Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6567613" data-attributes="member: 6677017">While I think everyone enjoyed our 6 PC LMoP campaign that ended last night, and it should be counted as a &quot;good game&quot; by that standard, I feel that it taught me that 6 PCs is just too much for me in 5e. You have to add too many opponents to keep fights at the level of challenge that I want them to be at for the level of the party, and that many critters in a battle just makes combat way slower than I'd like.That is sad for me because my old-school sensitivities prefer a party of 6 characters with all 4 traditional D&amp;D roles (tank, holy healer, rogue, arcanist) covered, plus room for other characters. I don't always do it that way--I also enjoy theme games where the party is all of similar classes, might have as few as 3 PCs, and in no way is a balanced party, but in a traditional campaign I highly encourage covering all your bases because it allows the group to experience and participate in more of the potential campaign content.4 PCs is too few to feel like that traditional D&amp;D party to me, which leaves me with 5 as the only number to work with, although I haven't entirely given up on making 6 work the way I'd like.I do have problems with some of my players taking a more casual gaming approach than I like, and the necessity of running games online adds to that--so I'm taking further steps in the near future to try to get things moving. But in all 3 of the stand-alone adventures I plan to run in the near future, I'm limiting the party to a maximum of 5.I'm hoping that once I've better mentally calibrated the challenge level of 5e and increased the speed of play I'll be able to up that to 6 (or even 7) characters, but that remains to be discovered.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6567613, member: 6677017"] While I think everyone enjoyed our 6 PC LMoP campaign that ended last night, and it should be counted as a "good game" by that standard, I feel that it taught me that 6 PCs is just too much for me in 5e. You have to add too many opponents to keep fights at the level of challenge that I want them to be at for the level of the party, and that many critters in a battle just makes combat way slower than I'd like. That is sad for me because my old-school sensitivities prefer a party of 6 characters with all 4 traditional D&D roles (tank, holy healer, rogue, arcanist) covered, plus room for other characters. I don't always do it that way--I also enjoy theme games where the party is all of similar classes, might have as few as 3 PCs, and in no way is a balanced party, but in a traditional campaign I highly encourage covering all your bases because it allows the group to experience and participate in more of the potential campaign content. 4 PCs is too few to feel like that traditional D&D party to me, which leaves me with 5 as the only number to work with, although I haven't entirely given up on making 6 work the way I'd like. I do have problems with some of my players taking a more casual gaming approach than I like, and the necessity of running games online adds to that--so I'm taking further steps in the near future to try to get things moving. But in all 3 of the stand-alone adventures I plan to run in the near future, I'm limiting the party to a maximum of 5. I'm hoping that once I've better mentally calibrated the challenge level of 5e and increased the speed of play I'll be able to up that to 6 (or even 7) characters, but that remains to be discovered. [/QUOTE]

Verification