Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6177984" data-attributes="member: 2303">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</blockquote>

Verification