How do you cope with only 4 characters in a party?

[RFisher]

The DM doesn't have to cope. The players do! (^_^)

Wait, you've got two PCs, a rogue and a monk, right?

That's a pretty awesome stealth tag team and you should orient at least some adventures to play off of that. They wouldn't necessarily seek out the kinds of things a 4-slot standard party would look for all the time.

I have to agree with Imp. If you are lucky enough to have such a cool combo--that could have some really interesting adventures--I think it'd be a huge mistake to try to outfit them with NPCs to fit them into that standard 6-PC model of yours.

 

[Darklone]

Wait, you've got two PCs, a rogue and a monk, right?

Imp is right. Just wait, hand out some wands for the rogue to use with UMD for healing and some attack spells and see how they fare.

My first 3.0 group had one multiclassed arcane fighter and no cleric. 6 fighter rogue types (ranger rogue, fighter rogue, barbarian rogue) and one dwarven fighter. One player joined and played a sorcerer

Strangely, it wasn't a problem at all. It's all a matter of tactics.

 

[Nifft]

One of our games has only two players. The characters are a Cloistered Cleric (me) and a Swordsage. We are doing okay. Tactics and spell selection.

-- N

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I prefer 6 PCs ... the trick is to have 7-8 players, 'cause that way at least 6 always show up. Or if most of them are reliable, have 6 and you'll almost always have at least 4.

 

[billd91]

Let me start off by saying that it looks like the OP has been a little out of touch with the main current of D&D. Based on market research, WotC designed the default game to revolve around a party of 4 PCs. Most published modules are geared for the default game, hence, they are (at least theoretically) balanced to be completed by a party of 4 PCs.

That said, the games I run have 6 players and 4 players and both run fine. I sometimes have to recook things for the larger party but that's fairly easy to do.

About the monk, they look pretty tough on paper and, if they hit, they can end up doing significant damage. But you'll find that their Base Attack Bonus is a significant obstacle to competing with, say, the barbarian, once you start fighting high-level foes. The monk's a fun class to play, but it's no powerhouse and requires some consideration of tactics to play.

 

[Stormborn]

Right now we have 2 players running two PCs each. Its the most PCs we have ever had. I have never had the experiance of more and cant imagine a situation where that is 'normal' and you have to 'deal' with 'only' having 4.

 

[Sound of Azure]

One of our games has only two players. The characters are a Cloistered Cleric (me) and a Swordsage. We are doing okay. Tactics and spell selection.

-- N

I don't know why, but that just reminded me of the legend of Monkey. Sounds like fun, regardless.

3-5 players/characters seems to be my favourite configuration for the kind of games I like to run, but even 1 or 2 can be fun for more focused games. I "manage" because I can focus more on how cool each character is, giving each their own bit of screen time.

 

[Piratecat]

One of our games has only two players. The characters are a Cloistered Cleric (me) and a Swordsage. We are doing okay. Tactics and spell selection.

Wow.

We have six, down from a norm of eight. Six is a fine number; we play every other Thursday, and it isn't unusual to have one person absent. As long as it's not always the same person, that's not a problem. I'll run so long as I have a quorum of four players, although it's rare for two folks to be missing the same day.

 

[Schmoe]

I've run games where it was just me and a single player, and my current game has just recently burgeoned to 7 players. As others have said, it really comes down to DM discretion. You need to be on the lookout for obvious situations that will decimate the party. Don't go too soft, though. Some of the best gaming comes up when the party is presented with an apparently insurmountable obstacle and creatively finds a solution.

Each group has its own challenges. Small parties face the problem that they aren't resilient to losses and combat is more of an "all or nothing" affair, and large parties face the problem that they aren't stealthy and there's less stage time for each player.

I agree with Imp. Your two PC party is ideal for covert operations and ambushes, henchmen can fill in for those situations where subtlety is not appropriate. I would take that into account when deciding how to create and modify adventures. I would also put more thought into the characters' backgrounds and work in some more roleplaying directly related to each character.

 

[Nebulous]

Four players and a DM is usually the ideal number for us. Having 6 players and a DM is just too unwieldy, complicated, and it can make fights last an ungodly amount of time. If you're worried about "balance" in having a smaller party (smaller than 6 anyway) it all comes down to DM fiat. Use your experience and good sense and don't overwhelm them.