A-symetrical parties

[Maldur]

Lately there have been many arguments about balance and such, but how bad is an party with characters of different abilities and levels?

I would say not much, but I do like the ability to use a balanced party as well.

the only problem I can think of is the survivability of lower level characters when encountering a challenge for the higher level ones.

Any thoughts?

 

[wedgeski]

My innner concept of a 'balanced' party is one of similar level and with the basic abilities covered: healing, offensive magic, sneaking, toe-to-toe fighting.

This is not to say I particularly *like* that concept, but it pretty much remains one of the key assumptions of most adventure authors, and I can sympathise with that. It is also a concept that has infused almost all of my players, such that whenever we put together a new party for a campaign or one-off, it sounds more like a shopping list than an exercise in fun or imagination ("Tank? Check! Sneak Attack? Check! Magic Missile? Check!").

If you're going to break this convention then the DM has to accept that he's making work for himself, that he's going to have to tailor the encounters to the abilities of the party, or they're going to be in trouble. I spelled this out to my group when they started the latest Dragonlance campaign, and while there was palpable skepticism on the faces of at least two of them, they've actually tried something different for that game, and it's working out fine. Yes, it's slightly more work for me, but I get to watch them use more esoteric abilities, classes, and races, which makes the game much more fun for me (and really, that's all that matters ).

Levels are a different matter. Anything more than 1 or 2 level's divergence from the party average and those PC's are going to be in serious trouble. Yes, they will get a bigger reward for their trouble, but it's no fun for players who have to constantly come to their rescue for the privilege.

 

[Zappo]

Generally, a balanced party has very different skills and very similar levels.

Parties with differing levels (say, more than 3 or 4 levels of difference) encounter several troubles. With hard challenges, low level characters will feel useless and get bored or frustrated at being unable to do much besides maybe staying alive. With easy challenges, high level characters will either get bored or wipe out the opposition in one round (making low-levelers bored and frustrated again). With separate challenges, where the low-levelers are doing something and the high-levelers are doing something else, the DM is forced to split time, causing half of the players to be bored at any given time. Parties with differing levels work well in fiction (LotR), but badly in game. I don't think there's much that can be done about this.

Parties with similar skills have another set of problems. They throw the assumed game balance and CR system out of the window, but a skilled DM can manage them just fine. You must no longer use the CR system, as it is no longer reliable. A party with limited variety is usually going to find many challenges much harder or outright impossible. However, the exact amount of added difficulty is extremely variable. And, more often than you'd think, they will find an encounter surprisingly easy.

With a party composed of 5 7th-level clerics and paladins, we easily killed a CR 15 creature, but we were forced to flee from a CR 9 some time later (and we were 8th-level by that time).

 

[Rashak Mani]

We had a mage 3 levels lower... and he got killed way to easily. After we raised him we basically told him to stay back a bit more and just be defensive until the extra XP brought him closer to the group.

Fighter types have more HP and wouldn't be in as much danger...

 

[VirgilCaine]

If you're going to break this convention then the DM has to accept that he's making work for himself, that he's going to have to tailor the encounters to the abilities of the party, or they're going to be in trouble.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. I think that if a party concentrates on it's strengths and avoids exposing it's weaknesses, they will be able to overcome challenges. With good planning and forethought, an all wizard party could succeed--summoned monsters for tanks and trap springers, heavy use of Knock, a etc. etc.

With a party composed of 5 7th-level clerics and paladins, we easily killed a CR 15 creature, but we were forced to flee from a CR 9 some time later (and we were 8th-level by that time).

What were the creatures may I ask?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I never mind an unbalanced party in terms of the skill mix. I vastly prefer to DM systems that don't use D&D spells (or that don't use as many), to streamline the process if nothing else. My idea of a "balanced" party is fighter, skill-fighter, social-fighter and social-skill.

When I do actual D&D, I don't think it's that important. If the players know their PCs strengths, an all-Druid or all-Cleric party basically covers everything. Same with all-Rogue or all-Artificer (Eberron). All-Wizard should work in theory, but only at upper levels. All-Ranger or all-Paladin should be fine at mid-to-low, and all-Fighter or all-Barbarian at low.

Level disparity, on the other hand, is a huge problem. D&D levels mean too much for it to work well; an 8th-level wizard is just a shadow of an 11th-level wizard, and a mere apprentice to a 14th-level one. The same is true of other classes. This is probably my biggest beef with 3.x D&D, as I like fast levelling and a base-100 system: 37th- and 30th-level PCs should be able to coexist and have fun, but this simply isn't possible in any environment where dice are rolled.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I'm running my players through the WotC Sunless Citadel adventure path. The core of the group consists of a halfling fighter, a human monk and a human rogue. They had an elven cleric, but he doesn't adventure with them because the player has gone to China for 6 months. The cleric is still always around and provides healing and buffing. A human wizard joins them from time to time.

So the core is basically a melee group. The characters didn't have too many problems with Sunless Citadel or with Forge of Fury, but they're halfway through Speaker in Dreams, and the appearance of more magically endowed opponents has given them a lot of troubles, and I think it'll get worse as long as they rise in levels.

Fortunately, the cleric will be back in March, and the Wizard is there from time to time.

AR

 

[wedgeski]

I don't think this is necessarily the case. I think that if a party concentrates on it's strengths and avoids exposing it's weaknesses, they will be able to overcome challenges. With good planning and forethought, an all wizard party could succeed--summoned monsters for tanks and trap springers, heavy use of Knock, a etc. etc.

I wish my party were brave enough to try, then I'd find out for sure. They did, once upon a time, flirt with the idea of an all-halfling group of dog-riding paladins. I'm pretty sure the abject terror they saw in my eyes persuaded them against the idea.

 

[RFisher]

When I was younger, it seemed that having the PCs pretty well balanced was essential to a smooth running game. More recently, however, I've played games with a big differential in PC power that have gone without a hitch.

Perhaps it is as simple as the fact that myself & my current group are more mature than my former self & my former groups. We're less selfish & more concerned about the group.

I think its perhaps better to think about variety than balance. It is a coöperative game, so everyone should feel their character has something worthwhile to contribute. Balancing combat ability, magic, skills, &c. against one another can be difficult. Balancing PC contribution is perhaps easier, although it may have to be implemented more by the DM than by rules. It still isn't easy, though.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

We play this game for fun. My experience is that what is most important is that each player gets a chance to have his PC strut his stuff. Now "stuff" might be combat prowess or good negotiating skills or sneaking into the castle to steal the map. It could also mean character quirks and well roleplayed jokes put in the spotlight of the session.

D&D out of the box encourages similarly levelled characters that will see regular doses of combat. If opposition is an interesting mix, the PCs will naturally shine to different degrees in different encounters. And those with more skills who are probably a little weaker in combat, will get more spotlight time outside of combat. It works out pretty well on its own so that everyone will usually have fun with little or no planning.

If there are level disparities of two levels or more between characters, you are in danger of seeing the "everything you can do, I can do better" syndrome. In its more pathological form it becomes "anything that will not bore you, will kill me instantly." From a player POV, that can get very old after a couple sessions. It is just not fun for most players.

Now there are roleplaying routes around this problem. But it does not usually happen on its own. Someone has to make extra effort, be it the DM or the player of the weak/strong PC or the players as a group. This is too much of a can of worms for most DMs to bother with on top of their normal gaming workload. The easiest choice is to make sure PCs are within ~1 level of each other. If you want try an imbalanced game, you should definitely go into it with your eyes open...