"so I build a classic party!" except all of them are weird specialisations that go against the classic concepts. so the question posed in the video title remains unanswered.
Haven't played on unfair yet, but so far i'm doing fine on hard. Well, at least with the respect mod to make Harrim a little less sucky. Im running Valerie SE, MC KE, Harrim Crusader and Octavia is an arcane trickers and i suppose it kind isn't exactly a wizard but it is pretty close so i'd say it counts. I'm at chapter 4 right now
With the Turn based mod the game became playable for me but also felt rewarding for time I spent choosing feats, spells, etc., for the characters. In my opinion, RtwPS was just too chaotic, and spell casters seemed useful only for buffing fighters. Turn based rewards the time in creating specialized builds, and allows mage classes to feel like more than buff bots. Rogues and mages really benefit too since mod includes a 5’ step. My two cents. I’d love to see you do a play through with this amazing mod!
This very much; possibly with Closer to Tabletop mod also, to make ranged sneak attacks harder to obtain without extra feats. I'm gonna try Hedwirg retrained as a Sylvan Trickster with Leopard + Harrim + Jaethal in melee, and Octavia also as a Trickster. Cheesy since he gives me 49 points, but they are mostly stuck on physical stats. Dazzling Display/Carnage + Shatter Defenses. Skill focus Persuasion + Deceitful + Persuasive + Intimidating Prowess gets you most of the way there. Summon Monster V-IX.
(Edit: Written before watching the entire video) The 'classic' party is completely viable however the 3/4 BAB characters need to be capable of holding their own in combat in some way to support the martial. After that battlefield control is also critical with summons and area denial spells being crucial to denying monsters access to your weaknesses. Specialising in archery on one character is incredibly useful (it is the best attacking 'strategy' in pathfinder). A save or suck caster can be incredibly viable too in thinning enemy numbers and the ability to buff/heal/status removal is absolutely necessary as well. Finally the often overlooked aspect of characters that can turn an encounter is mobility - a fast character can often manouevre to attack the enemy 'squishies', support an isolated character or retreat from combat when they need to.
At least on normal, i was able to beat Tenebrous Depth (not in the main campaign) using a classical party. I had a exploiter wizard elf, dwarven TSE fighter using axe and shield, tiefling rogue dual-wielding daggers and human cleric crusader with the healing domain. Now i'm thinking about a full natural party with some classes from Call of the Wild, i'm thinking maybe a hunter, a ranger, a druid and a barbarian, but i'm probably switching the druid for a cleric or that nature-sorcerer and pick only one between the Hunter and the Ranger because they're kind of very similar.
It seems as though your video assumes the enemies attack the front line first. That hasn't been the case for me. In over half my battles the enemies (one or more) go after my team mates in the rear. I am finding that party formation really isn't that important.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The "classic party" is based of Fellowship of the Ring, which had nine members and obv. heavily influenced D&D. It was never 4 people, in PnP. The original "Blackmoor" game that Dave Arneson created had over 10 people at a time. The 2nd edition AD&D book advised up to 10 people, with the "ideal party" 6 members. The Ultima series, which was the most popular CRPG before Baldur's gate let you have up to 8 party members. Baldur's Gate had 6, which conformed to AD&D 2nd edition expectations. PF: Kingmaker is based of the PnP pathfinder campaign, and Pathfinder was/is basically a clone of AD&D 3.5 after 4e alienated the core fanbase, on top of being a throwback CRPG for fans of Baldurs' Gate. 4 characters that just became a custom in some arcade games like Gauntlet and JRPG console games like Final Fantasy.
No he is right, he is not talking about DnD or LoTR, he is talking about the video game rpg genre, and the classical party on video games is a fighter, rogue/thief, cleric/healer, wizard/magic user.
Original D&D had a fighter, cleric and magic-user. Thief came in an update. Rogue came in 3.5. Not a good first minute to the video to have not done your research.
Considering how iconic the Rogue/Thief concept is to Dungeons and Dragons as a whole, I really fail to understand why it's a "bad start" to the video considering every version following would use this "classic" concept for balancing and party-building decisions for every edition post 1st, and even then, most modules for 1st edition were based around that 4 man party as well. When you correct people in the future, you can do so without saying it tanks the quality of the video, because for the vast majority of users it makes no difference, and you can add to the discussion instead of seeming like you're just trying to boost your own ego
@@darkfireslide you open by saying, and I paraphrase very slightly "the classic was party envisioned when D&D was first created" before calling out the wrong names and even questioning whether it's rogue or thief. No one made you do that. When you call your shots, make them land. You could have looked it up. Sure there is a time investment balance to be struck it's admirable you got your project out the door, but for me personally that mistake takes me out of the video. It hurts your credibility when you get basic facts central to your position wrong in the first minute. I go from a "being taught" mode to a "pedantic asshole picking this apart" mode. Not going to lie I didn't get some neckbeard glee in knowing better, but with a geeky hobby like ours that's probably something to expect from your audience. Wish you the best in future work.
