Adventuring group lineup - Feedback please!!

[Mixmaster]

Long time DM is starting a new 3rd Ed. D&D game with new people. I let them point buy their characters, and awaited their choices. After each character was completed, I updated everyone on what was taken. This is what I got (6 - 3rd level characters):

Paladin
2 Rangers (PHB not alt.rangers)
Barbarian 2/Ranger 1
Cleric
Rogue

Now I am confident that the campaign will give each of them their "moment to shine", and I'll run a fun series of adventures so they will enjoy themselves but:

They have no mage! and 3 Rangers!!

Can anyone tell me of their experiences of a "top heavy" mage or fighter group and/or feedback on if they felt they were "missing" something.

Failing that, I would like your feedback on your adventuring group makeup, and if it works for you.

Thank you for your time in advance.

 

[fba827]

Well - while I don't have experience in this exact situation, I can add some ideas to think about based on similar experiences.

* You have lots of Rangers, so I would wager that you consider several adventures (or if you are doing a "campaign" style to have the bulk of the campaign be outdoors)
* However, try to do stuff / have situations that allow each Ranger to shine independantly and not feel a clone of one another (ie plot hooks related to individual's respective backgrounds; have them unwillingly separated so each ranger or two will have the chance to be the guide in the given terrain as the two/three groups try and reunite with the other groups
* Along the same lines as the above, though I probably don't need to say this since you yourself addressed it, give each of the players a chance to be the forrunner, so to speak (using the ideas from the above bullet point)
* No mages/sorcerers (or arcane casters in general) MAY feel odd, especially if you run a magic heavy game but this does lead to some interesting ideas -- perhaps arcane magic is against the law! (could lead to some plots being soley around acting as mage/bounty hunters) -- perhaps arcane magic is against popular religion (you do have several divine casters) -- or, if you don't want to take either of those extremes (because the first two would be extremes in the typical medeival-fantasy setting) just go with it; so they don't have a mage or a sorcerer, so what? It just means that any villian mages you throw at them will not have their magic dispelled/countered as often, any spellbooks or arcane scrolls (or arcane magic items in general) they find will just be turned into cash rather than unleashing new spells into the PC's resources; and, who knows, maybe after finding a couple spellbooks one of the PC's may just take up the class and surprise you!

EDIT: Totally didn't notice the Rogue in the list (this is what I get for staying up 36-odd hours ) -- the rogue could very easily (if so inclined) go in the direction of "Use Magic Device" (at the expense of skill ranks in other roguish-type skills) so arcane items could be used in that case. So this does reduce the effectivness of the later half of the last point mentioned above.

anyway, just my random thoughts.

 

[jollyninja]

you just have to be kind of careful with purchased material. they tend to expect a certian level of magic in an adventuring party. other then that, it's actually pretty sweet for the dm, there are no unexpected adventure killers (pc casters tend to have at least one spell you never considered while designing the adventure).

In my group, it is actually quite rare for anyone to play a wizard and we seldom have any problems other then finding people to craft magical items. as for the many rangers, everyone using two weapons leads to conflict over magical weapons unless they all choose a different set, and can really destroy low level encounters but once you get past the growing pains, it's not a big deal unless the players make it one.

I like this adventuring party, they seem like a decent mix. you have the makings of a great set of explorers. some really good fish out of water action could occur with that cleric or rogue.

 

[Kamard]

Depending on party alignment, you could play up inter-group rivalries (alignment, divine characters vs. woodsy types + rogue).

I see two natural groups in your party, the paladin/cleric and the rangers, with the rogue an odd man out. So you can plan basically two types of adventures, faith based ones and ranger based ones. Perhaps you have a forest heavily beset by the forces of undeath (Necromancer at Dol Goldur?)

I can see your party hired as scouts and caravan guards- remember the rogue can have Use Magical Device and thus can emulate a wizard or sorceror in some respects.

Perhaps a subtle encouragement to one or more of the characters to pick up a level of sorceror or bard in there somewhere?

What are the races of your party? If there is a sizeable nonhuman contingent, you could play up the differences between their cultures through a war or other tension.

What is the background of your group?

I feel like I could give you a lot more aid if I knew race of party and some thoughts on your setting.

