Large Groups & Non-Combat Niche Characters

[Kaodi]

I do not know how much this would apply to games other than 3e and Pathfinder, but something I was just contemplating is how characters that are built for something other than fighting work in large groups, say 6+ players.

Take one of the builds I was contemplating today, a sage-like diviner. Maxed out intelligence, pure divination character (with the exception of maybe a few cantrips later on), and is meant to multi-class to loremaster, and every single skill rank goes into knowledge skills until they are all maxed out. I am also using an elf with breadth of experience since it is Pathfinder, but that it somewhat less important.

Now, this character is likely going to be almost useless in combat, operating somewhere around the level of a hireling at best. But out of combat they can really shine in the knowledge niche.

What I was wondering, for DMs who have experience running larger groups: if you were wary of your group growing too large and complex, would it make you more comfortable to add a new player if their character(s) were not going to add a significant additional burden to combat? Do you think you could potentially handle much larger groups if there were several such characters along with the core of three to six combatants?

 

[Goldendice]

The problem is that combat isn't the only, or even necessarily the most important element of a game, depending on how the game is run. Even though the character would not bog down combat, role-playing encounters are still just as difficult to handle with a noncombat character as a combat one. There's typically only one DM and they have to divide their attention between all of the characters, even in noncombat situations.

 

[On Puget Sound]

What happens when the evening's scheduled activity is a 2 hour bare knuckle brawl with the evil mastermind and his minions? Either the GM has to write a way for your book learning to be productive and useful (in which case you are taking more of his mental and temporal resources than another normal character would), or you get to sit and watch everyone else play for 2 hours. This was the problem with Shadowrun deckers, and 1st-3rd edition anti-magic zones. A GM never wants to deliberately make a situation where one or more players can't play.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've been on both sides of this.

I've rarely had a problem from the GM side- though I agree about Deckers to a certain extent- but that's because I actively try to give less combat adept something to do in combat. (Plus, having GMed RIFTS helps.) Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I don't. But I don't let it bug me.

From the player side, I hope I didn't annoy my GMs...though I know I did annoy some players. I recently ran a Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/SpellSword with whip & ShSwd TWF who was, you can imagine, not the most combat worthy. His role was he did this & that- took care of traps when the thief was away, stepped up to protect squishier PCs when the true warriors were overwhelmed, and made use of certain magical items.

Saved the thief from drowning, since my PC was the only one with ranks in Swim...

So while I got chided for not being a fierce combatant, I made it my responsibility to contribute, not the DMs duty to involve me.

And until all of our "healer" PC playing guys left the group, I played that PC. I retired him in order to fill that role. Of course, I wasn't going to play a generic cleric...

He's a Clc/Sorc/M-T/Geomancer...has Sacred Healing (CompDiv version) and a whole bunch of nature/elemental spells. His Drift abilities are all plant-themed.

 

[the Jester]

Take one of the builds I was contemplating today, a sage-like diviner. Maxed out intelligence, pure divination character (with the exception of maybe a few cantrips later on), and is meant to multi-class to loremaster, and every single skill rank goes into knowledge skills until they are all maxed out. I am also using an elf with breadth of experience since it is Pathfinder, but that it somewhat less important.

Now, this character is likely going to be almost useless in combat, operating somewhere around the level of a hireling at best. But out of combat they can really shine in the knowledge niche.

What I was wondering, for DMs who have experience running larger groups: if you were wary of your group growing too large and complex, would it make you more comfortable to add a new player if their character(s) were not going to add a significant additional burden to combat? Do you think you could potentially handle much larger groups if there were several such characters along with the core of three to six combatants?

Such a party would leave some pcs feeling useless when the chips are down, which I don't recommend.

In fact, a pc like this adds more of a "significant additional burden to combat" because the other pcs have to keep them out of trouble.

Also, I think you are vastly underestimating the combat potential of a diviner. No way should he pack all divinations, all the time, any more than a conjurer should pack all conjurations, all the time. Trust me on this- especially at high levels, diviners more than pay for themselves if played intelligently.

 

[prosfilaes]

Take one of the builds I was contemplating today, a sage-like diviner. Maxed out intelligence, pure divination character (with the exception of maybe a few cantrips later on), and is meant to multi-class to loremaster, and every single skill rank goes into knowledge skills until they are all maxed out. I am also using an elf with breadth of experience since it is Pathfinder, but that it somewhat less important.

I've had problems with characters with high knowledge skills and the like. In my experience, they might as well be attached to a party pot, with me assigned the responsibility for rolling for them; I roll, and then the DM tells the party what the party just learned. If you do work this way, I'd talk about that with the DM first.