PF - Bard/Ranger in party of Tier 1s?

[Man on Fire]

As my party started groving out, I decided to swotch from one group of six people to two groups of three with two new players introduced, one to each.
One group, guys who were clearly more combat focused part of the original one - Alchemist, Rogue and Gunslinger - will be aided by Barbarian. However, other half of the party is group of Tier 1 characters who were more interested in plot and roleplay - Druid, Witch and Wizard - and their addition to the team is a new player, who thinks of either going into bard or ranger. I'm worried that, as the time will go (they're level 5 now) her character might be overshadowed by ever increasing power of three magicians. Is there any basis to my worries? If so, what should I do?

[Saidoro]

Both bards and rangers can be useful in a tier 1 party provided the tier 1s exercise a bit of care. Bards make better party faces than any of the listed classes even with spells in the mix and rangers are actually pretty good at killing things in pathfinder. Neither really have the raw versatility or solution finding ability of a wizard or druid, but both are good enough at what they do to contribute usefully when there is call for their talents.

[Stormageddon]

Bard and Ranger are pretty good in pathfinder. Bards make the best party face hands down. No one is as good at tracking like a ranger in pathfinder.

If the group is more focused on role playing really it might not even matter.

[Stormageddon]

If he goes bard in I would recommend that he trades out inspire courage for an archetype that give something more. Like:


http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-archetypes/dawnflower-dervish

[WhatBigTeeth]

Is there any basis to my worries? If so, what should I do?
That's something you're going to be the one in the best position to assess.

Just glancing over tiers-don-exits threads, I'm sure you see a variety of takes on the importance and details of class balance, from "nobody should ever play a monk in the same party as a druid because they won't get to do diddly" to "eh, doesn't really matter" to the occasional "monks kick ass in every game they're in." To presume generously, none of these are positions that people are just pulling out of thin air, repeating thoughtlessly or taking for the sake of disagreement; they're the players' actual experiences.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it too much - and the lower-mid levels are when pretty much every class can do some cool stuff, casters still don't have their gamebreakers, and limits like spells/day are going to - but what it's going to come down to is the players involved: how adaptable the new player is, how readily that player will contribute to problem-solving, how willing the player will be to join in the game even if their character isn't the biggest mover or shaker, and how efficiently the other players utilize their spellcasting.