I hope what I did include helped though.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Easy solution to any party lacking key classes: the DM provides NPCs (sort of like his own PCs) to make up the difference. We've always had small groups (1-4 players at most); that's the way we've done it and its worked out fine for decades now. Of course, we don't necessarily always start out with a full complement of NPCs, but usually pick them up along the way. These NPCs are treated as full PCs for share of XP and treasure, and are free to disagree, leave or try to kill us if they don't like us, LOL. They are always controlled by the DM. It is nice for the DM because then he always a say in what the group should do. Plus, sometimes these NPCs are really plants for the bad guy, or are charmed, or just develop into enemies along the way, whereas other times they become romantic interests or best friends of the PCs. You never know what to expect!

And since the DM has his own PCs (sort of), he doesn't feel left out of the RPing, and gets to test out various classes as he sees fit. These NPCs are generally not shown any favoritism by the DM, or conflict would result as the PCs would feel outshined otherwise.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm with Kaptain_Kantrip. In the game I play in, our party lacks a cleric...in an undead-heavy campaign. I'm sure you can see the problem. So we went to the church of Pelor, and requested some backup. Since then, an NPC cleric has been a semi-regular part of the party, helping us beat back the undead hordes.

Likewise in the game I DM, I told the players to "choose whatever class you most want to play." The result? A bard, a wizard, and a psion/rogue. No cleric again, but even worse...no fighter-type. It was pretty touch-and-go until the party managed to meet up with the NPC monk, and later druid. Even now, though, I'm thinking the druid will probably leave, and the party will get the chance to meet up with a pure fighter. They still need more muscle.

Adding NPCs is fun for the players, but it also gives the DM a ton of options. I personally tend to favor role-playing over combat, and I often use my NPCs to sort of "lead by example" and create the tone I want in my campaign.

 

[Victim]

My current group spent most of its time with 1 wizard, 1 sorcerer, 1 fighter (who started taking rogue levels), and a cleric. We did fine, although we had problems keeping monsters off the arcane casters. The wizard developed an obssessive desire for personal security that still leads to comments. A pair of goblins, oh no, Haste, Fly, move 45 ft into air, Shield, then start attacking. We also had an NPC ally that mostly acts like a wizard.

One group I was in started with rogue, rogue, bard, psion, and an NPC fighter cleric. However, one the players had a character idea that was more of a ranger, so the DM let him switch and the other one died and was replaced by psychic warrior. The second version was much better than the first.

 

[Mixmaster]

To all:

Thank you for your feedback. I'd like for others to give me their party makeups.

To answer your questions Kamard:

3 Humans (Paladin/Ranger/BarRanger)
2 Half-elves (Ranger/Cleric)
1 Halfling (Rogue)

(Necromancer at Dol Goldur?)

I'm not aware of that setting. Please elaborate.

Party background: They're friends since their teenage years from the same town. They have minor cliques

Rangers & Rogue
Paladin & BarRanger
BarRanger & Rangers (they made him switch over)

on the TWF's
1 is Battleaxe/handaxe.
1 is Shortsword/Rapier.
1 is not even going that way.

 

[Mixmaster]

BUMP

 

[Kamard]

Necromancer at Dol Goldur?

I'm not aware of that setting. Please elaborate.

In Middle-Earth, before Sauron restored his fortress at Barad-Dur, he set up a stronghold in the forest of Mirkwood under the guise of the Necromancer. His ringwraiths and orcs were active for the first time in centuries at this time (as an organized force, for the orcs)

Party background: They're friends since their teenage years from the same town. They have minor cliques

It's much harder trying to create intraparty conflict if they all are friends, but if they do have cliques, try to exploit them a bit if you can or dare.

I am going to go against Kaptain_Kantrip and others. I don't feel an NPC party member helps anyone. I always hate having to have an NPC party member.

As for the party I DM for:

Dwarf Cleric 2 (cleric of War and Destruction)
Dwarf Fighter 2 (AMB & TWF: dual light maces.)
Dwarf Ranger 1 (dual wielded light picks.)
These three dwarves are brothers.
Dwarf Bard 2
This dwarven bard is the other three's cousin.

To be joined by a Dwarf Wizard 1 tonight, who will either be another member of the family, or a dwarf they will meet in Ironpick (the "next stronghold over"). Of course, only the Cleric, Fighter, and Wizard will be available to game this evening, so the ranger will still lag behind in XP.