Question (CRPG) Is there a party size threshold after which you'll add a particular class?

More than likely you tinker with this from game to game. I'm just asking about a general philosophy. Starting with a base party of 3, add a party member by class until you get to 6 party members. Just make a note if a class drops out at some point. You can also include which classes you are picking from if you like (would be helpful, but I don't want you to have to do too much work).

For example, here's mine (I would never just go by a chart. That isn't fun at all.).


Fighter3456, 6
Barbarian
Paladin56
Cleric3456
Ranger
Druid
Rogue456
Sorcerer
Wizard3456
 
Nov 27, 2020
851
2,451
6,270
Where's the Bard?!
I'm assuming that's inclusive in the Rogue Class?

As to the OP, I'm going to assume (again) that this is in reference to a D&D game environment. This also assumes that there will be no multi-classing or dual-classing. My choices would be:

Party of 3: Fighter, Wizard (I've never been partial to the Sorcerer class), and Rogue. I've got to have some beef up front to deal & take damage, a primarily offensive spell caster, and a rogue who can detect/disarm traps, sneak, and open locks. Healing would be by potions or other means (such as regeneration after combat, or available healers).

Party of 4: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue + Cleric. A better party composition that adds a character that can fight, cast healing spells, and often has spells that target the undead and/or evil characters.

Party of 5: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric + Ranger. Adds a dedicated archer character that often has access to priest spells at later levels, and either has an animal companion or the ability to charm animals.

Party of 6: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Ranger + Druid. Druids give you access to nature spells that no one else has, has healing talents, some melee skill, and can sometimes shapechange into a specific animal. The best-balanced party in a D&D CRPG in my opinion.

I hope that I'm interpreting your post correctly, as I see only five choices for your party of six (although the 6.6 fighters is a bit confusing).
 
Last edited:
Where's the Bard?!
Just like in real life, poets are useless.

I'm assuming that's inclusive in the Rogue Class?

As to the OP, I'm going to assume (again) that this is in reference to a D&D game environment.
No, I loathe Bards.

I didn't put any restrictions on anything, including whether you can or cannot add Bards. You can use any game environment that you want. Pretty much all of my questions are like this because people usually stray into their own favorites anyway. Plus, from my limited experience, for most games you can translate character classes pretty easily to other games.
 
Last edited:

Zloth

Community Contributor
To the title, the bard is a character I like more in big parties. I'm not sure what the current rules are, but their buffs typically effect the whole party, so a bigger party means more benefits from the buffs.

The party build is just too hard for me. I do very much like to spread out the classes for maximum diversification. There won't be two of any class until I've got almost all the classes already. What I've been playing lately can be a factor, too, though. If you throw in a class I don't get to play much, like monk, I'll be pretty tempted to try it out.
 
When it comes to CRPGs (baldurs gate/ icewind dales/pillars of eternity et al). its pretty tricky with the various classes available. its more painful that some games don't provide a character in all the "core" classes. pillars of eternity, i'm looking at you. You didn't bloody have a rogue until the bloody dlc ffs. how i loved trigger all those traps and not being able to unlock stuff.

Max 3 - A fighter, magic, rogue. Someone to do the heavy hitting, someone who can attack from a distance/heal and someone who can scout, bypass traps and get me loot to improve the party as a whole. Far too many good magic items are booby trapped or locked behind a box....

magic wise, it depends. on game. i might prefer damage if healing isn't effective during battle or whether i pick up the slack somewhere.

max 4 - See max 3 but either take a dedicated cleric/support, but it never hurts to have another fighter.


max 5 - throw in a support character (like a bard) or another combat based guy. Will depend on the difficulty how useful they are in game. if i could mix i would probably have a ranged bard.

Max 6 - x2 fighters (fighter/paladins), wizard/Sorcerer , Rogue , support (a ranged bard?) and finally maybe a mid ranged multiclass like a cipher or a magic fighter of sorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mainer
I'm assuming that's inclusive in the Rogue Class?

As to the OP, I'm going to assume (again) that this is in reference to a D&D game environment. This also assumes that there will be no multi-classing or dual-classing. My choices would be:

Party of 3: Fighter, Wizard (I've never been partial to the Sorcerer class), and Rogue. I've got to have some beef up front to deal & take damage, a primarily offensive spell caster, and a rogue who can detect/disarm traps, sneak, and open locks. Healing would be by potions or other means (such as regeneration after combat, or available healers).

Party of 4: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue + Cleric. A better party composition that adds a character that can fight, cast healing spells, and often has spells that target the undead and/or evil characters.

Party of 5: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric + Ranger. Adds a dedicated archer character that often has access to priest spells at later levels, and either has an animal companion or the ability to charm animals.

Party of 6: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric, Ranger + Druid. Druids give you access to nature spells that no one else has, has healing talents, some melee skill, and can sometimes shapechange into a specific animal. The best-balanced party in a D&D CRPG in my opinion.

