Here's another thing: Rangers make good "muscle" backup for rogues for scouting parties- but for a spellcaster devoted to sneaking, the Ranger is the Rogue's next best friend when they have to venture out (almost) alone.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Pathfinder 1E Duplicating Classes in a Party
- Thread starter sambeastie
- Start date
You can never have too many clerics in a group. Besides, just make another flavour of cleric. Mechanically you have different concepts like: Weapon&Board, Two-handed weapon, Bow, Blaster, Buffer, Healer or any combination of those. Just go with something else than the other cleric. (In 3.5, you usually look at what you want to play and select the god/domains that fits that concept. The domains usually give you the extra bits you are missing like spells or weapon proficiencies.)
Ahnehnois
First Post
Absolutely. It works fine in 3e, and even a bit better with PF. Why? The classes are more customizable because of the selectable class features and the archetypes.
If you've got two rogues, for example, look at those rogue archetypes! There are a lot of very diverse ones. Maybe have one character focus on scouting and physical skills, and another on Charisma skills or spying or thieving. Have one focus on melee and the other be a sniper. PF makes it very easy to create two disparate characters from the same class. Spellcasters are even easier to customize; no reason two clerics or sorcerers need to step on each others' toes at all.
But let's say you have two very similar rogues that both do the stealth and perception skills and both focus on melee combat and two-weapon fighting. No problem. Doubling up on perception means that if one rolls low, the other likely picks up the slack. The PCs will usually see what's coming, which is not a bad thing. Sneaking around together is safer than the classic one rogue sneaking around by himself. And they'll make great flanking buddies. Redundancy is very rarely a problem.
And I wouldn't worry about the niches. Many characters can use magic items or cast spells. If you're missing a healer, no big deal; have a rogue take Use Magic Device and buy some wands of Cure Light Wounds. If you're missing a melee thug, learn how to summon creatures or just adopt skirmish-y guerilla tactics. If you're missing a rogue, cover the skills with your other characters and learn Knock. No party is ready for every situation, so just cover as many as you can and you'll be fine.
Rangers are pretty awesome, because they cover several niches. They can use those wands of CLW, cover a lot of useful skills, and fight quite effectively. I've never heard anyone accuse the ranger of being too weak in any version of 3e, and the PF ranger is a huge upgrade from where it started in 3.0. You won't be quite as good a fighter as the fighter, but with full base attack, some bonus feats, and better saves, you won't exactly embarass yourself. And Hunter's Bond and your spells give you some useful combat abilities a fighter doesn't have. And again, redundancy on stealth and athletic skills and redundant healing ability are good things. And being the one nature-oriented guy can come in handy if you encounter druids/fey/etc. Definitely not a bad choice.
The bard is a more complicated case. The PF bard is significantly better than the 3e bard. The bard's best usefulness in combat is in his ability to boost others using bardic music and spells, so bards are much better if you have a large party to support. Yours sounds like you have 5 total PCs, which is a bit larger than the "standard" size of four. So inspiring the other party members becomes a good choice. PF bards in particular are also really fantastic with Knowledge skills (and you have no wizard to cover these) and Charisma skills, and your DM has explicitly stated that there will be a focus on noncombat action. So the bottom line here is that the bard in general is somewhat inferior, but your situation is favorable towards it and the PF bard is the most powerful version of the bard I've ever seen by far. Check out Masterpieces. You won't be doing the stuff that the sorcerer is doing, but you may get a lot of mileage out of your unique abilities, as long as you don't mind aiding your allies rather than attacking foes directly and as long as you can make the most out of your skills.
***
The bottom line is, after all of that, play what you want. You can make any of the available options work pretty easily.
Starfox
Hero
Rangers are the second best at two things - scouting and fighting. Around here they are very popular because of their many skill points. A ranger can team up with a rouge very well - the ranger lacks the trapfinding bit, but is otherwise a very capable scout. And 2 scouts can support each other well - unless the only result is that you both have to roll Stealth and the DM uses the worst result only, as can happen. The ranger is also a good backup/dexterity fighter, but yeah, a little behind in resilience unless you put a lot into Dexterity. But some of those class abilities you gain are very nice! Favored enemy is very chancy tough - check with your GM if you'd be allowed to pick one of the archetypes that replace it with something else if you prefer to be less focused on just a few types of opponents.
The bard is THE premier buffer and a decent combatant. Not much like a sorcerer, more a sort of cleric/rogue mix in my experience. But yes, you could focus on enchantment and make a sorcerer-ish controller bard - and probably feel a bit weaker than a specialized enchanter sorcerer. You still have your performance buffs, however, and those are stellar. Multiple bards work but are not optimal - performance bonuses don't stack with each other, but they can overlap.
