Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 97336" data-attributes="member: 2205">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.&nbsp; 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.Sounds like that was an inappropriate monster to send against that party then.&nbsp; Again, the DMs fault, not the players.It's a tough call.&nbsp; Who gets to keep their concept, and who has to change to match the &quot;ideal party?&quot;&nbsp; Is it first come first serve?&nbsp; I prefer not to mess with it at all.&nbsp; It's not hard as a DM to structure a campaign around the party instead of trying to create a &quot;jack-of-all-trades&quot; party.&nbsp; Ideally, a given campaign world would have adventuring parties with different areas of expertise.&nbsp; The PC party should look for a niche that they can fill and then try to be the best at it.&nbsp; 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.YMMV.&nbsp; This presupposes a very old-fashioned, classical and traditional game of D&amp;D.&nbsp; If your players don't create a very old-fashioned, classical and traditional party of D&amp;D-style adventurers, you shouldn't be running that kind of game for them.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Why is it that almost everyone wants to take a few levels of it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 97336, member: 2205"] [i][/i] I think the best strategy, which we typically [i]don't[/i] 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. [i][/i] Sounds like that was an inappropriate monster to send against that party then. Again, the DMs fault, not the players. [i][/i] 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. [i][/i] 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 [i]really[/i] interesting or [i]really[/i] powerful. Why is it that almost everyone wants to take a few levels of it? [/QUOTE]

Verification