DM advice please! - 3 Strikers, 1 Leader

[Sanzuo]

I'm looking for some DMing advice. If you're one of my players then get out.

I'm starting a new campaign that I'm psyched about and have been working on all week. Our last game was just a combat-laden dungeon crawl just to get everyone accustomed to the game mechanics. The players made the perfect group; Dragonborn Paladin, Halfing Rogue, Human Cleric and Eladrin Wizard. They were able to easily handle encounters that were +2/+3 levels higher than them.

The group they've made for this new game is pretty different, they've got 1 leader (cleric) and 3 strikers; ranger, rogue and a warlock. I'm not planning on this new campaign to be nearly the fight-fest that the last game was, but I still want some dramatic and harrowing encounters at appropriate moments.

I was brainstorming some encounters and it occurs to me that this group may not be as survivable as the last one. So when looking at my encounters I am wondering in what ways this group will be different and how I should tailor the fights. It seems to me that they'll be especially good at dropping single, tough targets than many weak ones. I also like to come up with special "rules" and scenarios in my encounters to make them slightly more dangerous/exciting. I hate killing characters but I love to watch them sweat.

Can anyone tell me what I can expect out of this kind of party? There will be plenty of roleplaying, but I don't want to wipe the party in the first fight. Or maybe my fears are unfounded and they'll steamroll my encounters as usual.

 

[wrshamilton]

If the cleric goes laser and as controlly as he can, I think your own real concern is not to throw too many brutes at them at once, cause without the defender to go toe-to-toe with them they'll take some people down.

If the cleric doesn't do that, you also potentially have a problem with minions. Although giving the Warlock a Rod of Reaving can help with that somewhat.

 

[Sanzuo]

I'm not sure what going laser means, but the cleric is very melee-oriented, and actually so is the ranger. The rogue is brutish and the warlock is fey. It seems like they may have some limited control but not much. After looking at the encounters I've come up with I have growing concern that my players might get pulverized early on.

 

[renau1g]

I think that I'll have to agree with you, unless you put the party against a similar group of enemies, i.e. a lot of lurkers/skirmishers, and a leader. The brutes/soldiers are meant to be tied up by the defender and the minions are fodder for the controller.

 

[Sanzuo]

Also what level encounters do you think I ought to shoot for? I like to make each fight as difficult as I can, so I was shooting for maybe PL+1 as the standard. On second thought maybe I should do PL+0 at first and see how it goes?

 

[Aluvial]

This shouldn't matter. Roles are "interesting" concepts, but really have little to do with the standard array of powers your characters have. You will have melee attacks and ranged attacks. Period. They will all basically be the same. Sure, one might move you a square, or move your enemy a square, or do +1 or 2 more than the next power, but since they are ALL BASED on 1/2 your level, they will basically be the SAME. +1 or +2 doesn't amount to much in the game.

Take it easy, pick appropriate monsters, lower the monsters HP by 1/3 to 1/2 to make the encounters move along, and go for it. The DMG does a decent job with the whole point buy thing, just use and roll.

Aluvial

 

[JDillard]

A well-played fey warlock actually has a lot of control ability, particularly in how he can rearrange the party around the battlefield with switch-places-teleports and such. He'll also get some mind-control powers a few levels up, which also help out.

One of my games two of the five of us died, and those two players missed the next session so the three remaining did a session on our own. TWF ranger, Wizard and Fey-lock. It got ugly at times, we had no healing at all except for potions, but we still managed to do surprisingly well all things considered. Your party just needs to be on their toes.

Also, as mentioned above, brutes are actually something you don't want to throw against them. They've got enough HP to withstand a few attacks and they do a ton of damage when they hit. Brutes are there for the defenders to deal with. Put them up against larger numbers of smaller threats and they'll do well. Rangers can handle minions well since most of their attacks are 2-for-1. Warlocks can mess with positioning, and Rogues can sneak around if given the right conditions.

Your cleric will probably be a semi-tank. You might want to recommend he take a couple armor feats or even Paladin or Fighter multi-class so he can put himself between the monsters and the party.

 

[Sanzuo]

A well-played fey warlock actually has a lot of control ability, particularly in how he can rearrange the party around the battlefield with switch-places-teleports and such. He'll also get some mind-control powers a few levels up, which also help out.

One of my games two of the five of us died, and those two players missed the next session so the three remaining did a session on our own. TWF ranger, Wizard and Fey-lock. It got ugly at times, we had no healing at all except for potions, but we still managed to do surprisingly well all things considered. Your party just needs to be on their toes.

Also, as mentioned above, brutes are actually something you don't want to throw against them. They've got enough HP to withstand a few attacks and they do a ton of damage when they hit. Brutes are there for the defenders to deal with. Put them up against larger numbers of smaller threats and they'll do well. Rangers can handle minions well since most of their attacks are 2-for-1. Warlocks can mess with positioning, and Rogues can sneak around if given the right conditions.

Your cleric will probably be a semi-tank. You might want to recommend he take a couple armor feats or even Paladin or Fighter multi-class so he can put himself between the monsters and the party.

Sounds like good advice.

Thinking back about the brute thing; it seems like there is a helluva lot of brutes/soldiers in the book. Also in some cases it makes sense to have them flavor-wise in this particular game.

 

[WarlockLord]

My group is: Me the drow wizard (warlock), a tiefling brutal rogue, and an archer ranger.

We do fine. I can immoblize/slow/knock unconscious melee guys for them to pick off, blast down minions, and the ranger has the heal skill.

Mainly we fight minions. Our DM loves rushing us.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Also what level encounters do you think I ought to shoot for? I like to make each fight as difficult as I can, so I was shooting for maybe PL+1 as the standard.

A striker heavy team with no defenders or controller will slaughter encounters with small numbers of tough opponents, have some trouble with minions, and really falter against large, mixed encounters (soldiers + artillery + leader + terrain ?= disaster).

So, I'd say dial up the solo encounters a level or two, dial up small encounters involving one or more elites and a total number of creatures less than the number of PCs by one, and dail down encounters where the PCs are outnumbered and the opponents varied by one. If you do give a large encounter terrain advantage, make sure the strikers have some opportunity to bypass it.

With an offense-oriented problem, the challenge has always been finding a balance between the cakewalk and the TPK. Many encounters will seem 'easy' because the party kills them quickly. An encounter that they can't kill quickly, though, could kill them, because the lack the staying power of a defender and the crowd control of a wizard.