Cleric is to me the most pigeonholed of these classes - sure you have domains, but the main part of your spells and powers are from your class. Thankfully, Pathfinder has made the cleric spell list a bit more versatile. Still, this and rogue would be the last classes to double up on for me - cleric buffs don't stack well. If one cleric focuses on support/buff and the other on debuff/control/attack, it might still work. Oddly what felt like a very flexible class in 3.5 now feels like quite a restrained class in Pathfinder - there are so many more options for other classes now. Clerics are still powerhouses, tough, so you will MAKE room for yourself by self-buffing if nothing else.
Rogues are a little special in that a party where everyone is a rogue (or at least stealth capable) work well, but in a mixed party you might be better off with only one rogue. I think ranger + rogue or bard + rogue is better than 2 rogues. Still, the skill list is long enough that no rogue can master all of it, and the special abilities give further specialization options. Multiple rogues are certainly doable.
Fighter is actually a very diverse class in Pathfinder. Because combat maneuvers are now easier to use, a lot more feats are viable choices for the fighter, opening up many different concepts. A fighter can be a damage dealer, a tank, or a controller - or a mix of several of these. Probably the single best class to double up on in Pathfinder. A Small-sized mounted archer (on a single-square mount like a riding dog that can move about better than a Large mount) or a sword and board fighter that slowly develops into using the shield as a second weapon are two strong concepts, but there are innumerable others.
Sorcerers have a lot more individuality in Pathfinder than they used to have - the bloodlines give you an incentive to specialize. I feel a party can do well with several sorcerers, as long as their bloodlines are different. Two wizards tend to overlap much more than 2 sorcerers. The big choice here is between a high-Charisma build that focuses on save-or-suck, or a medium-charisma build that is more diverse
The bard is THE premier buffer and a decent combatant. Not much like a sorcerer, more a sort of cleric/rogue mix in my experience. But yes, you could focus on enchantment and make a sorcerer-ish controller bard - and probably feel a bit weaker than a specialized enchanter sorcerer. You still have your performance buffs, however, and those are stellar. Multiple bards work but are not optimal - performance bonuses don't stack with each other, but they can overlap.
Cleric is to me the most pigeonholed of these classes - sure you have domains, but the main part of your spells and powers are from your class. Thankfully, Pathfinder has made the cleric spell list a bit more versatile. Still, this and rogue would be the last classes to double up on for me - cleric buffs don't stack well. If one cleric focuses on support/buff and the other on debuff/control/attack, it might still work. Oddly what felt like a very flexible class in 3.5 now feels like quite a restrained class in Pathfinder - there are so many more options for other classes now. Clerics are still powerhouses, tough, so you will MAKE room for yourself by self-buffing if nothing else.
Rogues are a little special in that a party where everyone is a rogue (or at least stealth capable) work well, but in a mixed party you might be better off with only one rogue. I think ranger + rogue or bard + rogue is better than 2 rogues. Still, the skill list is long enough that no rogue can master all of it, and the special abilities give further specialization options. Multiple rogues are certainly doable.
Fighter is actually a very diverse class in Pathfinder. Because combat maneuvers are now easier to use, a lot more feats are viable choices for the fighter, opening up many different concepts. A fighter can be a damage dealer, a tank, or a controller - or a mix of several of these. Probably the single best class to double up on in Pathfinder. A Small-sized mounted archer (on a single-square mount like a riding dog that can move about better than a Large mount) or a sword and board fighter that slowly develops into using the shield as a second weapon are two strong concepts, but there are innumerable others.
Sorcerers have a lot more individuality in Pathfinder than they used to have - the bloodlines give you an incentive to specialize. I feel a party can do well with several sorcerers, as long as their bloodlines are different. Two wizards tend to overlap much more than 2 sorcerers. The big choice here is between a high-Charisma build that focuses on save-or-suck, or a medium-charisma build that is more diverse
I echo the comments that two characters of the same class can still be very different.
If you're looking at Ranger, have a look at the APG alternate combat paths. We have a ranger going Weapon and Shield, and he was a slow starter, but at L3 he has Shield Slam (a normal shield bash also does a Bull's Rush with no AoO using his to hit roll) and Improve Shield Bash (keep your AC bonus when using a shield bash) and 2 weapon fighting. In several combats, he's bounced opponents all across the battlefield. Alternatively, the switch hitter described by Treantmonk at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/comm...monks-lab/test2/treantmonk-s-guide-to-rangers works well. Also, look into Boon Companion. At L4, you get an Animal Companion, and at L5 you can take this feat and bump it to your level, rather than level -3, so it becomes a much more powerful companion.
TM also has a Bard guide at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/test2 with a few approaches to Bard builds.
Find out what the other characters do - if there's already a focus on ranged combat, an Archer is less desirable. If the Fighter and Rogue have a melee focus, adding an archer (of any class) won't really step on any toes. If you prefer a spellcaster, Sorcerers have limited spell selection, so you could play a vary different arcane caster from the existing sorcerer with a little planning, and two clerics would reduce the healing each of you will provide, or allow one of you to focus on healing and the other to largely ignore it. By discussing your choices with the player(s) you perceive some duplication with, you can both make a choice that will minimize crossover and ensure that player will not feel you are stepping on his toes (eg. if the very thought of another sorcerer has that player wailing, don't play one). It sounds like you're pretty open to lots of options, so a look at the abilities of the characters and any concerns of their players will allow you to find your own niche.