I hope that I'm interpreting your post correctly, as I see only five choices for your party of six (although the 6.6 fighters is a bit confusing).
Why wouldn't you take the paladin instead of the fighter for a party of 3 so you have some healing from spells?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mainer
<aside>
I notice you guys using CRPG a lot, even in this thread title in the RPG forum. I've always assumed that meant computer role-playing game, but that seems wrong now. Please enlighten :)
</aside>
I believe it stands for Classic Role Playing Game and is used for party-based RPGs, often with isometric view, where you control multiple characters, like Pillars of Eternity or the Dragon Age series.
 
Nov 27, 2020
851
2,451
6,270
Why wouldn't you take the paladin instead of the fighter for a party of 3 so you have some healing from spells?
I think I have in the past chosen to create a Paladin, because the healing spell access and turn undead ability is always a plus, but in a D&D environment I'm always put off, or at least a bit leery of the "Lawful Good" alignment. I always play/create "good" aligned characters, but tend to choose "Chaotic Good" because I tend not to adhere to the "law" just because it's the law. Plus, at higher levels a fighter has access to feats and abilities that no one else can have, making him/her the best frontline fighter (tank).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr

Zloth

Community Contributor
CRPG is Computer RPG, as opposed to table top. It came from the OLD days, obviously, to distinguish from games like Gamma World or Twilight 2000. There's less need to distinguish the two these days, but "C" can stand for "Classic," too, so it's changing over.

Except that Solista and Pathfinder aren't classic - at least not yet. Maybe it's starting to mean isomorphic RPGs? So, the original Ultima games wouldn't be CRPGs anymore because they are directly overhead views?? Ugh.
 
CRPG is Computer RPG, as opposed to table top. It came from the OLD days, obviously, to distinguish from games like Gamma World or Twilight 2000. There's less need to distinguish the two these days, but "C" can stand for "Classic," too, so it's changing over.

Except that Solista and Pathfinder aren't classic - at least not yet. Maybe it's starting to mean isomorphic RPGs? So, the original Ultima games wouldn't be CRPGs anymore because they are directly overhead views?? Ugh.
So I looked into it and it seems the main difference between RPGs and CRPGs is that RPGs are nowadays real-time action games while CRPGs are turn-based (or real-time with pause) with more of a focus on dialogue.

So, for example, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic is also considered a CRPG.
 

Zloth

Community Contributor
So I looked into it and it seems the main difference between RPGs and CRPGs is that RPGs are nowadays real-time action games while CRPGs are turn-based (or real-time with pause) with more of a focus on dialogue.
And then FF7 Remake swoops in. Whenever you use the menu for a character, the game speed slows WAY down, but isn't quite paused. It definitely has lots of dialog. So CRPG! Ooops, except any RPG that happens to be created in Japan automatically becomes a JRPG, regardless of any other properties....
 
CRPG is Computer RPG, as opposed to table top. It came from the OLD days, obviously, to distinguish from games like Gamma World or Twilight 2000. There's less need to distinguish the two these days, but "C" can stand for "Classic," too, so it's changing over.

Except that Solista and Pathfinder aren't classic - at least not yet. Maybe it's starting to mean isomorphic RPGs? So, the original Ultima games wouldn't be CRPGs anymore because they are directly overhead views?? Ugh.
And then FF7 Remake swoops in. Whenever you use the menu for a character, the game speed slows WAY down, but isn't quite paused. It definitely has lots of dialog. So CRPG! Ooops, except any RPG that happens to be created in Japan automatically becomes a JRPG, regardless of any other properties....
Sorry, I pulled a ZedClampet:

I was going to do a massive post [...] when I suddenly grew bored and decided to just post what I had
So, let me try a third time to give a definition for CRPG:
As you said, CRPG used to mean Computer RPG as opposed to table top. At first, any RPG on the computer was called a CRPG, but over time video games became more popular than tabletop, meaning RPG now referred to the video game variety while TTRPG was used for the tabletop variety. Every CRPG made tried in some way to emulate part of the experience of playing a TTRPG, which resulted in the different subgenres of RPG we have nowadays.

The current subgenre called CRPG, now "classic" RPG, refers to games that are still closest to TTRPGs, meaning you often control a party of characters, with each character having multiple attributes and skills that are used to determine modifiers for RNG, simulating die rolls, used in and out of combat to resolve encounters. CRPGs also typically feature different races and classes, each with their own bonuses and/or unique mechanics. CRPGs often allow you to use a character creator to create one or more party members from scratch, determining their race, class, ability scores and skills. Even in CRPGs where you can't do this, you'll get the option to distribute attribute/skill points to customize your characters.
Combat is tactical and involves careful positioning and management of resources. There's also a large focus on the story and world-building and there should be some freedom to the player on where to go and/or the ability to steer the narrative by making (meaningful) choices during the game.

I think the main difference between JRPGs and CRPGs is that the combat in JRPGs is less tactical and the narrative is more linear. Character creation and customization is often far less developed in JRPGs as well.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts