Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomtill" data-source="post: 4255526" data-attributes="member: 37444">I DM a group with 3 players.They just scaled down from 2 characters each to 1 character each last year, to concentrate on character immersion. With two characters each, there was definitely a star character and a supporting character for each player. The supporting actors essentially served as a repository of special abilities. As DM, I felt they were one-dimensional and distracting, so I replaced them with magic items.Now, with the emphasis on teamwork and player roles in 4e, I am concerned that the game will not flow properly when scaled down to 3 characters, even if I do things like give them magic items or allow them an action point every encounter, etc.Currently, it seems that all three want to play strikers: a melee (two-weapon) ranger, an archer ranger and a rogue.So, sub-optimal party size, only one role covered…Can any with 4e play experience offer me their assessment of whether I'd be better off encouraging 1 character each (good immersion, but "weird" dynamics) or 2 characters each (perfect dynamics, assuming I insist the second characters perform needed roles, but more challenging character immersion(s)). (And, please, do not use this as an opportunity to bash 4e as not supporting character immersion. I have every confidence that while 4e introduced increased tactical elements to battle, 4e continues to encourage role-playing as well as 3e ever did. By "every confidence" I mean I simply won't hear anything to the contrary. My mind is closed on this subject. Don't bother.)As an aside, I was surprised to learn how much my players miss their supporting actors, even a year later. Apparently those characters had more dimension than I believed. When something bad happened to them (temporarily) as NPCs in a recent game, I almost had a player rebellion on my hands.However, all agree that battle (3e battle) flowed more smoothly without them, because the players concentrated more on their one character, and because they were fighting less foes.With 4e battle being structured the way it is, I'm thinking that battle might flow more smoothly given a well-rounded party of six vs. 3 strikers. In the latter case, I'm afraid that the battles will be long and tedious, or devastatingly quick. It might be hard for me, the DM, to find something sufficiently challenging that is not TPK. I think even the recommended scale-downs are assuming a well rounded party.I'm also thinking that with the limited list of powers, it might be easier and less of a bog-down in battle for a player to handle a supporting actor.Still,  I'd rather have one character per player if it doesn't mess up the math too much. Comments?</blockquote>

Verification