfinder basically destroyed their niche. Now anyone can find a lot of the traps, and with search falling under the best skill in the game, plenty will have it, possibly with a much higher wisdom score, since it's not a major stat for rogues. Even disable device...without it as a class skill, you just lose 3 on it, a high int wizard could still get a high modifer with it. As for magical traps, mages always had detect magic, except now in pathfinder they have it infinite times per day. So...yeah. Similarly, a charisma character can do the face role better than a rogue, who really can't afford a massive charisma score. Sure, you're spreading the roles out over several people, but the point is you can, not having a rogue isn't painful in the same way not having an arcanist is.

So, for my party suggestion...

Saurian or Aasimar Paladin (or possibly even gnome or halfling if going mounted)
Dwarf or Tengu Druid
Elf or Tiefling Wizard

The paladin can heal, act as party face (no bluffing, but oh well), and tank. As long as you stick to not many encounters per day and primarily evil enemies, he even outdamages the Fighter.
The Druid can heal, sneak/scout, and help the paladin in melee, as well as summon help. He can provide the paladin with a uber mount for the levels before 5 if the paladin' doing mounted, though I think that's a bad idea for this party.
The wizard handlles knowledges and int skills and does all the typical arcanist stuff (ie, everything )

That party doesn't have the same staying power as say...Fighter/Cleric/Sorcerer, but with some preparation it can tackle most any problem as long as the party doesn't over extend itself. I'm assuming your DM won't be throwing as much crap at you with the reduced party size, so I think this group's pretty ideal and covers each other's weaknesses well. Also, as you may have noticed, I try to find any race at all to recommend over human. Sick of so many human PCs.

 

[concerro]

I'll be starting a new Pathfinder campaign soon, but we only have three players and the DM. What do you think would be the best mix of characters to cover the basic roles with just three people?

We'll be starting at 2nd level and using the 'heroic method' to gen stats (2d6+6). So we have the possibility to multi-class and we'll probably have good stats, but we're limited to core races and classes. That's not actually much of a "limitation" of course- just a restriction to keep in mind. Just looking for some ideas to create an interesting and fun party mix at low levels with limited people. Thanks.

I think allowing one person to run two characters is a good solution, but if that is not an option or something anyone wants to do then I say

Multiclassed Rogue/Bard-be sure to get UMD if the Cleric is not taken.

Druid or Cleric-I prefer the druid for combat reasons. Pick the Tiger.

Wizard or Sorcerer

 

[IronWolf]

I think allowing one person to run two characters is a good solution, but if that is not an option or something anyone wants to do then I say

I usually try to avoid this if possible. In my experience - and it may not echo others, I find it quickly turns the game into a mechanical exercise for the person running two players making any kind of roleplay more difficult for them.

I prefer to run short of players and adapt as needed than start doubling up on character per player.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I prefer to just use gestalt rules with few PCs, rather than have multiples PCs per player. Also, gestalt is hella fun!

 

[Aus_Snow]

I prefer to run short of players and adapt as needed than start doubling up on character per player.

Indeed. I'd do this befere doing that.

edit: Oops; as SotS said... didn't realise it'd already been said.

 

[IronWolf]

I prefer to just use gestalt rules with few PCs, rather than have multiples PCs per player. Also, gestalt is hella fun!

Indeed. I'd do this befere doing that.

I agree. Gestalt would be my preferable option to players needing to run more than one character.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Thanks for all the replies.

Some more info- the GM has said things will go a lot easier if we have a rogue. So I'm guessing lots of traps.

Not to insult your DM but this sounds bad. Telling you a rogue will really help means he already had the campaign planned and isn't going to make changes to account for a short party or one missing a primary role.

Might as well just ask the DM what the party should have.

 

[FoxWander]

Well, I appreciate all the advice (and excellent advice it was- as one would expect from the ENWorld community) but it turned out the game was... not what we were expecting.

Apparently the GM planned this as a complete one-shot, while us players were expecting at least some kind of continuing campaign. So, as a first-time gaming together (played last saturday) the result was rather underwhelming. It was a very random adventure with two-bit NPCs played for laughs (well, vague laughs and often crude "humor") with an almost idiotic mcguffin to go after. Had we known this going in: 1) I'm not sure we would have gamed with the guy in the first place, and, b) if we had, we wouldn't have put so much effort into building a well-planned party and just gone with whatever craziness we felt like playing. I've got no problem with one-shots played for laughs, but everyone should know that going in. But this game probably wouldn't have been that enjoyable even if we had known what to expect.

Oh well. I guess we'll be looking for another group/DM in the area.