[3.P]: One Class to Save The Party

[Hawk7915]

I'm joining a play-by-post Pathfinder game soon, and was wondering what class would be best to "complete" the party. Currently they have...

Gnome Monk
Dwarf Monk
Human Rogue

Anything that's on the Pathfinder SRD is fair game. I'm currently leaning towards Witch since it has access to both Healing, Buffing, Blasting, and Controlling magic, but what do you guys think?

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

yeah, witch might be good... a cleric would be nice as well. I personally would go with cleric for the armor and weapon proficiencies, since you have a failry squishy skill monkey, and two (!) people that decided to play the worst fighting class in the game. Please tell me at least one of them is a Zen Archer monk?

[Popertop]

A sorcerer, cause they are awesome.

Haha jk, but seriously, any full caster would work well, and you can have a sorcerer supply your monks and rogue with stealthy spells to get into places unimpeded as a sort of magical strike force. I just love sorcerers in general, and in pathfinder they nail the flavor right on. Everyone should play sorcerers all the time lol.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

yeah, witch might be good... a cleric would be nice as well. I personally would go with cleric for the armor and weapon proficiencies, since you have a failry squishy skill monkey, and two (!) people that decided to play the worst fighting class in the game. Please tell me at least one of them is a Zen Archer monk?

If they choose monk (for more than 2 levels) what makes you think they have the common sense to do that? /jerk

But to ansewer the OP's question I would also agree with Witch or Cleric. Inquisitor might work well if you go for Intimidation/demorilization (Witch also gets fear spells so plus there) to weaken the foes. The monks can tie the opponents up so they count as 'at your mercy' so the rogue can get his SA and coup de grace.

[Hawk7915]

yeah, witch might be good... a cleric would be nice as well. I personally would go with cleric for the armor and weapon proficiencies, since you have a failry squishy skill monkey, and two (!) people that decided to play the worst fighting class in the game. Please tell me at least one of them is a Zen Archer monk?

Nope: two melee monks. The Dwarf Monk has phenomenal Strength and Constitution but awful mental stats (we got a 25 pt. buy); the Gnome has awesome Dex and Wis and decent Con but terrible everything else (and no Weapon Finesse ). Rogue is a TWF. Party is all at 3rd level (one level away from the Monks being better thanks to Ki power).

I'd hate to take Cleric mostly due to the heavy armor blowing the party's only real advantage right now: speed and stealth. Is Pathfinder Druid as game-smashingly Tier 1 as vanilla 3.5? What about Oracle, Summoner, or Artificer?

[satorian]

Witch is a good idea, but you HAVE TO take slumber if you go that route. The heavens oracle or celestial sorcerer are also worth looking into. Really, anything that gives you both healing and battlefield control is a good idea.

[TheOOB]

Any full spellcasting class really. Wizard or Cleric would be amazing, though preventing damage through controlling effects may be more effective than healing.

A 3 person party that has two monks, one of them a gnome, doesn't have much hope. As a DM I wouldn't even allow that party.

[Hazzardevil]

I would say the best thing to do is be a ranger, mystic if your DM allows something from dragon, though with your make up I reccomend a mystic theurge to make sure you have arcane and divine spells available.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Pathfinder Cleric doesnt have heavy armor... they have medium armor proficiency.

[Grumman]

I'd suggest a Cleric with the Trickery domain. That way you provide full spellcasting, but still have Stealth as a class skill so you won't give away the party's position.

[MeeposFire]

Any full spellcasting class really. Wizard or Cleric would be amazing, though preventing damage through controlling effects may be more effective than healing.

A 3 person party that has two monks, one of them a gnome, doesn't have much hope. As a DM I wouldn't even allow that party.

That is a bit harsh. You only need to lower the difficulty by using low CR enemies and the like. No need to outright ban a party just because they are possibly going to be a bit weak. Especially since the entire party is going to be a bit weak together.

OP do you like healing and buffing friends? If you do that is what the party really needs. As long as the witch does it that sounds good.

[Yora]

What this group is good at is sneaking into places and running on roofs and such. So I strongly suggest a character that can keep up with them in such situations. Else you always have to stay behind or the three other players can't make much use of the abilities they have.
So sorcerer or ranger or something similar would probably work well. Or a bard.

[Callista]

What you have here is a sneaky, very mobile group who is low on hit points and low on armor class.

They will need someone who can keep them from being hit and/or heal them when they are.

Personally, with this combination, I would go for a paladin. With high hit points, armor class, and good durability, a paladin could serve as a tank and emergency healer (but make sure that rogue has UMD and a wand of cure light wounds). Plus, just like the monks, the paladin will be lawful; so you probably shouldn't have a huge amount of personality clash (but if you like, you can make a paladin of freedom and go CG instead). At higher levels you'll also have access to some basic buffing type spells, which you can use to make your monk allies a little more effective. And of course you'll make a good flanking buddy for the rogue. Consider getting a paladin's mount that can fight on its own rather than serving primarily as your mount; that would give you another set of actions. Whatever you get, your intelligent mount will serve more as a companion than a servant and can carry out its own strategy without constantly being given orders.

[Tibbaerrohwen]

Nope: two melee monks. The Dwarf Monk has phenomenal Strength and Constitution but awful mental stats (we got a 25 pt. buy); the Gnome has awesome Dex and Wis and decent Con but terrible everything else (and no Weapon Finesse ). Rogue is a TWF. Party is all at 3rd level (one level away from the Monks being better thanks to Ki power).

I'd hate to take Cleric mostly due to the heavy armor blowing the party's only real advantage right now: speed and stealth. Is Pathfinder Druid as game-smashingly Tier 1 as vanilla 3.5? What about Oracle, Summoner, or Artificer?

