Substandard parties

[Umbran]

I got to go with the majority here, it shouldn't be up to the players to emulate a well rounded four persons party. It's up tp the DM to provide an adventure suitable to what ever they end up making.

I'll pipe up in agreement with this. It's simply impossible for two PCs to mimic the abilities of 4 PCs of the same level and wealth. DOn't ask them to try. Let them make what they want, and design your adventures to tell a story with who they want to be, rather than try to make these two fit into stories suited for a group they cannot be.

 

[Endur]

any classes will do

The two PCs should pick whatever classes they want.

The GM should modify the adventure to fit the PCs, as much as possible.

In the past, I often offered large numbers of NPCs to balance out PC parties that lacked one or more character classes.

Over time, I came to realize that was a bad plan. Imagine this scenario: big combat, both PCs are knocked unconscious, all of a sudden the GM is running a combat between the monsters and NPCs. Where is the fun in that?

Nowadays, the PCs get to run their characters and I try to avoid giving them any hirelings that will go into "harm's way".

Tom

 

[Sanackranib]

weak party

I disagree with the statement that it "is impossible for 2 players to mimic the abilities of 4" As a player I do it all the time. It depends on how expirenced your players are, what classes they play, what skilss and feats they take. It also depends on either the DM adjusting the encounters so they are not all dealdy or a little luck.

As far as the NPC's go . . . I would not have the party hire higher level NPC's, it would be more likly that the higher level NPC's hire the PC's to round out their party. and since no PC likes to be in a secondary roll it's just better for the PC's to hire out NPC's of their level or lower. Then it's up to the DM as to weither the NPC's try to screw the party or not.

 

[Rel]

I have some recent experiences that I think are relevent to this issue. MINOR SPOILERS for SUNLESS CITIDEL to follow.













I'm running a solo campaign for my wife who is playing a Wizard. I decided to run her through the first couple of Adventure Path modules which (I assume) are designed to be played by the "Iconic Party" of 4 characters. So far we have made it almost all the way through Sunless Citidel with no real problems. What I did was this:

To start off, I ran a solo adventure that consisted of her master putting her through the paces before she graduated from apprenticeship. She had to deal with a variety of tricks and traps and adversaries using only her magic and meager fighting abilities. She got some XP and even better, actual "experience" in the form of learning her limitations and that she might need to consider creative alternatives to combat as well as just plain running if things go badly. He also shared with the character the formula for making Healing Salves (from Tome and Blood) since the character was great at alchemy (and had a background including being somewhat of a snake-oil salesman).

Then she traveled on to Oakhurst (the town from Sunless Citidel) where she met an NPC I created: Kol, the half-orc gardner and cook for the missing Sharwyn Hecrule. Kol signed on to adventure with my wife's wizard so long as their goal was to rescue Sharwyn. They proceeded to have a brief adventure by way of clearing some critters out of Sharwyn's abandoned manor house. From there they went to the Citidel.

By then Kol had become an Expert 1/Fighter 1 and was serving as the "front liner". Soon, they met Meepo and brought him into the party. I made him a Rogue 1. After dealing with some of the Goblins, they managed to rescue Erky Timbers, the Gnome Fighter/Cleric.

So now I have slowly created the "Iconic Party" by using NPC's. It didn't seem forced and all of them have good reason to be adventuring with the Wizard. But after Sunless Citidel, some of them might leave the party and that will be fine. My wife understands that I'm not going to necessarily coddle her and that she needs to understand the weaknesses in the party and do what she can to compensate for them or avoid situations where they are likely to be featured.

One way she has done this is to take plenty of time to brew up more Healing Salves and other alchemical concoctions that might give her an edge.

 

[StalkingBlue]

Agback, are you asking from the GM's or from the players' point of view?

If as a GM, it's up to you to adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of the PCs the players decide to make.

If as players, talk to your GM and see whether he's to adapt his adventures (as he should) or whether he actually wants you to emulate an "iconic" party. Get his view and work from there.
Also, see that campaign styles can differ wildly. If you are going to deal with masses of undead, a cleric will be tons more useful than a rogue, for example. If social skills are going to be important, you may want to choose a bard over a cleric, and so on.



I ran a campaign with three players for a couple of years. They played whatever they liked, resulting in the following party makeup:

First party:
Dwarf fighter
Half-elf paladin of Pelor
Elf sorceror/cleric (Corellon)

Second party:
Human fighter
Elf bard
Halfling rogue (with no ranks in either search or disable device, so he was completely useless in dealing with traps)

You bet that I adapted. And we had worlds of fun. (We still do, only the group has grown to six players so my kid gloves are finally coming off.)

 

[takyris]

I think that just to tweak the noses of everyone who says they're underpowered, you ought to play with two single-classed characters: A PHB Ranger and a PHB Bard.

They can both sneak. Cure spells are on both spell lists, so a few wands will take care of a lot of their problems. For bigger stuff, like needing restorations, a few scrolls and some ranks in Use Magic Device will take care of things. Combat-wise, you've got a pair of people who aren't melee monsters, but if you built them with mobility feats or archery in mind, you could have a pair of fast, sneaky killers.

-Tacky

 

[Seule]

I think that any party of 2 needs to look at the advantages of having a small party and maximize them: Stealth is much easier, among other things. A Bard and a Ranger, 2 Rogues, a Monk and a Rogue, a Cleric (with War domain) and a Sorcerer... it all depends on what you want the party to be good at. With 2 members, you won't cover all the holes in the party, so concentrate on being very good at something, whether that be spells, fighting, or stealth. That way you have to pick your ground, but on your own terms you can still be very successful.
Of course, if you are outmaneuvered into your weakness you are in trouble, but that's always the case.

--Seule

 

[Storminator]

I have a PBeM which started with 2 PCs. Both rogues. At third level one took a level of barbarian (which in my game is really just a fast berserker), and the other a level of sorcerer. This added a bit of combat prowess and magic to the massive skill selection and sneak attack power. Both will likely go back to rogue for the huge pile of benes rogues get at 3rd level (BAB, all saves, more sneak attack, uncanny dodge, and of course piles o' skills).

So far it's going quite well.

PS

 

[drothgery]

Of course, a cheesy way to give PCs loyal hirelings that are higher level than they are is to resort to that old standby of feudalism. Make one PC a noble. The tagalong owes allegiance to the PC (or more likely one of his/her parents).

 

[Agback]

Agback, are you asking from the GM's or from the players' point of view?

Players' point of view. And taking into account that although we are all equally experienced with 3E, the character-players are both vastly more experienced players than the GM, and have both been GMing since before the dawn of time, while the only thing the GM has run before is a bit of RuneQuest.

Regards,


Agback