Too Many Casters?

[SnowleopardVK]

I've been in the process of organizing my players for another game recently. Four of them, and me as DM.

One of them has expressed concern that the group has too many casters. She thinks they'll die easily because of it. I don't think that's the case, but she seems unconvinced.

The party is composed of an elven witch, a human oracle, a dwarven monk, and a kobold fighter.

It's 50/50 in terms of caster classes vs. melee classes, so I doubt that could be called "too many". Not to mention that of the two casters, the oracle is relatively competent in close combat. Even the monk and the kobold, which I didn't think would make for the strongest of PCs actually look pretty good.

Any thoughts on how to reassure her before we start? She's playing the witch, and I don't want her to end up switching the party's only arcane caster for another melee build.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Point out to her that a witch is a great debuff class so less stress on the melee types. Also the witch is a solid crowd control class which has the same effect and finally point out witches make great secondary healers which again will help out the melee's.

While I get her worry, monks are not the strongest melee class and kobolds are far from the best fighters as far as a race goes. But in the long run the race doesn't matter to much it will be most noticeable at low levels. I personally think they will be just fine.

Mostly cause I think the witch has the ability to swing the battle with that group. But maybe that's her main worry, that a lot will depend on her. *shrug*

 

[gamerprinter]

In looking at your party composition, I see an equal distribution of somewhat suboptimal builds, but they are all equally suboptimal, so unless the monsters and encounters they face aren't optimal versions in comparison - it seems fine to me.

Agreeing with DM here, the monk and the kobold fighter makes your melee side a bit weak, but also having a witch and an oracle rather than a wizard and a cleric, makes them a bit weak compared to most casters. As stated, your group is equally suboptimal. I don't see a problem.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

[MENTION=50895]gamerprinter[/MENTION]: Although that makes sense, I don't think she's going to feel any better knowing that the whole group is equally suboptimal.

 

[Shisumo]

Since the traditional party breakdown is fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, and that's pretty much exactly what you have, I'm really not sure where her concern is coming from. Your party is fine, especially if the oracle has some melee capability as well.

 

[HalfordAskold]

Unless your games are combat based, the people are playing what they want. It always struck me that some people designed 'combat' characters, like they were heading for war. If the campaign is a war and you are soldiers, ok I can see that. But when I design a character and I always take 1 skill level of either profession or craft. That represent, to me at least, some talent that they do when they are not off adventuring. Like going to college to get a degree and then you can follow your dream of being in a band.

Also, I always let players make the kind of characters they want. Then, if they need a spell caster or cleric or rogue or even a fighter, they have to find one. Sometimes thats a city adventure in itself! In this case, it lets me, as a DM, play a character also. And this NPC is treated as a PC. I love character creation! I always give them quirks and personalities. And sometimes they are plot devices themselves. I even replaced one of them mid-campaign with a doppleganger. The PCs never found out. And when he had amassed enough, (actually had someone come in and played a rogue) he left the group and 'retired.'

Just my experiences and my 2 cents. But I also agree with the previous comments, sounds like the group is ok. Just depends on what is coming their way and also how the PCs play and equipped their people. No 2 group are the same.

Good luck!

 

[SlyDoubt]

The only thing you're arguably missing is some kind of ranged specialist type/trap finder.

Certainly between the oracle and the witch healing can be covered. It depends on the oracles build I guess but even so they'll have access to cure light wounds, etc.

Maybe the player is worried she'll be doing a lot of healing and not get to engage as much in combat directly? In which case it's up to you to make balanced encounters for that group.

 

[gamerprinter]

The point I'm making is that while playing the various new classes from the Advanced Players Guide are indeed fun - they are for "Advanced Players", meaning that due to flavor reasons playing an advanced player class is more of a challenge than the base classes of the Core Rulebook.

If a player has decent system mastery and wants to play the challenge of a suboptimal class build, he ought to be an 'advanced player' who can't meet the challenge.

Your group (at least from what you mentioned in other threads are mostly new players and new GM to Pathfinder.) So your choice to take suboptimal builds is even a greater challenge than normal, since none of those players have a great amount of system mastery.

If one player wanted to play an Oracle say, in a group of normal classes like Wizard and human fighter, the player of the oracle if not an advanced player is going to see disadvantages with his class choice versus the more solid base class builds. The suboptimal aspects will seem more obvious.

However, in a group where you've got kobold fighters, monks as your martial classes and oracles and witch for casters, no one player is going to outshine the rest, since all are equally suboptimal. Normally I would not recommend a starting player to take an APG class, but since the rest of the party appear not to be munchkins of any kind. What makes a given class suboptimal will hardly be noticed in a party where none have taken an overly powerful class.

It might be the best way for a new player to learn and appreciate an advanced class, when his class choice is co-opted by other players in the group. By choosing the classes they did, I think its the best option possible for new players and advanced classes. That's all I'm saying.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

Your group (at least from what you mentioned in other threads are mostly new players and new GM to Pathfinder.) So your choice to take suboptimal builds is even a greater challenge than normal, since none of those players have a great amount of system mastery.

Decent point.

The witch player is a new addition to the group and has about 8 years of experience, so she's not a new player, unlike the others. She is new to both the pbp format, and my style of game though (which the other players are used to at this point). I suppose that evens it a bit.

As for the others; well, we play a LOT. They've each got a dozen or two games of varying length behind them now. They've been taking opportunities to try everything they can think of, and have certainly been gaining some experience with roleplaying. Not that that makes them "advanced" players, but I feel like they can handle themselves at this point.

Just my experiences and my 2 cents. But I also agree with the previous comments, sounds like the group is ok. Just depends on what is coming their way and also how the PCs play and equipped their people. No 2 group are the same.

Also worth agreeing with. I want to see them have fun, so "what's coming their way" is never unfair to them. There's hardly much point in them picking less-than-perfect builds if I'm just going to kill them for it. So I don't.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Don't sweat it. Tell the witch player you're all in the same boat and you'll make sure to do your part to have the encounters be fun for everyone.

As long as your players and you have a good dialog going there's no reason for anyone to not enjoy themselves. That only happens when the DM is kept in the dark.

Also the comment about APG classes... I don't believe a word of it. I think by Advanced Player's Guide it's referring to more options for the players who want more options. 'Advanced' options that aren't available in the core book. I don't think the classes themselves are advanced, just less obvious archetypes. Nothing about Cavalier is more advanced than a druid or even a paladin.