@@darkfireslide I'd like to see some actual evidence that 1st edition modules were based around 4-man parties, because I'm old enough to have played 1st edition when it came out, and I'm pretty sure they recommended 6-8 people. Although if you have actual proof, I'll be willing to concede.
@@ScotRotum you are correct. On top of that, I'm pretty sure that 1e modules recommended 6-8 players, not 4-man, but if @darkfireslide actually has proof otherwise, I'd be willing to concede. There were originally only three classes, but that didn't mean they expected only three players. The fact that he starts out claiming the "classic Party" of 4-man is something that has always been part of D&D is just not true. He could've just left that out. The 4-man concept is from arcade games like Gauntlet and JRPGs like Final Fantasy. It was NEVER part of D&D tabletop.
@@kookspookem1058 I don't have a source for it in 1e but in 3.5 in I think the Player's Handbook II it outlines how the entire game's balance revolves around 4 players and a DM with the Fighter (Martial), Cleric (Divine), Rogue (Expert), and Wizard (Arcane) as the baseline whenever considering game balance. Functionally how the game was intended to work according to that book is much as you'd expect, that the Fighter is up front during combat and shines there, the Cleric is there for healing and support, the Rogue is there for skill checks, and the Wizard is there for combat control and miscellaneous things (until they get to a certain level and break the game, of course). So maybe 1e wasn't designed around that classic party, but D&D 3.5 was, with every enemy type and encounter design assuming you had some access to the four archetypes listed there. The PhB2 also listed ways to play when you were missing such a member and how to run 3 man parties effectively as well. It was a great little book.
"so I build a classic party!"
except all of them are weird specialisations that go against the classic concepts.
so the question posed in the video title remains unanswered.
Haven't played on unfair yet, but so far i'm doing fine on hard. Well, at least with the respect mod to make Harrim a little less sucky. Im running Valerie SE, MC KE, Harrim Crusader and Octavia is an arcane trickers and i suppose it kind isn't exactly a wizard but it is pretty close so i'd say it counts. I'm at chapter 4 right now
With the Turn based mod the game became playable for me but also felt rewarding for time I spent choosing feats, spells, etc., for the characters. In my opinion, RtwPS was just too chaotic, and spell casters seemed useful only for buffing fighters. Turn based rewards the time in creating specialized builds, and allows mage classes to feel like more than buff bots. Rogues and mages really benefit too since mod includes a 5’ step. My two cents. I’d love to see you do a play through with this amazing mod!
This very much; possibly with Closer to Tabletop mod also, to make ranged sneak attacks harder to obtain without extra feats.
I'm gonna try Hedwirg retrained as a Sylvan Trickster with Leopard + Harrim + Jaethal in melee, and Octavia also as a Trickster.
Cheesy since he gives me 49 points, but they are mostly stuck on physical stats. Dazzling Display/Carnage + Shatter Defenses.
Skill focus Persuasion + Deceitful + Persuasive + Intimidating Prowess gets you most of the way there. Summon Monster V-IX.
Turn based also seemed a lot more like table top and did send to make combat way more enjoyable and you do get to use your casters alot more
I prefer turn-based too but being able to switch to real time for weaker large packs of enemies is amazing :P
(Edit: Written before watching the entire video) The 'classic' party is completely viable however the 3/4 BAB characters need to be capable of holding their own in combat in some way to support the martial. After that battlefield control is also critical with summons and area denial spells being crucial to denying monsters access to your weaknesses. Specialising in archery on one character is incredibly useful (it is the best attacking 'strategy' in pathfinder). A save or suck caster can be incredibly viable too in thinning enemy numbers and the ability to buff/heal/status removal is absolutely necessary as well. Finally the often overlooked aspect of characters that can turn an encounter is mobility - a fast character can often manouevre to attack the enemy 'squishies', support an isolated character or retreat from combat when they need to.
Really interesting video! Cant believe the other people in the comments hate on this so much.
I at least enjoyed watching it.
