Option 3: Run a DMPC Warlord. The WL compliments everyone's abilities without necessarily stealing the show. The inspirational Warlord is makes a great one, because he's giving everyone hit points back especially when they use action points. The Tactical would likely just compliment their mobility, granting them shifts and such, but it would benefit the melee rogue and ranger.
3 players: scale down or double up?
- Thread starter tomtill
- Start date
Ander00
First Post
The warlord needs an ally to be engaging the same enemy in melee for all his at-will abilities, and that simply wasn't possible or at least impractical a lot of the time, due to terrain, enemies marking PCs or standing in the way, and what have you. Some of these situations may be avoided with proper coordination, while others may not. Like, you can't really have your buddy shift around the enemy to flank when it's an ooze swimming at the edge of a lake, and it likely has no intention of shifting away, so both Wolf Pack Tactics and Viper's Strike will do diddly squat.Rechan said:
Commander's Strike isn't of much use if you expect to hit better and almost as hard as the fighter with a melee basic attack, and have a less than stellar Intelligence modifier.
Furious Bash was an unknown at the time of our last session, and it also requires another party member engaging the same enemy, but it would have been applicable in some of these situations, if not necessarily desireable. It would at least have helped against one high AC monster, when the other at-wills once again didn't really do anything.
cheers
I'd say: Go with the suggestion above to send them on infiltration type missions. Don't fiddle with the encounters initially - see how they do, and whether their extra damage output makes up for being more fragile.
If they get defeated by an encounter, you have the perfect excuse to not kill them - they are captured as spies. Now you have some test data on what fights they can and cannot handle, and can home things a bit more towards them. Or have them find a warlord/cleric in the cells with them, and bring him along when they inevitably escape.
If they get defeated by an encounter, you have the perfect excuse to not kill them - they are captured as spies. Now you have some test data on what fights they can and cannot handle, and can home things a bit more towards them. Or have them find a warlord/cleric in the cells with them, and bring him along when they inevitably escape.
Ander00
First Post
Dancing around a solo monster with a nasty area recharge attack (and a DM who tends to roll too well) in order to maybe set up a flanking position later did not seem prudent at the time. In hindsight of course, we would've gone about the fight differently from the start.Rechan said:
All I'm saying is that situations will arise where the battlefield-control effects of the warlord at-wills will do nothing. These situations will come up more often when there is only one other character to set them up with. Other classes also have such situational at-wills, but they typically have more general ones to fall back on.
I didn't. And with Furious Smash being unknown, I had the first two.Rechan said:
cheers
scadgrad
First Post
I've always been a fan of DM-controlled allies. They allow you to do so many things to influence the game and fill in holes in a small party. You also get a guy (or 3) that the players will likely come to care a great deal about (just don't let them steal the limelight) allowing you to treat them just as a great author would. That is to say, do awful things to them (the allies), setting their PC friends up to be real heroes. Create that 4th or 5th character, make them complex characters that reveal their character slowly over the course of the campaign.
The Ghost
Explorer
I have a similar situation myself - I have two players in the game I DM; one is a Ranger and the other a Rogue. Early on in the campaign I introduced the PCs to various NPCs (wizards/clerics/fighters, etc.) that they could recruit each time they went on their adventures if they thought they needed those skills.
It has worked out really well and provided me with future campaign ideas. Ideas such as them having to rescue their allies or having some of their allies turn into future enemies.
It has worked out really well and provided me with future campaign ideas. Ideas such as them having to rescue their allies or having some of their allies turn into future enemies.
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
I have three PCs but it works well ; Fighter, Wizard and Warlock. The Fighter hold the line and the guys in the back have room to do their thing.
The main problem here is three strikers. Of the three, you can expect the archer to have the most fun since he'll get to do his schtick freely : Whether they want it or not, the rogue and ranger will need to get closer to do their own schtick and will thus protect the archer. If you don't pick roles, roles pick you. Congrats guys, you are the front line! Can't do it well? Sucks to be you. Monsters have to attack someone and you are it, TWF ranger!
What, you have nice mobility powers that allow you hit and run tactics? Forget them. The point of these is to hit and than run behind the defender for safety (WIth 2 or 4 square of movement, you can't really expect much more). But without a fighter holding the line, there is nowhere safe to run to. Monsters will simply charge you on their turn. Weee.
