New Campaign Started...check out the PC's

[The Cardinal]

the PCs from the Mystarra game I'm actually playing in now
(all but my PC came in at 3rd level):


Human (TN) Barbarian 1 / Ranger 1 / Fighter 1 / Cleric of Nyx 1
(actually he *may* be a cleric of Nyx - at least he's a cleric with the Retribution & Night domain)
Human Sorceror (CN or CG) 4
Tiefling Rogue (CN) 3
Gnome Druid (NG) 4
Githzerai Monk (LN) 2


...all independently build & we're doin' rather well...

 

[Sammael99]

Well we mett with the new group yesterday and had a great time. The only rules changes we adopted were a non-spell casting version of the Paladin and Ranger (though you could use the book version if you wanted).

Maybe this has been covered elsewhere, but where can I find details for these non-spellcasting variants ?

 

[Desdichado]

KarinsDad:
This is generally a mistake.
[...]
I have seriously come to the conclusion that party make up balance is extremely important. PCs, especially low level ones, have four basic types of attacks: weapons, fire, spells, and turning. Your group is immediately limited to the first two, so a couple of Ghouls, for example, could be deadly.

In our gaming group, the last three DMs (of which I was one) had the philosophy that all players play what they want to play. It is the DM's responsibility to make sure encounters are balanced for the party, not the other way around. There's nothing worse than being forced to play the cleric, or whatever it is that no one else is playing, just because of "party balance." Games are supposed to be about fun, and in our group, at least, that means playing the character you want to play.

 

[KarinsDad]

In our gaming group, the last three DMs (of which I was one) had the philosophy that all players play what they want to play. It is the DM's responsibility to make sure encounters are balanced for the party, not the other way around. There's nothing worse than being forced to play the cleric, or whatever it is that no one else is playing, just because of "party balance." Games are supposed to be about fun, and in our group, at least, that means playing the character you want to play.

I previously had this philosophy as well until my last campaign.

I think that players can compromise a little, but they can only do this if the DM and players get together and discuss it before the first session of a campaign.

The hard core philosophy of "playing what you want so that you have fun" is kind of countered by the "opps, the party died because the only character that could affect the monster got killed first" problem. Usually, it is not fun to die.

I think most players are reasonable and if the players and DM discuss this potential problem before a campaign session starts, it can mostly be avoided. And, it can be avoided with all players playing a character that they will enjoy.

However, if the DM is adament about allowing/forcing each and every player to play whatever s/he wants and does not even broach the topic, then yes, I think you can run into "non-fun" problems such as dying, such as having to hole up for a week to heal, such as resting up after each combat because you do not have a spell caster with area effect spells, so you got to duke it out with every creature that attacks you, etc. JMO.

 

[Deedlit]

The character's father was a kender sucked off planet in some sort of magical accident. His village was destroyed at a young age, and he was raised by another species(Created for this game, not humanoid and very isolated) and got many cultural traits of that species. He uses halfling for stats, but his culture plays a bit of a role in his personality and he acts very kenderlike.

 

[Desdichado]

KarinsDad:
I previously had this philosophy as well until my last campaign.
I think that players can compromise a little, but they can only do this if the DM and players get together and discuss it before the first session of a campaign.

I think the best strategy, which we typically don't do is to have the players have a first session where the characters are all rolled up. Lately we've been doing our characters at home and then coming together, where I think creating characters together would lead to better party composition and compromise on its own without the DM doing much.

The hard core philosophy of "playing what you want so that you have fun" is kind of countered by the "opps, the party died because the only character that could affect the monster got killed first" problem. Usually, it is not fun to die.

Sounds like that was an inappropriate monster to send against that party then. Again, the DMs fault, not the players.

I think most players are reasonable and if the players and DM discuss this potential problem before a campaign session starts, it can mostly be avoided. And, it can be avoided with all players playing a character that they will enjoy.

It's a tough call. Who gets to keep their concept, and who has to change to match the "ideal party?" Is it first come first serve? I prefer not to mess with it at all. It's not hard as a DM to structure a campaign around the party instead of trying to create a "jack-of-all-trades" party. Ideally, a given campaign world would have adventuring parties with different areas of expertise. The PC party should look for a niche that they can fill and then try to be the best at it. If a DM continually insists on putting them in situations that they're not really prepared to handle (that can be fun once in a while) then that is a failing of the DM, not the party.

However, if the DM is adament about allowing/forcing each and every player to play whatever s/he wants and does not even broach the topic, then yes, I think you can run into "non-fun" problems such as dying, such as having to hole up for a week to heal, such as resting up after each combat because you do not have a spell caster with area effect spells, so you got to duke it out with every creature that attacks you, etc. JMO.

YMMV. This presupposes a very old-fashioned, classical and traditional game of D&D. If your players don't create a very old-fashioned, classical and traditional party of D&D-style adventurers, you shouldn't be running that kind of game for them. Either let them know ahead of time that they will face challenges that require a old-fashioned party balance, or come up with a new way of running the campaign.

