Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 5862499" data-attributes="member: 40177">In your case, splitting the party is fine - just be aware that even if you adjust the CRs of your encounters, your smaller groups will be less useful, simply because there are fewer allies on the scene.  For example, wizards do better in large groups because there is a better front line to keep the monsters away, rogues do better with more chances to flank, etc.  You'll probably also see your cleric step up a bit more, since he can presumably use more spell slots to defeat enemies as opposed to heal allies.If you were in a group where you had four players and split into two groups, there is an easy way to split the group that I like to use - either you use "rapid shifts", wherein you spend no more than five minutes at a time with one specific group and let players from the "inactive" group control NPCs or take over minor GM functions, or you allow for "PC NPCs" to fill out the group.In the second instance, I'd let your two inactive players create NPCs.  My view is the NPCs have to either be of a level equal to the PCs in an NPC class, or one level lower than the lowest level active PC in a PC class.  And the  general rule is that these NPCs have to be of a common race, and can't be super-noteworthy.  It lets your active PCs have a chance to shine, while keeping the inactive Players still in the game.  Also, tell the "inactive" players that they receive the same XP as the active players, with a +10% bonus if their NPCs survive (or, a +25% bonus if they achieve some goal that is against the interest of the rest of the party, if you like doing that sort of thing!).</blockquote>

Verification