Pathfinder 1E Duplicating Classes in a Party

[sambeastie]

Hey, everyone.

I'm having a little bit of a problem going into a new game. A little background first:

I just moved back to an area I used to live in, and I've been trying to find a gaming group. I finally found some people, but they're already one session into their campaign. Based on the setting and story, the class options are limited to Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Sorcerer, Ranger and Bard. Of course, the first four being classes people actually like playing, they're all taken already. I've talked to the GM, and while he says that duplicating classes is perfectly fine by him, I have the sinking feeling that doing so would be bad. My hangup is that each class has a niche, mechanically, and two people trying to fill that same niche will prevent one of them from having a "time to shine," so to speak. For example, if there are two rogues in a group, one will inevitably be "rogue-ier" than the other, causing the less mechanically sound one to fade into the background.

Now, keep in mind, I don't necessarily mean in terms of RP. I'm speaking mechanically here, and even though I know that mechanics aren't the whole of a game, Pathfinder's class system generally supports a more mechanical focus on gameplay than some other games. I'd just like to avoid having a situation where I'm basically a redundant system for someone's character and never get a chance to use my mechanical benefits in any meaningful way.

So question 1 is this: Is there ever a way to make having two of the same class in a party workable?

Question 2 is a little different. The remaining two class choices play out something like this to me: Rangers are a worse version of Fighters who really wish they were Druids, but can't do either very well, and Bards are worse versions of Sorcerers who wish they were as good at buffing the party as Clerics. Either one still duplicates functionality, in a mechanical sense, and on top of that are so weak in other areas that they are effectively useless in the presence of the other "core" classes. If I'm wrong, please, let me know.

Question 2 becomes: Is there anything I can do with either of those two classes that will fit with the other four characters, but still fit into a necessary and unique place in the party?

The GM let me know that "the focus here is RP, but there will be not insignificant combat and mechanical dealings as well."

What do? Thanks, everyone.

 

[frankthedm]

Use coloured text sparingly when posting. Let the forum defaults chose the font color or your post will be unreadable for folks since there are both Light and Dark background options here.

 

[Remathilis]

Two fighters can absolutely work, esp. if they focus on different fighting styles (shield/defense, two-handed, mobile/spring attack, archery, etc). Having two bodies to spread the pain of combat across will really help your casters and rogues stay alive too.
Likewise, two sorcerers can work if you focus your magic on something different than the party sorcerer is (summons, illusion, charms, nuking, necromancy, etc). Just make sure you have a different bloodline.
Two clerics are a bit more redundant, but if your game features lots of combat/exploration, most groups will welcome extra healers. Another option is if one is built for the healer role, then the other can be more warpriest. Again, don't pick the same domains (charm and trickery is a different priest than war and nobility).
Two rogues tend towards redundancy, but it can be done. If one is a sneaker, the other can be socialite. Still, rogues aren't the best to double up on, unless you decide to go sneak-attack/flank nuts.
Rangers make good fighter substitutes; lighter armor, more skills, and one path focus but being one of the few classes in your options with exploration skills, it might be worth it. If the fighter is melee, an archer-ranger is a solid choice.
Likewise, a bard is still a solid choice as a support-caster and diplomancer. Doing a little healing, social skills, combat, buffing, and magic is not a bad thing in a larger group.

Really, its hard to be totally redundant mechanically unless both characters are exactly alike (aka both fighters are plate-and-greatsword users). Layer on feats and archetypes and its damn-near impossible.

 

[sambeastie]

Use coloured text sparingly when posting. Let the forum defaults chose the font color or your post will be unreadable for folks since there are both Light and Dark background options here.

I didn't change anything when I posted...is the default black or something? Where do I look for those settings?

 

[Remathilis]

Don't worry, sometimes the board does that these days. Not sure the reason.

 

[sambeastie]

Don't worry, sometimes the board does that these days. Not sure the reason.

Sounds odd, but I'll go with it.

Anyway, in a party like mine, would the Bard be the better choice? I get the impression that no matter what I'll be somewhat relegated to a "support" role in terms of mechanics. Before I start writing up much characterization, I'm wanting to choose a class, since in this case, letting class determine character is the simpler option. My favorite (though long on hiatus) character archetype of the "life in the fast lane" rogue doesn't seem like it'll work too well here.

Bards really do seem set up best for standing back and being a support guy. They seem to fit well into the "fifth man" role.

 

[Morrus]

I didn't change anything when I posted...is the default black or something? Where do I look for those settings?

The forums automatically choose the correct text colour for the viewer's background colour (so text is light on a dark bg, and dark on a light bg).

That is, unless you override it by choosing a text colour. In which case it shows in hat text colour whatever the page background colour of the viewer. So if you choose black, it looks fine on the white background, but can't be read on the black background.

99.9999999999% of the time folks don't deliberately select a text colour (such as black) but copy/paste a post from somewhere (like a word processor, perhaps) where the text colour is set as black. The colour carries across when they paste it.

Sorry to derail the thread! Back to the subject at hand!

 

[KazMx]

I believe its up to the GM and his versatility. My Wednesday night game is full of fighters (3) and and the GM makes the challenges interesting for each one of them, by presenting challenges according to each player. And if one fighter doesn't do his job, the whole party resents it.

 

[brvheart]

Since they have the basic roles covered I would say play what YOU want to play and not worry about duplication or strengths and weaknesses. Usually this is a good time to bring in a ranger or a bard.

 

[sambeastie]

The forums automatically choose the correct text colour for the viewer's background colour (so text is light on a dark bg, and dark on a light bg).

That is, unless you override it by choosing a text colour. In which case it shows in hat text colour whatever the page background colour of the viewer. So if you choose black, it looks fine on the white background, but can't be read on the black background.

99.9999999999% of the time folks don't deliberately select a text colour (such as black) but copy/paste a post from somewhere (like a word processor, perhaps) where the text colour is set as black. The colour carries across when they paste it.

Sorry to derail the thread! Back to the subject at hand!

Ahh, that explains it. I usually get my new threads hashed out in a word processor first, just in case the page times out. That way, I don't lose all the text I just wrote out should something go wrong. Old habits from college die hard, I guess.

Since they have the basic roles covered I would say play what YOU want to play and not worry about duplication or strengths and weaknesses. Usually this is a good time to bring in a ranger or a bard.

This is what I've ended up doing. Bard was going to be my choice, but the idea of a cross between Hawkeye and Aragorn with a dash of teenage angst and a smack of druidic-style wizardry pulled me toward Ranger. We're starting at level 3, so I'm only one level away from spells, and looking at some of the options Rangers offer made me reconsider my earlier stance on them. I now have what I think is a pretty decent character.

I also completely agree that it's up to the GM to make it interesting for everyone, but I also feel like part of the duty is on me to play something that the party will be glad they have later. No sense in being redundant or becoming a limp fish during combat.