Party of Almost Purely Tanks

[Laslo Tremaine]

If you have a GM who has the time, energy and creativity to create a custom world and scenarios tailored for the party that the players create, then more power to you, and where can I sign up?!

In my group of older, married professionals (mostly IT guys in their early 40s, although we do have an electrical engineer and a sewer contractor), none of us have much free time outside of our one Saturday a month D&D game.

As the GM, who will be starting Age of Worms this upcoming Saturday, I don't have the time to modify the scenarios, nor write them from scratch. The players know this, and I gave them a heads up that the scenario would be pretty demanding, and that a well rounded party would be in their best interest.

They took this info, and discussed amoungst themselves, and came up with the following group lineup.

* Half-Orc Wizard
* Human Rogue
* Human Monk
* Dwarven Fighter
* Half-Elven Cleric
* Human Paladin

I love my players, and I think they're going to do just fine.

But the whole "The GM must kowtow to the player's desires" is going to lead the entire group down a path of hurt.

D&D is a group effort. And the needs and capabilites of the entire group have to be taken into consideration. It's not just a GM vs Players dichotomy, it's a group effort and if people don't take the time to communicate and get on the same page, then you just end up with a frustrated group.

 

[Dog Moon]

DM, I couldn't help you with a swordsage, but do tell: what are the new players characters now, adn what does the party look like with these changes? Did you die?

Also, what are the stats a swordsage needs to survive? Actually, if I knew that, maybe I could help you a bit...

cheers,
--N

Actually, the DM is using a a homeruled version of Raise Dead meaning that it only costs 500gp per level/HD to come back to life. Because of this, we managed to successfully raise both of the characters back to life, though it essentially costed us all the treasure we had managed to find.

And no, I didn't die, though I was at 4 of 10 hp.

And the Swordsage needs Dex [for Weapon Finesse and the feat that allows me to use Dex instead of Str for damage when in a certain stance] and Wis for AC [like a monk] and, of course, as everyone else, Con.

Do you have Tome of Battle, Ny?

 

[Nyaricus]

Actually, the DM is using a a homeruled version of Raise Dead meaning that it only costs 500gp per level/HD to come back to life. Because of this, we managed to successfully raise both of the characters back to life, though it essentially costed us all the treasure we had managed to find.

And no, I didn't die, though I was at 4 of 10 hp.

Ah, apollogies, I *knew* that, but forgot as I was posting that

And the Swordsage needs Dex [for Weapon Finesse and the feat that allows me to use Dex instead of Str for damage when in a certain stance] and Wis for AC [like a monk] and, of course, as everyone else, Con.

Dex and Wis, eh... sounds like rogue and/or cleric might be an idea for dipping, but that's an odd build. I'd say monk, but I don't think it's really going to bring anythign to the table for your characterm since I'm pretty sure the Wis bonus to AC doesn't stack...

I dunno what to say to that; I wish you the best luck with your group, but that sounds like a sticky situation man.

Do you have Tome of Battle, Ny?

Naw; it didn't really intrest me that much all-in-all to tell you the truth. I am still considering picking Magic of Incarnium and Weapons of Legacy in the future however (esp. WoL, since it sounds like somethin which might work for a lower-magic world).

In any case, good luck, like I said

 

[Aus_Snow]

Scouts don't get open lock as a class skill

Exactly!

Eh, don't get me started, actually. I really don't like Scouts. I'll leave it at that, on that issue.

But as I always say, there's the much more useful and cool Wilderness Scout class right here, as well as in Unearthed Arcana. I recommend it over the Scout, needless to say.

 

[jdrakeh]

In most situation a tank-heavy caster-light party can work just fine.

Seconded -- the key is that, in a low-magic party, players must actually think a bit harder before entering into combat, as it can be far more deadly. Traveling in a low-magic party drieves home the point that swordplay doesn't solve everything

 

[jdrakeh]

Agreed - by not running the AoW... or any other published adventures.

Actually, over the years, some single-class adventures have shown up in Dragon. Many of these can be adapted for use with low-magic parties (except for those designed for Cleric characters and other spellcasters, obviously).

