Help me round out a 3-man party

[Extra Anchovies]

Hello all! I'm going to be joining a game soon with two other players. I'm not sure what character I should play to cover the bases that the others don't already have.

Rundown of the setting:
World has generally harsh environmental conditions and dangerous beasties. Magic storm arrives, wrecks everything, kills everyone outside a few select cities that possessed artifacts capable of holding off the storm. After five years it goes away, and everyone starts going outside the surviving cities and rebuilding/resettling. A hundred years later, magic storm comes back, wrecks everything again for the next five years. Campaign starts four years after the storm's end.

Rundown of the party:
Melee-focused Inquisitor, spell selection focused on healing and social interactions.
Archer fighter, enough said.

This party is clearly lacking in arcane casting, and is low on party members. I'm split between a BFC-focused Sorcerer and a Summoner with a skillmonkey Eidolon. What do you guys think? And if I go sorcerer, what bloodline? I'm thinking either Sylvan for the animal companion to help round out the party, or Tarn Linnorm because the Linnorm bloodline is all-around awesomesauce.

ETA: I know a wizard is always the best option, but I don't like prepared casters and don't want to play one.

[deuxhero]

Lunar Spirit Guide Oracle with animal companion. You can cherry pick needed arcane spells through spirit guide's Lore hex and have a crazy melee companion by stacking companion bosting feats and the aasimar/elf favored class bonus .

[Kane0]

What are your thoughts on the arcanist?
Failing that, a minionmancer sounds good.

Also, perhaps your archer fight could be convinced to become a slayer? That way he could double as a little bit of a skillmonkey or just have a few more skills and abilities to throw around.

[AnonymousPepper]

Arcanist for sure, unless this is 3.PF and you can be an Archivist or an Artificer. >_>

Arcanist really is Wizard+.

[Extra Anchovies]

It is indeed 3.P, but Archivist and Artificer are not classes I'm too interested in playing. Arcanist is certainly not off the table; they're an arcane caster with spirit shaman-style casting, and spirit shaman-style casting = good. It is, however, Wizard+, and I might be too tempted to break encounters (say, via Geyser shenanigans).

For a non-full-caster option, maybe a bard? They have access to some pretty nice debuffs and BFC (Mad Monkeys, anyone?), and having another character capable of entering melee if needed would be good. I don't think the group is too high-op, which means encounters shouldn't be too optimized either; thus, a full caster might not be needed.

And I think the other two characters have already been through an adventure or two, so I don't think they're able to rebuild. I'll ask, though. Rangers make the best archers anyways; they get enough feats to completely fill out the archery tree, and can nab improved precise shot at level 6.

[Eldariel]

I'd look at Druid if you haven't already. Decent skill monkeys, extra combat flanker for your friends to play with and they get a spell list that, while nominally divine, does a bunch of arcaneish thingies too. Really, Druid is the ultimate jack-of-all-trades (except, y'know, more like the master-of-all-trades) so if you need to cover multiple fronts, they should definitely be a consideration.

[Kane0]

It is indeed 3.P, but Archivist and Artificer are not classes I'm too interested in playing. Arcanist is certainly not off the table; they're an arcane caster with spirit shaman-style casting, and spirit shaman-style casting = good. It is, however, Wizard+, and I might be too tempted to break encounters (say, via Geyser shenanigans).

For a non-full-caster option, maybe a bard? They have access to some pretty nice debuffs and BFC (Mad Monkeys, anyone?), and having another character capable of entering melee if needed would be good. I don't think the group is too high-op, which means encounters shouldn't be too optimized either; thus, a full caster might not be needed.

And I think the other two characters have already been through an adventure or two, so I don't think they're able to rebuild. I'll ask, though. Rangers make the best archers anyways; they get enough feats to completely fill out the archery tree, and can nab improved precise shot at level 6.

The OP-ness of full casters is entirely dependant on how you want to build/play them. For example if you load up on blasts and use quick study to swap out for more useful spells as required (which takes a round) or dont use it at all a lot of the + is taken away, though you are by no means useless. Build what you want and play it to the OP level of the group rather than reducing the OP of your choice to begin with. Its overdoing a handicap really.

A bard is a fine choice, as is druid. Again, don't shoot yourself in the foot with a build, that just means its unnecessarily hard to follow the Op level of the group if it increases higher than you anticipated.

I would have to disagree on archers though, slayers outdo rangers on account of stealing all the ranger archery feats (at the same levels) as well as a better version of favored enemy and sneak attack and such. Unless your build relies on using a companion or a couple of ranger spells, which might tip the balance back a bit but from the Op level you describe that doesnt seem to be the case.

[Chester]

Frankly, I've had more fun playing when I create characters without knowing what the "needs" are. Makes for interesting dynamics.

[stack]

In a mid-tier group, a magus can cover general arcane duties well enough, having the INT to be okay with knowledges and item identification while having enough spells to do bfc and damage. They are prepared, save one archetype, but with spell recall they play semi-spontaneous starting at 4.

[Jigawatts]

Frankly, I've had more fun playing when I create characters without knowing what the "needs" are. Makes for interesting dynamics.
My first ever full on D&D campaign was a 2E game where the party consisted of a Human Fighter with the Cavalier kit, a Human Fighter with the Swashbuckler kit, an Elven Ranger archer, and an Elven Fighter/Mage/Thief (me, my avatar actually). We were super covered on warrior types but the only magic or thieving abilities came from my slow leveling, triple-classed ass (and I was new to the game). We did eventually pick up an NPC Cleric party member.

Everyone had just made the character that they wanted to play without much concern for perfect party balance. Those characters eventually retired at level 20 in what is probably still my fondest campaign.

As for back on topic, I second the Oracle, with maybe getting the archer to switch to a Ranger (just show him the Gravity Bow spell).

[Extra Anchovies]

On the topic of convincing a fellow player to switch classes: how do I go about doing it? I don't want to come across as a munchkin by telling him "yo, fighter is sub-optimal, play this other class instead, it's objectively better", but at the same time I do think that pretty much any fighter can be done better as a Slayer.

[Kane0]

"Have you checked out the slayer? I tell you, paizo really pulled off a winner with that one. Its like they finally listened to all the critique about classes like the fighter and ranger, sat down and really worked on doing something about it!"

[JusticeZero]

"Arcane" isn't distinct enough to be a role per se. Otherwise, people would be complaining that they can't roll without a Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Witch, and a Psion as well as "that guy who hits things, and someone who every now and then encounters a trap and feels useful". Honestly, the party as described is sufficiently balanced already. Just don't make a front line Cleric or another Archer and you're gold. Either of the options you listed are fine. Or a PoW type that doesn't overlap with the Fighter, I suppose.
What level range do you expect to run at? The group sounds mid op at best,

[Extra Anchovies]

UPDATE: the party has added an elf sorcerer, apparently blasting-focused. I've decided to play support caster and will be running a TWF bard using (Pathfinder) Arcane Strike plus (3.5) Knowledge Devotion and (3rd party Pathfinder) Deadly Agility to boost damage.

@JusticeZero: game starts at level 2. Not sure about the max level.


"Have you checked out the slayer? I tell you, paizo really pulled off a winner with that one. Its like they finally listened to all the critique about classes like the fighter and ranger, sat down and really worked on doing something about it!"

Hm. That does seem like a good way to go about it. I think I'll wait and see if the player is satisfied with their current range of options; the DM seems fairly permissible, so a rebuild could be possible within the first few sessions.