Doesn't mean they can't survive a battle, especially if you baby feed them only tailored made challenges. But the TWF has to behave like a defender against his will and skill. Kind of annoying if you ask me. He may feel like punching the archer player in the nose after one too many 'I rock!' shout.
---
Solution? Talk to them. Remind them that the A team did not have three Face or three Mr.T.
Personnally, I think the last time my group didn't try to mak complementary parties must have been when we were fifteen. If a all to maturity doesn't work, just point out how much the player who swap for a role not represented will rock over his two strikers buddies by simple virtue of being the best at what he does (Doesn't work well to convince someone to play a leader, but it could encourage someone to play a controller or defender).
The main problem here is three strikers. Of the three, you can expect the archer to have the most fun since he'll get to do his schtick freely : Whether they want it or not, the rogue and ranger will need to get closer to do their own schtick and will thus protect the archer. If you don't pick roles, roles pick you. Congrats guys, you are the front line! Can't do it well? Sucks to be you. Monsters have to attack someone and you are it, TWF ranger!
What, you have nice mobility powers that allow you hit and run tactics? Forget them. The point of these is to hit and than run behind the defender for safety (WIth 2 or 4 square of movement, you can't really expect much more). But without a fighter holding the line, there is nowhere safe to run to. Monsters will simply charge you on their turn. Weee.
Doesn't mean they can't survive a battle, especially if you baby feed them only tailored made challenges. But the TWF has to behave like a defender against his will and skill. Kind of annoying if you ask me. He may feel like punching the archer player in the nose after one too many 'I rock!' shout.
---
Solution? Talk to them. Remind them that the A team did not have three Face or three Mr.T.
Personnally, I think the last time my group didn't try to mak complementary parties must have been when we were fifteen. If a all to maturity doesn't work, just point out how much the player who swap for a role not represented will rock over his two strikers buddies by simple virtue of being the best at what he does (Doesn't work well to convince someone to play a leader, but it could encourage someone to play a controller or defender).
Last edited:
AidyBaby
First Post
I have the same problem - 3 players and therefore one role not taken. To me I have 2 options - 2 PCs per player (6 in the party) or 1 PC per player with a permanent NPC (4 in the party).
I am just winding up a 3.5 game where the players controlled 2 PCs each, i.e. 6 in the party and this made the game sloooow. Is this likely to be as big an issue in 4.0.
Previous to the 3.5 campaign we played a heavily house-ruled Rolemaster (stop laughing) game with a permanent NPC (or two) and this greatly improved roleplaying in our game compared to the more recent 3.5 game.
So, what to do? 6 PCs and no NPC; or 3 PCs with an NPC (and if so what should the NPC class/role be?).
I am just winding up a 3.5 game where the players controlled 2 PCs each, i.e. 6 in the party and this made the game sloooow. Is this likely to be as big an issue in 4.0.
Previous to the 3.5 campaign we played a heavily house-ruled Rolemaster (stop laughing) game with a permanent NPC (or two) and this greatly improved roleplaying in our game compared to the more recent 3.5 game.
So, what to do? 6 PCs and no NPC; or 3 PCs with an NPC (and if so what should the NPC class/role be?).
scadgrad said:
I love this concept from a storytelling perspective.
However, in play, this just means that during battle the players have to wait that much longer before it is their turn again. The perception of the amount of time an encounter takes becomes much greater if you have to wait a long time between turns. Although in reality it is the same amount of time as if there were more players, the perception is that the DM gets lots more turns than the players.
If they each play 2 characters, then they have the same number of turns.
However I agree with a previous poster who said that in 3e, double characters/player led to very long encounters. With a more limited selection of powers, this may not be as bad in 4e. I also worry that an encounter of 3 monsters vs 3 PCs may not give the monsters enough tactical options either. On the other hand, the increased burden of marking, condition tracking may become onerous with more than one character/player.
We've heard from several people who are using smaller (but well-rounded) parties.
Has anyone tried 4e with doubled characters? (Although I realize that few have had time to become attached to even one character, much less two).
