Who leads in the marching order?

[Leopold]

ranger



why? He has the rogues hide ability and fighters hp's. Makes him the best of both worlds. Send him out a few hundred feat ahead to scout and report back if anything happens. Recon is key to any party surviving long in the wilderness...

 

[sellars]

I personally prefer campaigns in which it would be the best choice to send forward a bard or other charismatic character, as a diplomat, not so much as a warning device or a war machine

with a silver tongue and a reasonable amount of gold, almost every initial combat situation can change for the better

 

[arwink]

The group usually marches two abrest where possible, putting a mutliclassed barb/fighter and a kobold monk in the front line. If they feel the need to scout, it's usually the monk and a mutliclassed rogue/fighter.

On the whole, they'll try for the combat ready characters at the front, but they're known to be flexible on this.

 

[Madfox]

You forgot an option :
* Somebody to find and disable traps (the rogue)

The only people who are never placed at the front in a typical dungeon are the low-level wizards and bards. Since last adventure they probably are also never to be placed at the back anymore. Those dire apes circling around the PCs really caught them by surprise and the bard was dead before he could move. Further then that it is just too dependend on the situation.

 

[Psion]

The rogue -- to check for traps, be sneaky, and use her uber-spot skill.

 

[Zerovoid]

I would say the ranger usually leads. Most parties I've seen have at least one, despite their weak status. The ranger can hide just like a rogue, and has good spot and listen to prevent getting ambushed. Rangers also have good HP, and probably decent armor class.

 

[F5]

It totally depends on the situation. Our parties change marching order so often it's practically meaningless, anyway. A few of the guys in my grou really enjoy the tactical side of the game, so we tweak our formations continuously. Those that like this sort of thing have fun, and those who don't care so much for the tactics have fun when the plans inevetably fall apart. Best of both worlds!

 

[candidus_cogitens]

In the current game - none of the above...

It's a strange low magic 2e/3e crossbreed, with no clerics or mages in the party, just rogues, fighters and and a ranger. Two of the PCs are a swashbuckling fighter with Wis 7 and a rogue with Wis 5 (and Int 7). Any attempt to construct and then follow a sensible tactical plan (e.g. party order) founders on the impatience and vanity of the fighter and the chronic brain-cramp of the rogue. They'll just rush on ahead whatever. A typical exploratory situation now goes something like this:

DM: "Ahead you see a huge, finely worked stone door. Projecting from the wall next to it is a slightly rusty iron lever..."

Swashbuckler & Rogue (in unison): "I pull it!"
Everyone Else: "We run away!"

Mad as a bag of ferrets.

I wanted to quote this whole post, just to say that it is one of the most excellent posts ever! Amusing and well-written! A+

 

[DiamondB]

90% of the time we've got the tanks taking the front ranks of the marching order. Occasionally this will be altered with either a ranger (light tank) or rogue working in front, but this doesn't happen too often. Artillery (arcane casters) takes up the rear but that does leave us open to some nasty ambushes.

 

[candidus_cogitens]

I personally prefer campaigns in which it would be the best choice to send forward a bard or other charismatic character, as a diplomat, not so much as a warning device or a war machine

with a silver tongue and a reasonable amount of gold, almost every initial combat situation can change for the better

You mean you give gold to the monster??