Substandard parties

[Cutty Sark]

Just about any classes are OK, but have the players make their characters together so that they can support each other well and cover the other's weaknesses. For example, if one player makes an arcane caster, maybe the other should play a ranger with Move Silently, Hide and Search maxed out. If you don't throw tough traps at them, the ranger can be a tank and a scout and a rogue for the first few levels.

My best advice comes from a couple of real messy experiences:

Make sure they know in advance if they're going to be fighting something big. A small, low-level party that's unprepared for an encounter with a big monster, whether it be an Ogre, Grizzly Bear or Dire Anything is in really really big trouble.

 

[La Bete]

it doesnt really matter, but in a small party its best if they multiclass. You might want to use the 0-level multiclassing rules in the DMG.

I have 3 characters in the campaign I run:

fighter/illusionist (started at 0/0)
rogue/transmuter (ditto)
ranger (monte ranger toned down)

they survive fine. healing is a prob. due to a feat, one of the chars has the 0-level cure minor wounds for saving the bacon.

Like cutty sark says, be real careful about big fights - it doesnt take much for a situation to go from 'ok' to 'oh F!!' really quick.

that said, small parties can be a lot of fun.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

If your hirelings are higher level than you, they'll take your pay and then they'll take everything else. If you're a higher level than your hirelings then their much less likely to screw you over, 'cause they ain't strong enough to do it. I think that's the principle that the original poster was working from.

Why? Your the DM, you choose how the NPC's and monsters react to the PC's, you pick the traps, you design the adventure.

If you decide that to run what you want to run the pc's need higherlings there's nothing saying that there dishonorable bullies. Not everyone oppreses those weaker then them.

Ultimately as the DM it's your job to make things workable, and enjoyable. Chances are if you railroad the players thier not going to have fun and then won't play. On the other hand, if you work around the limitations of your group and tailor things to allow the players to be successful. then thet'll have fun, and chances are if thier enjoying the game you will too.

Forcing them to play the roles you feal appropriate, or saying they can't hire people to fill the gaps, just seems to be IMO, the wrong way to do things. Though i could be wrong.

 

[Agback]

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.

Okay, but suppose that you and the other play wanted to make things as easy as possible on the GM, that you wanted to leave him as free as possible to run whatever adventures he wanted. What two characters?

Regards,


Agback

 

[Mark]

Re: substandard party

I would let them start out at level 2 each and have both multiclass
1) rogur/mage
2) fighter/cleric

or...

1) rogur/sorcerer
2) fighter/cleric

Either of those is my take on what might make it easiest on both players and DM. The DM should gear the adventures to ELs of one or two levels lower than the party, as a starting point, and then be careful how you design things since you're likely to be used to designing for groups with more pairs of hands.

 

[Nifft]

If you decide that to run what you want to run the pc's need higherlings there's nothing saying that there dishonorable bullies. Not everyone oppreses those weaker then them.

That's true, though someone who isn't a dishonorable bully might not be available for hire. You'd have to work a little harder to make the NPCs plausible.

There are situations where I could see higher-level NPCs working with lower-level PCs, but they're basically "NPC hires PC" rather than the reverse.

I guess you could do some special cases: a repentant Paladin who needs a lesson in humiliation, or a party who needs a Rogue or Cleric to finish exploring some ruin.

-- Nifft

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Okay, but suppose that you and the other play wanted to make things as easy as possible on the GM, that you wanted to leave him as free as possible to run whatever adventures he wanted. What two characters?

Well, first off I'd say the DM's a lucky SOB to have players cool enough to try and make things easier for him to deal with.

If the players didn't mind starting at second level i'd recommend

one play a rogue multi classed with either sorcerer, they have more offense power and flexablity, or cleric, i think cleric lvls work quite well with rogue lvls.

And the other should go Fighter with one of the spellcasting classes.

If possible, i check with the DM and see if psion or Phychic warrior is a viable option as opposed to sorcerer. Both classes have good offensive powers and can heal themselves.

If it's first level play then i'd recommend a Fighter and a Bard, the bard has some healing and offensive magics as well as some of the talents of a rogue.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

That's true, though someone who isn't a dishonorable bully might not be available for hire. You'd have to work a little harder to make the NPCs plausible.

It's entirely pausible that no one is avialeble that fits the bill, but as the DM you can make it as simple as you find a honost person that needs money and is willing to work for you. Whats so implausable about that? You need a rogue to get around traps and locks in an old tomb, you don't have those skills, so you hire a guy that does. That doesn't mean he's automatically "More powerful" then the pc's, it simply means he's better at this particular task. Being better at something doesn't mean you should be "in charge". Honostly i think it comes down to whether the person you are highering is Lawful or Chaotic, not if he's higher level then you. I also don't think getting payed for a service by someone less experianced then you would be demeaning. To put it another way, if you are DM and the pc's need a suit of armor should they have problems dealing with an expert that is higher level then them?

 

[Nifft]

That doesn't mean he's automatically "More powerful" then the pc's, it simply means he's better at this particular task. Being better at something doesn't mean you should be "in charge". Honostly i think it comes down to whether the person you are highering is Lawful or Chaotic, not if he's higher level then you.

Given sane equipment on both sides, being higher level does mean you are more powerful -- and more experienced. Being more powerful might not grant leadership rights, but being more experienced ought to.

-- Nifft

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Given sane equipment on both sides, being higher level does mean you are more powerful -- and more experienced.

True enough, can't dissagree with that.

Being more powerful might not grant leadership rights, but being more experienced ought to.

Not nessarily, i think it depends on cercomestance. Being better at one thing doesn't nessasarily mean you are better at everything. Also in a situatiuon where it's an employer/employee problem unless the employee is Chaotic, or there's a very good reason ie life or death, he should be defuring to his employer. There's also the arguement that often times the most charismatic person becomes leader, whether they're more qualified or not.

You also need to look at Meta game vs in character, level differnaces are more meta then anything else. Depending on the style of game being played that may disqualify it as a problem when handling higherlings.