Oh, and to the original post: either that variant ranger is really interesting or really powerful. Why is it that almost everyone wants to take a few levels of it?

 

[merc]

Originally posted by Joshua Dyal

Sounds like that was an inappropriate monster to send against that party then. Again, the DMs fault, not the players.

What makes it the DM's responsibility that the players don't make inappropriate decisions in character creation? In my experience, the DM creates a place for the players to play in, and it's a privilege to be able to play in the game. After all, the DM puts in tons of work to get a great game going. The DM plans where things live and what they are doing, and relates that information in the game. If a party chooses (or happens) to meet something they’re not completely and utterly prepared for, they have to deal with it the best they can. It makes games a whole lot more fun for me (a player) and the DM (who creates interesting stories that the players get involved in because they want to, not because they’re tailor-made for them).

Originally posted by Joshua Dyal

YMMV. This presupposes a very old-fashioned, classical and traditional game of D&D. If your players don't create a very old-fashioned, classical and traditional party of D&D-style adventurers, you shouldn't be running that kind of game for them. Either let them know ahead of time that they will face challenges that require a old-fashioned party balance, or come up with a new way of running the campaign.

Not necessarily… It just means that it’s a game where the players (and characters) have to be smart about things. A group of all fighters should think about what they need to do if they need to be healed - get potions, learn the heal skill, or just hole up and heal naturally. A group of all spell casters should have a plan incase they come across a band of armed fighters. Pretend that your characters need to have survived the DM’s world before the adventure. The DM should tell you about the world (after all, your future characters will have most likely lived there for most of their lives) but what's the fun in knowing all the chalenges?

A non-traditional party can make things interesting, but they have to be prepared to face adventures in a world where there is the potential for magic and battles that they might not make it through.

 

[Skaros]

I have to agree with karins dad and Merc.

I dont think the DM should alter the reality of the world he is running so that all of the sudden whole classes of creatures and compositions of enemies no longer include ones that it used to...just because a group of 5 guys, none of which happen to be clerics and wizards, decide to travel together.

This is what you are doing if you always make sure every encounter the players run into is well-suited to their particular party make-up. Hmm...my party of non-spellcasters just entered a particularly deadly forest that powerful adventurers often don't return from. Ah well, no clerics, looks like they only run into kobolds...and not too many of them!

If the players all decide to play non-spellcasters, great, but then they should operate quite a bit differently than a group that includes 2 clerics and a wizard shouldn't they?

I mean, they should focus a lot more on hit and run...scouting to avoid overly deadly encounters, and investing in potions and protective magics. Maybe they should actively cultivate relationships with the local churches, and cultivate friendships and favors there so they have healing aid available, etc.

Of course, if the campaign style of the DM is to run them through modules that ASSUME availability of healing magic, then, seems to me, that is a bad fit for a group where everyone picks whatever they want to play without regard for group dynamics.

-Skaros

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I tend to construct the campaign environment that is generally appropriate to the party's level. Thus, a pc group of say, 6th level, might run into a npc group that includes a 6th level wizard or two. The challenge level is appropriate, but whether or not the pc group can specifically deal with a pair of 6th level wizards is THEIR problem. If they find a way to win--good. It shows they deserve every bit of reward. If they get napalmed and die--well, they failed to plan appropriately.

The world doesn't conform itself like playdoe to whatever is most convenient for the pc's. There are campaign realities and constants that the pc's must bend, and struggle to deal with. After all, the particular composition of the party is THEIR choice.

For example, if the pc party is composed of all Rangers and Fighters, then that presupposes that the pc party will enjoy certain and specific advantages, right? By the same token--that composition also has inherent disadvantages associated with it as well. Thus is the way of a harsh and dangerous world.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[der_kluge]

That's a very interesting group. Sure hope they don't encounter a magically locked door. End of the road for them, if they do!

We, too, just started a new campaign. Well, we've got one more game to semi-retire our 11th level characters, and then we'll start our new one in a couple of weeks, but we've mostly made new characters.

I find that, with our group at least, the players tend to get together to figure out what the others are playing so they know what not to play. I know I do that. If there are two clerics in the group, for example, I'll play something besides a cleric. I think party diversity is a key element of the game.

Our new group: (all first level)
Me (female human bard), who will eventually take on an 'archaeologist' prestige class.
Male Rogue - I don't know the race, presumably human
Male Half-Orc Fighter
Male Human Cleric - Kind of a Socrates type Philosopher, with lots of knowledge skills
Female Human Fighter

So, despite the fact that we're gonna be short on arcane spells (until I get up a few levels, anyway), we've got most of the bases covered.

Our current group that is retiring. My wife and the DM's wife aren't starting this new game, so we've lost two:
male gnome Ill3/Clr9 (me)
female human Rog6/Wiz5
male Half-elf Rgr11
male human Pal11
female human Ftr11
female human Mnk11
male human(?) Rog4/Sor7

Again, a little shy on the high-level Arcane magic, but a good mix of everything else, if a bit high on the "kick-butt" side of things.