Holy cow my party is all strikers!! Forked Thread: Holy cow my party has 3 strikers

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wouldn't this be just it for a difficult Solo Encounter with Minions:

Young Blue Dragon (Level 7 Solo Artillery): 1.250 XP
8 Human Lackeys (Level 7 Minion): 600 XP
Total XP 1.850
Terrain: A forest, a small river with a bridge crossing it.
Scenario:
[sblock]
The Lackeys are bandits that are forced to work wit the Blue Dragon. Their old leader was killed by the dragon. The Lackeys fear the dragon too much to just run away. The Lackeys do not present themself at first, and wait until the party is trying to cross the bridge, then running out of the woods to strike them. Their goal is to keep the enemy party together, to give the dragon a good chance to catch most of them, while at the same time not being caught up in the dragons blast.
[/sblock]

I would have preferred an encounter with the Red Dragon and a bunch of "artillery capable" minions, but I didn't find any ones in the level range. Decrepit Skeletons would have been neat for that, but they are level 1!
Sahugin Guards could try, but they get only one attack with their weapon and are then unarmed!

 

[keterys]

Is there anything horribly wrong with using the DMG rules for adding or subtracting a level from something? For example dropping a level on a red dragon, or having level 6 decrepit skeletons?

I think there are like level 4 or 5 decrepit skeletons statted out in the D&D Compendium cause they were in some module.

 

[Stalker0]

Is there anything horribly wrong with using the DMG rules for adding or subtracting a level from something?

An absolute great rule. I find that within the range of about +/- 3 the rule works really well at delivering the same challenge and actual level of that monster provides. Really increases the mileage out of your MM.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

If I might make some suggestions -

First, I would avoid any multiclassing of the strikers to fill their "holes" - this is a test of concept, and as such IMHO the strikers should concentrate on being strikers, not on strikers + something else.

Second, I would generate a huge list of D20 rolls, and use it for both parties, going through it in order. This will help standardize the luck between the two parties (well, it won't do so completely, as one group may roll that natural 20 for their daily and another for their roll to jump o nto a table). Doesn't work so well if you use the same party for both and they remember the rolls. Incidentally, I would also do this for all the monsters, each with their own table of rolls.

That may be more planning than you are willing to do, however...

 

[Pickles JG]

If I might make some suggestions -
First, I would avoid any multiclassing of the strikers to fill their "holes" - this is a test of concept, and as such IMHO the strikers should concentrate on being strikers, not on strikers + something else.

The concept is how a party of strikers built to operate as such compare to a balanced party not strikers built for maximum damage or whatever.

Second, I would generate a huge list of D20 rolls, and use it for both parties, going through it in order. This will help standardize the luck between the two parties (well, it won't do so completely, as one group may roll that natural 20 for their daily and another for their roll to jump o nto a table). Doesn't work so well if you use the same party for both and they remember the rolls. Incidentally, I would also do this for all the monsters, each with their own table of rolls.

That may be more planning than you are willing to do, however...

Yes it is.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

The concept is how a party of strikers built to operate as such compare to a balanced party not strikers built for maximum damage or whatever.

Well, my understanding was that the issue you are seeking to prove/disprove is that a party of all strikers is "better" than a balanced party.

As such, I think its a better "proof" of that concept if you run the strikers as strikers, rather than multiclassing them into the other roles. I'm not saying they need to be all about damage, but rather that as a proof of concept, you will get better results if you don't try to blur the boundaries between the two parties. For one, it will make it a lot clearer which (if any) of the other roles a striker heavy party does need and those which it can work around.

And woohoo - 100th post! 8)

 

[keterys]

Strikers with a bit of multiclassing can retain damage and still satisfy other role requirements. That's the test, not 'Can strikers who intentionally ignore their options compare to a theoretically balanced group'.

Though that'd make an interesting 3rd group

 

[Flipguarder]

I love this thread because its basically measuring a party of strikers and a party with multiple roles and asking which one does more damage. Its like saying:

I own 3 jets and 20 street racing cars.
You own a bike.

Whoever on average travels faster wins at life.
-------------------------------------------

The benefits to having multiple roles lies not in pure damage output, but in overall party ability, something that's very hard to measure.

 

[Sadrik]

The benefits to having multiple roles lies not in pure damage output, but in overall party ability, something that's very hard to measure.

Please do tell and explain what the multiple role party can do that the strike team cannot.

 

[Herschel]

The things people have been pointing out to you for two threads now.