Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6177970" data-attributes="member: 17106">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.</blockquote>

Verification