small group

[sammy]

Recently, I have been thinkinng of a smaller PC group as I may only have 3 players. Does anyone have any advice for this? (other than "use less monsters". I think thats obvious, thank you.)

My group tried a small game once, and it went bad.

Sammy

 

[Black Knight Irios]

A balanced party would be best. With balanced I mean a party that can handle many different situations w/o too many problems.

I suggest you remind them that a defender and leader would be good to have b/c if something goes wrong it's good to have some backup. That would leave one role slot open. At least one character should have some solid ranged options as well.

I know you can play w/o a defender or leader but I don't know how skilled your players are in building chars or tactics, therefore, I suggest a rather tough/reliable/stable party setup.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Hmmm... how did it go bad? I've played with 3 players before (drow starlock (me), half-ork str cleric & dwarf fighter) & DMed 3 players as well (eladrin cha palladin, eladrin wizard, dwarf wis cleric) and both have worked fine. Encounters aren't as interesting as with 4 or 5 players, but were certainly doable.

I'm not suggesting that you did things wrong, but if we know what the issues were that might help us suggest ways to avoid them.

 

[Mengu]

Two pieces of advice here.

1. A group of 5 or 6 can handle level+3 encounters usually without casualties. But for a group of 3 there is very little redundancy, and hard encounters become extremely swingy. So use Level+2 as the top difficulty, unless you are using waves (see #2).

2. Use waves, and use minions. Delayed entry for a creature or two allows characters to gauge the difficulty of an encounter without that initial onslaught, or the chance of a bad initiative quickly turning an encounter in the monsters' favor. Minions also help moderate the output of damage, and make encounters feel more full, while still dieing in droves.

Encounters have to be tailored to a small group for optimal "fun". A group of 3 stealthy strikers might be a lot of fun to play. Massive battles with numerous opponents is not going to be their thing, but they sure will be able to take down the occasional elite. A group of 2 defenders and a melee leader will have fun wading through lower level skirmishers, brutes, and minions and will be able to withstand a good bit of punishment. But a regular encounter design with soldiers in front and hard to get to artillery/controllers in the back may spell death for them, as they won't be able to get through the front line quickly enough and may be torn apart by the ranged attacks.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Actually, instead of using fewer monsters, you might consider simply using lower-level monsters. For example, a party of three 3rd-level PCs might have a more dynamic combat with five 1st-level monsters (500 XP) instead of three 3rd-level monsters (450 XP). Once your party gains a couple of levels, this approach also opens the door to using published adventures. (Although you should be careful about encounter difficulties. A party of five can better cope with spikes in difficulty, such as a level + 3 encounter.)

 

[mmaranda]

A few pieces of advice:
1) The parties that have worked best for me with 3 players was 1 leader, 1 striker, and 1 Defender.

2) Make sure the striker is mobile because things will get past the defender

3) Encourage a melee leader (they tend to be more durable and will stay near the other 2 party members). Ranged leaders shift around a lot and that can allow the party to get separated.

4) If nobody has ways of attacking multiple foes try to use elites and a few regular monsters or an elite and minions.

5) At level solo monsters are really tough use a level-1 solo and several minions.

 

[Zaran]

The main issue I have seen in my own games and listening to Penny Arcade and Critical Hit podcasts is that small pc parties run out of actions. If one of them goes down it's hard to recover. Each miss has more of an effect. I concur with other advice in this thread that you should not do attack them with too many monsters that are higher level. If you do this expect alot of death saves or even a total party kill. You might even listen to the first series of Penny Arcade podcasts because they had a 3 PC party before Wil Wheaton joined them. They did have a TPK and that was after the GM had altered the fights to match their number.

Of course, they were in Keep of the Shadowfell and that was a poorly balanced module.

 

[cdrcjsn]

Attacks and situations that cost the party actions will have greater impact in a small group.

That means, Daze, Stun, and even Prone will have a greater effect. Likewise requiring skill challenges that take up a standard action in the middle of a fight will hurt.

 

[MortonStromgal]

My advise would be not to run pre-made adventures. Tailor your adventures to the classes your players picked and throw the idea that you need a balanced party out the window.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Tailor your adventures to the classes your players picked and throw the idea that you need a balanced party out the window.

Designing adventures for the group is a good thing. And by doing it you can ensure that your players get what they want.

I think no one said that there is a need for a balanced party - I said it would be probably more easy for the party and the DM if the party is balanced. E.g. an all striker party has special needs in encounter design, sooner or later the encounters might become boring. A more balanced party can be challenged with a broader spectrum of encounters.

If your players want to play an all striker/defender or whatever party go for it. You should all be aware that whatever you decide it has its own pros and cons.