If you're looking at Ranger, have a look at the APG alternate combat paths. We have a ranger going Weapon and Shield, and he was a slow starter, but at L3 he has Shield Slam (a normal shield bash also does a Bull's Rush with no AoO using his to hit roll) and Improve Shield Bash (keep your AC bonus when using a shield bash) and 2 weapon fighting. In several combats, he's bounced opponents all across the battlefield. Alternatively, the switch hitter described by Treantmonk at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/comm...monks-lab/test2/treantmonk-s-guide-to-rangers works well. Also, look into Boon Companion. At L4, you get an Animal Companion, and at L5 you can take this feat and bump it to your level, rather than level -3, so it becomes a much more powerful companion.
TM also has a Bard guide at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/test2 with a few approaches to Bard builds.
Find out what the other characters do - if there's already a focus on ranged combat, an Archer is less desirable. If the Fighter and Rogue have a melee focus, adding an archer (of any class) won't really step on any toes. If you prefer a spellcaster, Sorcerers have limited spell selection, so you could play a vary different arcane caster from the existing sorcerer with a little planning, and two clerics would reduce the healing each of you will provide, or allow one of you to focus on healing and the other to largely ignore it. By discussing your choices with the player(s) you perceive some duplication with, you can both make a choice that will minimize crossover and ensure that player will not feel you are stepping on his toes (eg. if the very thought of another sorcerer has that player wailing, don't play one). It sounds like you're pretty open to lots of options, so a look at the abilities of the characters and any concerns of their players will allow you to find your own niche.
Ramaster
Adventurer
In my experience, the two best "martial" combat styles (this means that they use no magic) are Two-handed fighting and Archery.
So, in my opinion, look at what the other fighter is doing. If he is playing a two-hander, then go archer. The Lore Master archetype costs you a feat, which is a pity, but in return it gives you much more skill points and all INT-based skills as class skills, something quite good. Otherwise, Weapon Master is great.
If the other fighter is not playing a two-hander, then go two-hander yourself. Vanilla fighter works wonders here. Make no mistake, with power attack and furious focus you WILL BE a powerhouse and this can happen as soon as lvl 2-3.
Switch hitter ranger is also quite good (it combines archery and two-handed fighting, after all) and the Treantmonk guide to Bards is great (although it was written before even the APG, so a lot of the newer stuff is missing).
So, in my opinion, look at what the other fighter is doing. If he is playing a two-hander, then go archer. The Lore Master archetype costs you a feat, which is a pity, but in return it gives you much more skill points and all INT-based skills as class skills, something quite good. Otherwise, Weapon Master is great.
If the other fighter is not playing a two-hander, then go two-hander yourself. Vanilla fighter works wonders here. Make no mistake, with power attack and furious focus you WILL BE a powerhouse and this can happen as soon as lvl 2-3.
Switch hitter ranger is also quite good (it combines archery and two-handed fighting, after all) and the Treantmonk guide to Bards is great (although it was written before even the APG, so a lot of the newer stuff is missing).
Starfox
Hero
Problem with 2-hander is that after a few levels, you will be wondering where to put all those bonus feats. Then you might want to multiclass into barbarian if allowed. 2-handed weapons are GREAT for barbarians.
Archery is good, but mounted archery is great - as long as there is room for your mount. Hence small size and 1-square mounts. Normal archers can only take steps when they want to make a full attack. Mounted archers can move the mounts normal speed around cover and still make a full attack with no penalty!
@Remathilis @N'raac @Ahnehnois and a lot of the other posters' recommendations sound strong.
I'd ask the DM if the other players usually focus on system mastery and optimization when building their characters, or if they scatter in some story-based things to fit the background (points in Craft and Profession, feats that don't apply to combat, etc...) If a few of the players don't min-max, then optimizing a class you view as weaker should still be plenty useful.
This question could also tell you a lot about the group too -- being either the only min-maxer or the only non-min-maxer probably isn't good.
Last edited:
Starfox
Hero
Its very annoying when I try to copy some text into a star quote and get "Follow us: [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] on Twitter | enworldrpg on Facebook".
In this case, what I wanted to star was this:
In this case, what I wanted to star was this:
BlackSeed_Vash
Explorer
Several years ago ran a game for five years where everyone had 4-5 levels of bard, 2-3 of another base class, and the rest whatever PrC they felt best worked with their chosen play-style (We ended at level 27). Even though each of the six players had levels of bards and played them 'in a bard-like manner', they all played mechanically different from one another.
Not to mention with all the archetypes Pathfinder provides, everyone could be the same class and still feel mechanically different.
Not to mention with all the archetypes Pathfinder provides, everyone could be the same class and still feel mechanically different.
Similar Threads