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

The "normal, well-rounded party" is a myth propagated by people who tend to invest too much in stereotypes. The idea that the so-called "standard" party structure must include a cleric, mage, fighter and thief is baloney.

True. The standard party could consist of a barbarian, a druid, a sorcerer, and a bard instead. Or a fighter/rogue, a fighter/wizard/eldritch knight, a cleric, a paladin, and a ranger. But those are really very close to the same thing. The aspects of the standard party are:

1. The "fighter" a meatshield--someone who can stand in between the monsters and the weaker characters and take a few hits and at the same time dish out enough damage that simply ignoring him and taking AoOs is risky or foolish. This character will vary between the stereotypical but highly effective barbarian who does lots of damage to his foes quickly but relies upon hit points and healing for defense and the high armor class tank who does more moderate damage but requires less healing. Fighters, Rangers, barbarians, fighters, knights, paladins, clerics, druids, and a lot of multiclass mutts can fill this role, but if someone doesn't then the party will ahve difficulty with certain classes of encounters.

2. The "healer" is, well, a healer. This character can heal other party members. Clerics, druids, favored souls, and healers are well suited to this role, bards can pinch hit in this role if needed, and paladins are better than nothing); rangers and characters with use magic device and wands or scrolls of healing can perform the role adequately at low levels, but at higher levels, lacking this party role requires a different approach than the standard D&D campaign (and makes the stereotypical damage trading barbarian very difficult to play).

3. The "magic user" is part artillery, part utility. This character packs direct damage, buffing, and/or spells to control the pace of combat and give characters the flexibility to defeat their foes. Wizards, sorcerers, warmages, clerics, favored souls, and druids are very good in this role, bards can perform well in it, and multiclassed characters can sometimes pinch-hit here. Skilled archers also perform some elements of this role, delivering reliably high damage to any point on the battlefield they wish regardless of enemy mobility.

4. The "skilled" character. This character is responsible for meeting the challenges that are not easily solved with swords. Persuading NPCs, opening locks, finding and disarming traps, etc. Rogues, scouts, bards, and rangers can be good at a variety of such roles, but nearly every character class can perform some of these roles. Consequently, this is the easiest iconic role to do away with and still have a well balanced party. A little multiclassing can give nearly any party member the ability to perform a couple of these roles well and if the rest of the party picks up the other roles (or simply finds a way around them--bashing in doors instead of unlocking them, for instance and defending against traps with hit points and saves rather than search and disable device) a party can be as balanced with no individual character in this role as with the iconic rogue filling the roles.

A party does not need to have a fighter, a cleric, a rogue, and a wizard, but it does need to cover the roles that they cover to be balanced for the traditional variety of D&D encounters.

 

[Nyaricus]

A party does not need to have a fighter, a cleric, a rogue, and a wizard, but it does need to cover the roles that they cover to be balanced for the traditional variety of D&D encounters.

QFT Elder-Basilisk; that and the rest of your post said exactly what I was thinking.

cheers,
--N

 

[Arnwyn]

The "normal, well-rounded party" is a myth propagated by people who tend to invest too much in stereotypes. The idea that the so-called "standard" party structure must include a cleric, mage, fighter and thief is baloney.

"Propagated" by certain people, huh? Heh. Well, whew! Then thank goodness I didn't specifically refer to "cleric, mage, fighter, and thief". I do agree with you - and Elder-Basilisk's post covers my point more than adequately.

Actually, over the years, some single-class adventures have shown up in Dragon. Many of these can be adapted for use with low-magic parties (except for those designed for Cleric characters and other spellcasters, obviously).

"Some"? In Dragon? Heavens, that certainly doesn't sound like much. (Because it's not.) Surely you didn't think I was talking about 100% of adventures, throughout all editions, ever published in the history of the world, did you? I'm not one for extremes. In any case, my point still stands.

 

[Warbringer]

They took this info, and discussed amoungst themselves, and came up with the following group lineup.

* Half-Orc Wizard
* Human Rogue
* Human Monk
* Dwarven Fighter
* Half-Elven Cleric
* Human Paladin

.

Brainless fools falling for all that 'balanced-party' propaganda...