well i am already a druid and im doing kinda alright but i realize that my flaws are really shining through in the last couple of sessions so i expect death son. do you think multi-classing as a ranger would be alright?
No. All druid levels will be much better than a druid/ranger mix.
As a druid, I think it's usually best to find a niche and concentrate on that. Are you a summoner? Are you a buffer? Are you a melee druid? Shine at one area, be very good at another, and you should be very effective in any adventure.
Also, Haste is your friend. A wizard who can cast that helps a lot during combat. We have two wood elves in our party, both with a speed of 60'--add in the 30' from haste, and we do some crazy cinematic jumping from time to time.
Don't forget to role play and have fun. There is a lot of combat in RHoD (so far; we've only done the "first" secton, as Living Greyhawk breaks it up, but we're having a blast), but there's also a story. The few bits and pieces we've learned so far have added a lot to our fun. Only 13 days until our next session--I can hardly wait!
My group is Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock. The Rogue is more of a flanking machine than anything else, and puts a serious hurtin' on creatures that wade into combat with the fighter (tank). The ranger and warlock hang back and rain arrows and blasts. A cleric could replace the warlock, but the warlock will come in handy later since he never runs out of spells. It all depends on if your DM will allow you to load up on healing potions or not.
It's a fun module. Remember, running away to fight another day is always an option.
I know that historically the consensus around here is that bards are sub-par performers, however I was interested in whether or not people think that a bard would be a viable option for the "skill-user" role in the party for Red Hand. It seems like there is plenty of opportunity for diplomacy in this campaign, and of course the bard still has a respectable skill allotment. What do folks think, would this be a decent idea?
FYI, the party in question is only 4 PCs, and the other three class roles will be represented.
I started out with a Warmage in the group I ran through it. He was VERY effective and the player could have used him even more effectively. He took care of some encounters all by himself, but he also could have actually taken care of other encounters if he hadn't already blown through his spells and "Sudden" feats. He did manage to get separated and taken out though...
Speaking of which, the origional Cleric was taken out by a random encounter (the random encounters can be VERY deadly as well) and the party managed to survive on scavenged potions and a "Cleric on a stick" (healing wand) for a long time (until a new player joined the group). So while it's counter-intuitive, a Cleric isn't a necessity if you're willing (and able, depending on how stingy your DM is with wands) to spend resources on consumables.
It's tough, but it doesn't have to be deadly (and I'm saying this as a DM who took out 4 PCs, plus another 5 in the TPK, and had a few PCs saved at -9 during the adventure).
Don't be afraid to retreat. Do you hear an echo? There's a reason for that.
Davelozzi said:
I know that historically the consensus around here is that bards are sub-par performers, however I was interested in whether or not people think that a bard would be a viable option for the "skill-user" role in the party for Red Hand. It seems like there is plenty of opportunity for diplomacy in this campaign, and of course the bard still has a respectable skill allotment. What do folks think, would this be a decent idea?
That's a tough call. A lot would depend on the other characters in the party, since the Bard can't cover all the Rogues bases. It could be done though and there are definitely chances for a Bard to shine.
Minor spoiler/metagame info (it won't ruin the adventure for you, but it may be more than you want to know):
There is a Bard that the adventure actually says will join the party as a cohort if someone has Leadership, so you would be able to cover the Bard role that way instead of dedicating one of the 4 PC spots to it.
Actually, I'm the DM, and am just trying to help my players with their PC selection. I actually have read the adventure, I just couldn't remember how necessary a normal rogue was and was hoping those that have played it might have opinions. For some reason my mind tends to gloss over traps and the like as I read, I've generally never really made them that prominent in my games.
Actually, I'm the DM, and am just trying to help my players with their PC selection. I actually have read the adventure, I just couldn't remember how necessary a normal rogue was and was hoping those that have played it might have opinions. For some reason my mind tends to gloss over traps and the like as I read, I've generally never really made them that prominent in my games.
Since there really aren't any sprawling dungeons (although there are some traps/secret doors)the need for a full time Rogue isn't necessary. Most of the adventure takes place outdoors, so a Ranger is a good fit. A Bard would be great for the social interactions in the game though. In mine the Warlock takes that role with his invocations and copious amounts of social skills. Just make sure that if you have a Bard you also have another dedicated spellcaster, otherwise the Bard will have too many holes to fill.
In a party of 5 or more, a bard or marshal is very very handy. I introduced a group of 3rd level NPCs in the first part, led by a marshal, as help at the bridge and potential leadership bait (the ranger took the druid that was part of that team). I had the marshal keep showing up.
My over-powerful PCs (32-points, well designed, all WoTC books, one bonus feat) really walked over most of the RHoD. One PC death in the first major fight. Nothing after that and only close once.
Actually, I'm the DM, and am just trying to help my players with their PC selection. I actually have read the adventure, I just couldn't remember how necessary a normal rogue was and was hoping those that have played it might have opinions. For some reason my mind tends to gloss over traps and the like as I read, I've generally never really made them that prominent in my games.
I recently played RHoD with a rogue character. To start with, he was just a trap-finder and lock-picker. During the adventure, I added a couple of fighter levels and took all archery-related feats so I could serve as an archer and actually do something during combat.
There are only about 3-4 places in the entire adventure where someone is needed to find and disable traps. So if your party has a rogue, he needs to be able to do something else. As already said, a scout might be a better option, or a scout/ranger with archery feats.
