Party of Three

KingCrab

First Post
I'm recently starting a new 3.5ed gaming group with three players and me as the DM. I know there are some things that will be skewed that I need to watch out for.

1) Abilities that incapacitate party members. If an enemy casts sleep on a party of 6 2nd level characters you still have two thirds of the party. If the same spell is cast on a group of three, there is only one player left to act.

2) Advancement. If the players survive in a long term module like Red Hand of Doom they should be significantly higher in level since the experience is only divided three ways. Of course, they perhaps need to be higher level to survive since the group is smaller.

Are there any other problems that a 3.5 DM needs to watch out for while DMming a small group?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For smaller parties I would suggest to the players to take classes/feats/options that include animal companions, familiars, special mounts, etc. and options that beef those up. You might grant each character a bonus feat if they take you up on your suggestion to take classes with these kinds of class features. You might make the classes that get mounts (like paladin), receive the basic mount at earlier levels.

NPC's, mercenaries, cloistered cleric, etc. of limited effectiveness or limited scope of ability can enhance the party. For instance, the tag-a-long cleric/healer might simply be a camp caretaker, and not actually assist in the major explorations. In this kind of party dynamic, Leadership Feat might be quite helpful.

As to the experience problem, I would give out experience points arbitrarily so that I could manage the character levels appropriate to the encounters, rather than constantly adjusting the encounters to fit the party... just easier workload. I would tell the players about this, lest they might feel cheated otherwise.

all simple suggestions to assist... take any or all, or leave them. Good Luck
 

In standard adventures?

1. Hit point loss. With only three bodies, the players are going to be suffering the same amount of damage in most cases but it's now going to only three characters.

2. Diversity: Probably not a good idea to move TOO far away from one of the core four classes in that the further you move, the greater the trade offs may be overall.

3. Resources: When the mage/sorcerer/cleric is the only spellcaster, their spells go much quicker.
 

One recommendation would be to have all of the players make gesault characters... with only three, this would definately give them an edge that they wouldn't otherwise have.
We had to do it with the last group I was a part of, and it worked out pretty OK.
 

1. Beware of support characters. With three PCs, it is likely that every PC will have to step up into the starring role frequently. If even one out of three PCs does not have a way that he can win the battle, then, when the chips are down and that PC needs to come through, the party will probably lose.

There is another way that purely support characters will harm the party: What do they do when the party does not need support? A cleric with no combat ability can cast bless, but when he doesn't have a bless spell or doesn't want to waste one and no-one needs healing, he doesn't have anything useful to do. A more traditional cleric, on the other hand, can at least make himself useful by beating things with his mace. Now, the long term effect of the pure support character is that, since the party only has 2/3 of the effective offensive actions that another party might have, it will take them longer to defeat even trivial foes. Therefore, the enemies will survive to get more actions than they might otherwise get and will inflict more damage on the party.

Note that bards, clerics, and even marshals are not necessarily pure support characters though they are often created to fill that role. Even a single class bard who focuses his abilities in that direction can be a competent melee combatant in his own right, if a little squishy. The buff and bash cleric is a pretty standard archetype. And Marshal mutliclasses very nicely with any of the fighting classes.

2. Consider Leadership. Three characters and a cohort (or three) are much more effective than three characters by themselves with one more feat each.

3. Re-consider the role of NPCs. I'm not talking about DMPCs here, but the NPCs that the PCs meet in the course of their adventures. Maybe the sister of the dead elf they find swears an oath of vengeance against his killers and accompanies the party until she cuts the still beating heart out of the body of the goblin leader. After that, her oath is fulfilled and she returns to her people. Adventuring isn't her profession, she was in it for blood not money. Or perhaps there is a Ruby Knight in the temple of Wee Jas when the PCs come to inform them of an undead threat under the mines.... and he offers to accompany the PCs to deal with this threat. Of course, all NPCs won't be trustworthy and most of the time, their agendas will intersect with the PCs' agendas rather than run parallel to them. Done properly, this could have the effect of involving the PCs more deeply in a living world rather than having a group of PCs stand separate from the world.

4. For the players, be able to fill multiple roles. A multiclass fighter/wizard (done correctly) does not exactly fill either role (rather, he has a role of his own) but he does bring a lot of capabilities to the party that the straight-up fighter would not. Likewise, a Shadowbane Stalker isn't quite as good at clericing as a single-class cleric, but is good enough to get by and can bring a lot of a rogue's trap and stealth abilities to the table too.

5. For the DM: consider a more generous stat generation method. If your standard is 28 point buy, maybe 32 point buy will give the PCs a little extra edge. If you do 4d6x6, drop the lowest, maybe adding a wildcard roll will give the PCs the extra edge they need.
 

Our first 3e campaign was that way, and we had several other campaigns with only 3 players, as well as many sessions where only 3 players were present.

Isn't that much of a difference. Give them a bit more power at first to make up for it, like a better rolling scheme/ higher point buy value you'd otherwise use, and it will be okay.

As always, you'll have to do some tailoring to make the adventure fit your party, but this time, you might do it some more, since they just can't fill the 4 traditional roles without filling some of them only part-time.

Other than that, go a bit easier on the encounters. Have less monsters show up to the fights - in games such as this, the option to use several weaker enemies instead of few stronger ones might work better, since it's easier to compensate for the smaller party.
 

You can really increase survivability if a cleric is in the mix. Consider an NPC cleric if no one really wants to play a fighting/healing cleric.
 

Or just give them all a free level of cleric, then everyone can use cure wands.

Edit: Parties of three have tended to be the number of players I can get into any one game at any given time. If you are running combat heavy adventures, then yes, you do need to either: a) make some encounters easier or b) slow pacing to allow the PC's to recover somewhat more frequently (spells, hit points, etc...)

Since I write most of my own materials, I try to include something for everyone to do. There are fewer intricate traps if there is no rogue, or fewer combat encounters if there are no fighters.
 

Upping the power of the party (gestalt, free levels, whatever) or down-sizing their encounters is a given, and in my experience the game *does* play differently because of lack of versatility... at least if you don't use gestalt chars, but then I've never DM'd 'em, so I wouldn't know. :)

Still entirely doable... I've run two campaigns with three PC's. In both cases we had a Druid.
 

I gave all PCs:

  1. 32 point buy
  2. An extra skill point per level
  3. An extra feat at 1st level and again at 5th and 15th (humans got another at 10th to give them that "human" edge),
  4. An extra ability called Skill Experience, basically it was +1 spot/search/listen every 4 levels (4th/8th/12th/16th/20th) to represent their experience.
  5. A free skill, called a hobby skill. It was a Knowledge/Craft/Profession skill that was always maxed out in ranks at no cost. One caveat was that it couldn't be a class skill or a prestige class prerequisite. It had to be arbitrarily adjudicated, since it could be abused, but was designed to give flavor, as well as allow for some fun RP.
  6. Utilized Action Points from UA

This seemed to make things balance out. Either that, or you can run a DMPC, as long as it's not a scene stealer type.
 

Remove ads

Top