With a good Dex and Wis I would pray to some powerful deity that common sense comes to your gnome companion and makes him think Zen Archer.
As already mentioned, the Pathfinder Cleric doesn't get heavy armor, but you aren't forced to take the heaviest armor available. Though most shy away from it, you can play a Cleric with light armor.
The Pathfinder Druid is alright but not even close to as game smashing as the 3.5 Druid is.
My personal recomendations would be for a Bard or Cleric, if you're looking to stay more squishy with your companions, but a mix with Barbarian or another high hp class wouldn't be a terrible idea; if everyone else is relatively squishy you probably don't want to be.

[Gnaeus]

I think witch is a great idea. You can use Evil Eye to debuff the enemy's to-hit (so that the monks have decent survivability) or AC (so the monks get decent damage.) I would probably get Slumber (the witch's I Win D&D button) but use it sparingly, because your party is pretty darn weak. #3 would probably be flight.

Take an item creation feat to help your teammates utility, and as many buff spells as you can.

[TheOOB]

That is a bit harsh. You only need to lower the difficulty by using low CR enemies and the like. No need to outright ban a party just because they are possibly going to be a bit weak. Especially since the entire party is going to be a bit weak together.

OP do you like healing and buffing friends? If you do that is what the party really needs. As long as the witch does it that sounds good.

But is it fair to make the DM have to spend a lot of extra work designing encounters that are beatable by such a group. The CR system, as flawed as it is, assumed your party has basic party roles filled, and by having such a narrow and weak team, the system goes to heck. A powerful monster might be balanced at a lower CR by a low will save or a lack of ranged attack, that means that monster would be way over powered against that party. That means that not only would the DM have to keep the CR of an encounter down, he's going to have to always make sure to take into account that the party cannot do the kinds of things the game assumes they can. You're talking about a party who doesn't even get access to dispel magic.

I think it's fair for a DM to require players to play different classes if the party composition would create undue extra work for the DM.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It looks like they could use a Batman, at least then they may be able to feel useful with those classes.

[Eldariel]

Druid; get your companion to help in melee, use your control magic to make 'em feel good, buff and provide divine support. If you get good stats, you could even Wildshape into combat-capability, though it's far from the guarantee it's in 3.5. So yeah, roll with that. "CC" the stealth abilities and just profit. Hell, you could even go the Monk 1/Druid -> if you want Wis to AC, +3 to stealth and all that (given that PF Monk's Belt lacks said feature).

[Endarire]

Druid covers all the basic party roles. Use summons and animal companions on traps.

Conjurer is another choice. Buff the party extensively, bind Outsiders, and control the battlefield.

The decision depends largely on your currently level and allowed source material.

[The Glyphstone]

But is it fair to make the DM have to spend a lot of extra work designing encounters that are beatable by such a group. The CR system, as flawed as it is, assumed your party has basic party roles filled, and by having such a narrow and weak team, the system goes to heck. A powerful monster might be balanced at a lower CR by a low will save or a lack of ranged attack, that means that monster would be way over powered against that party. That means that not only would the DM have to keep the CR of an encounter down, he's going to have to always make sure to take into account that the party cannot do the kinds of things the game assumes they can. You're talking about a party who doesn't even get access to dispel magic.

I think it's fair for a DM to require players to play different classes if the party composition would create undue extra work for the DM.

Then...don't use magic spells that they'd need to dispel? Primarily fight them with melee encounters? The DM has infinite power to shape the world and the fights they meet, moreso than the players. It's not that much undue extra work to not apply crippling debuffs or save-or-sucks, and give them lots of melee brutes to punch in the face while still providing a challenge. It's just a different kind of challenge. 4 sorcerers who all chose blasting spells would be in the exact same boat in lack of versatility as 2 monks and a rogue, the only difference is their damage output - so the question is, would you also ban a party of all badly designed Tier 2s, or is it specifically the 2x Tier 5 and tier 3-4 that bothers you?

[MeeposFire]

But is it fair to make the DM have to spend a lot of extra work designing encounters that are beatable by such a group. The CR system, as flawed as it is, assumed your party has basic party roles filled, and by having such a narrow and weak team, the system goes to heck. A powerful monster might be balanced at a lower CR by a low will save or a lack of ranged attack, that means that monster would be way over powered against that party. That means that not only would the DM have to keep the CR of an encounter down, he's going to have to always make sure to take into account that the party cannot do the kinds of things the game assumes they can. You're talking about a party who doesn't even get access to dispel magic.

I think it's fair for a DM to require players to play different classes if the party composition would create undue extra work for the DM.

Well you are playing 3.5 so I think the DM should expect to have to work to keep balance. Heck even the "standard" party of fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue has a ton of issues and it could be worse than the OPs situation since if the wizard and cleric play up to their potential then the DM has to find ways to challenge them without destroying the rogue and fighter.

[Akal Saris]

I'd say Witch, since that has the best combination of healing, battlefield control, and buffs. Get a cat familiar and a trait that grants stealth if possible, that way you can keep up with the others if they do a lot of stealthy activity. The agility or deception patrons would probably be best too.

Looks like an interesting party make-up - good luck!

[Hawk7915]

Thanks for the advice guys. I'm trying to find the balance of min-maxing too much while still having an interesting character. For now, I have a Half-orc Witch with Slumber and Healing hexes, Brew Potion as a feat, a Scorpion Familiar (for the initiative boost), and the Deception Patron (for invisibility later on). The Outcast trait will let me act as the party tracker since it's another role they're lacking.

With 3000 gold to spend, any advice on gear? I have a Wand of Cure Light Wounds for now...