I am going to be joining a Pathfinder game with four people and i have decided to go with the Inquisitor that has Monster Tactician archetype however the focus of the archetype appears to be for managing a team of summons rather than aiding the group. What i wish to ask here is that is Monster Tactician an archetype that can work well in a group setting or is it better off being used in a situation where the groups population is not big enough to support cooperation without summons aiding?
[RPG] Is the Monster Tactician archetype fit for groups
archetypeinquisitorpathfinder-1e
Related Solutions
Thinking of this as a one-off interdimensional travel lead me to think about a (remarkably equivalent) conceit being the center of Harry Potter and the Natural 20. In short, it tells the hilariously funny fiction of a genre-aware 3.5 wizard dropping into Hogwarts and steadfastly maintains the truth behind each universe. The imported little Munchkin, Milo, indeed works to 3.5 mechanics in the "real world."
For your thing, therefore, don't try to "merge" them. Layer the systems. Each character comes with their own system and imparts those effects on the world. Preferably as literally as possible. Treat readings of abilities as "true" rather than as mechanical abstractions designed to represent a world. Of course, use the exact same rules for the enemies. You'll want to think through the abstractions from a system specific point of view: "What does 3.5 damage mean in context of WoD, treating things literally" and so on and so forth. While this would be tedious to pull off in any kind of sustained campaign, the incongruous juxtaposition of systems could be a hilarious and fun farewell to arms.
Any teamwork feats that serve for "the purposes of positioning and threatening when she determines whether she receives a benefit from her teamwork feats".
In other words, you have to look for feats that require specific positioning or that your allies to be threatening the same target as you or similar effects. Once they become a (temporary) "ally", they simply have to be in the correct position or to be threatening the required target. To threaten, you must be armed and the target must be within your reach.
To list a few:
- Cooperative Rend (for trolls), requires both of you to be threatening the same target.
- Coordinated Reposition, whenever your ally take a 5-foot step while threatening the same creature, you can also take a 5-foot step.
- Seize the Moment, whenever your ally confirms a critical hit against a target that you both threaten, you gain an attack of opportunity. There is little chance that your "ally" will attack their own ally, but it can happen (see the confusion spell).
- Coordinated Shot, asks for that ally to be threatening your opponent to grant its bonus.
- Tandem Trip only requires your ally to be threatening the target, meaning that even a ranged trip attempt should work.
- Enfilading Fire also should work, as it only requires two of your allies to be flanking the target.
- Friendly Fire Maneuvers is related to positioning (soft cover) should work both to ignore soft cover against your target and to gain +4 reflex bonus by spells cast by your "ally".
Feats that have a vague text and could not work:
- Cooperative Distraction, it doesnt necessarily specify what this enemy is, could be your enemy, or an enemy to both creatures. Depending on the case, the feat will not work because your enemy is not necessarily their enemy as well.
The major problem that I see with your idea is that most ranged weapons do not threaten enemies (see the Snap Shot feat), and most of these teamwork feats will require you to threaten an enemy.
Best Answer
Yes, it is, unless your party already has one
"Summon Monster"-based class archetypes are solid generalist builds that operate well in any normal-ish party size. Summoning monsters doesn't make you a combat machine, it supports the classes that actually are combat machines (fighters, barbarians, magi, etc.). Flanking buddies for the rogue, charge blockers for the wizard and archer, a momentary distraction to give your party enough time to deal with an immediate threat. These are the things you will contribute to your party. You won't solo most encounters. You'll enable your party to win them, and that makes the game fun for everyone.
If the party already has this kind of character (Summon heavy class, not just a Summoner or Ranger with Eidolon/Animal Companion), I would lean away from choosing this kind of class. A second Summon Monster Player Character is worth a lot less than the 1st Summon Monster Player Character. I would also caution against using this kind of class in 6+ player games, since there are already a lot of player turns for the GM to deal with.
For example, I played in a party several years ago in the Kingmaker AP as a Necroccultist (Occultist Necromancer archetype). I played as the battlefield control mage in a party of debuff and save-or-die casters and an AntiPaladin. Against large group encounters, my character created sufficient muck on the battlefield for our enemies to chew through (bandits and kobolds, mostly) that our silver bullet style casters were able to kill leader monsters without any challenge to their casting ability. In a battle against a powerful undead dragon, my Necromancy skills in raising the dead were entirely useless against it (the majority of the focus into my spells, feats, and gold). I was relegated to mediocre blasting and telling my skeletons to run to the other side and slap its ribs menacingly with their scimitars while the dragon ignored the vast majority of my efforts. The fight boiled down to the AntiPaladin being really good at doing damage and the Mesmerist and Cleric having silver bullet anti-Undead spells and debuffs to win the encounter. Any of those 3 characters being a summon-focused character (again, actual summon spell and not Eidolon/Animal Companion) would have been purely a detriment here. Any combat that consists of one big monster that will ignore your summons is the bane of your entire build. This is why you should avoid doubling up on this style of character.
In addition, a monster summoner has a pretty small number of things they can actually support (3 other characters). A second monster summoner over a Martial character or a better caster (Wizard or Cleric type as opposed to the narrow and specialized Inquisitor) is reducing the quality of the core combat action output of the group. As a monster summoner, your actions in summoning monsters are not meaningful without them being in support of another character. A summoned monster is an action sink for the enemy team. Your job is to provide speedbumps for the enemy while your other players pressure them to fight. If your allies don't use your summons as a means to pressure the enemy, your summons are wasted.
In short, if the party is a normal-ish sized party and bringing a Monster Tactician isn't a redundant set of skills, I would encourage you to stat up and play that Monster Tactician. You ARE a support character.