At least on normal, i was able to beat Tenebrous Depth (not in the main campaign) using a classical party. I had a exploiter wizard elf, dwarven TSE fighter using axe and shield, tiefling rogue dual-wielding daggers and human cleric crusader with the healing domain. Now i'm thinking about a full natural party with some classes from Call of the Wild, i'm thinking maybe a hunter, a ranger, a druid and a barbarian, but i'm probably switching the druid for a cleric or that nature-sorcerer and pick only one between the Hunter and the Ranger because they're kind of very similar.
@Stefan Goerke Bro, i literally said i was using a mod.
It seems as though your video assumes the enemies attack the front line first. That hasn't been the case for me. In over half my battles the enemies (one or more) go after my team mates in the rear. I am finding that party formation really isn't that important.
This man got a Dwarf warrior with 16 Con
This is a complete ramble and in no way even attempts to answer your question.
The game is balanced for 6 party members dude so of course a party of 4 would struggle.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The "classic party" is based of Fellowship of the Ring, which had nine members and obv. heavily influenced D&D. It was never 4 people, in PnP. The original "Blackmoor" game that Dave Arneson created had over 10 people at a time. The 2nd edition AD&D book advised up to 10 people, with the "ideal party" 6 members. The Ultima series, which was the most popular CRPG before Baldur's gate let you have up to 8 party members. Baldur's Gate had 6, which conformed to AD&D 2nd edition expectations. PF: Kingmaker is based of the PnP pathfinder campaign, and Pathfinder was/is basically a clone of AD&D 3.5 after 4e alienated the core fanbase, on top of being a throwback CRPG for fans of Baldurs' Gate.
4 characters that just became a custom in some arcade games like Gauntlet and JRPG console games like Final Fantasy.
No he is right, he is not talking about DnD or LoTR, he is talking about the video game rpg genre, and the classical party on video games is a fighter, rogue/thief, cleric/healer, wizard/magic user.
Original D&D had a fighter, cleric and magic-user. Thief came in an update. Rogue came in 3.5. Not a good first minute to the video to have not done your research.
Considering how iconic the Rogue/Thief concept is to Dungeons and Dragons as a whole, I really fail to understand why it's a "bad start" to the video considering every version following would use this "classic" concept for balancing and party-building decisions for every edition post 1st, and even then, most modules for 1st edition were based around that 4 man party as well.
When you correct people in the future, you can do so without saying it tanks the quality of the video, because for the vast majority of users it makes no difference, and you can add to the discussion instead of seeming like you're just trying to boost your own ego
@@darkfireslide you open by saying, and I paraphrase very slightly "the classic was party envisioned when D&D was first created" before calling out the wrong names and even questioning whether it's rogue or thief. No one made you do that. When you call your shots, make them land. You could have looked it up. Sure there is a time investment balance to be struck it's admirable you got your project out the door, but for me personally that mistake takes me out of the video.
It hurts your credibility when you get basic facts central to your position wrong in the first minute. I go from a "being taught" mode to a "pedantic asshole picking this apart" mode.
Not going to lie I didn't get some neckbeard glee in knowing better, but with a geeky hobby like ours that's probably something to expect from your audience.
Wish you the best in future work.
@@darkfireslide I'd like to see some actual evidence that 1st edition modules were based around 4-man parties, because I'm old enough to have played 1st edition when it came out, and I'm pretty sure they recommended 6-8 people. Although if you have actual proof, I'll be willing to concede.
@@ScotRotum you are correct. On top of that, I'm pretty sure that 1e modules recommended 6-8 players, not 4-man, but if @darkfireslide actually has proof otherwise, I'd be willing to concede. There were originally only three classes, but that didn't mean they expected only three players. The fact that he starts out claiming the "classic Party" of 4-man is something that has always been part of D&D is just not true. He could've just left that out. The 4-man concept is from arcade games like Gauntlet and JRPGs like Final Fantasy. It was NEVER part of D&D tabletop.
@@kookspookem1058 I don't have a source for it in 1e but in 3.5 in I think the Player's Handbook II it outlines how the entire game's balance revolves around 4 players and a DM with the Fighter (Martial), Cleric (Divine), Rogue (Expert), and Wizard (Arcane) as the baseline whenever considering game balance. Functionally how the game was intended to work according to that book is much as you'd expect, that the Fighter is up front during combat and shines there, the Cleric is there for healing and support, the Rogue is there for skill checks, and the Wizard is there for combat control and miscellaneous things (until they get to a certain level and break the game, of course).
So maybe 1e wasn't designed around that classic party, but D&D 3.5 was, with every enemy type and encounter design assuming you had some access to the four archetypes listed there. The PhB2 also listed ways to play when you were missing such a member and how to run 3 man parties effectively as well. It was a great little book.