Tips for a party without a fighter

[Empirate]

The 'classic' party setup could also be described as 'antique'. I.e., nice to look at, but not really the most competent at the job. I believe any party consisting of full casters only (mix and match, Druid, Cleric, Archivist, Wizard, Artificer, Sorcerer, Psion, what-have-you) will be more than able to stay alive and get any kind of job done.

There are no core roles that absolutely need to be filled in D&D 3.5. A party consisting of a Bard, two Druids, and a Dragon Shaman will probably be just fine, as will a party consisting of a Wizard, a Dread Necromancer, a Swordsage, and a Rogue. All these parties will be able to overcome most challenges - some will require a little bit of trickery or lateral thinking, while others will seem very straightforward. All your party composition does is changing which ones will be the tricky ones.

Of course, this idea is dependent on the players having a solid understanding of what their PCs' classes can do, and how to use it in a given situation. Again, lateral thinking comes into this a lot.

For example:
Fighter: 'I can kill a monster in a round!'
Cleric: 'I can kill a monster as a standard action!'
Wizard: 'I can kill a monster as an immediate action!'
Bard: 'I can get three guys to kill monsters for me...'

[shamelessly ripped this off someone's sig]

 

[Nifft]

Yes, the party is starting at level 1.

Alright. At 1st level, you're not going to be playing a Wizard. You're playing an apprentice with a crossbow. You one combat spell (burning hands or color spray if you like being up in melee, grease if you prefer to survive) and a Batman spell (like silent image or mount).

The Cleric is not going to self-buff. He's going to cast bless ONCE per day and keep his other spell-slot for healing himself or someone else, and maybe he won't even get to cast bless. If he takes the War domain and puts a 14 (or better) in Str, he's going to be just fine wearing as much armor as he can afford and standing on the front line.

Riding Dog is an excellent choice for the Druid, who should get himself a big wooden shield, a scimitar, and a sling. At 1st level, his best spells are entangle and cure light wounds. Barding on the animal companion is a good idea, but might be too expensive for 1st level.

The Rogue probably wants to stay out of melee until he has Weapon Finesse, which unfortunately he can't have until 3rd level. So he's going to be using a shortbow until then. Oddly enough, he can qualify for Two Weapon Fighting right away, so he should take that at 1st level so that he's ready to kill at 3rd level. Even starting with a mere 15 Dexterity, he can qualify for all the Two-Weapon Fighting feats if he keeps putting his level bonus in Dexterity. He wants all of those, Weapon Finesse, and maybe Weapon Focus.

- - -

So, at 1st level, your front-line is: Cleric + Animal Companion
Your mid-line is: Druid + Rogue
Your ohgodnotintheface line is: Wizard

Cheers, -- N

 

[Alexander123]

Thanks guys, your posts are of great help. I'd xp you Nifft, but it says I have to spread.

 

[pawsplay]

In 3.5, the fighter is a "fifth man" class like the bard, not a solid requirement. Tanking roles can usually be distributed among melee characters (fighters, barbarians, paladins, some rangers), animal companions, and summons. In a full party, a fighter is often (and probably ideally) a tactical specialist, supporting the rogue and the critters through a balance of offense, defense, and battlefield control.

Ironically enough, at 1st level, a wizard can be a fair "tank" with mage armor and shield. But, uh, don't try that if you're fighting orcs.

If you have no fighter, whoever leads your front line should probably consider taking Combat Reflexes.

 

[Jhaelen]

There are no core roles that absolutely need to be filled in D&D 3.5.

Mhm, I'm not so sure about that. I think two roles that really must be covered (atr least at higher levels) are the blaster/spellcaster and the healer/cleric.

Without the former, you have no way to get rid of large numbers of 'minions' fast so you cannot concentrate on the 'really' dangerous leader-type monsters.

Without the latter you have no way to deal with party members dying a sudden death - and that's something that will come up regularly at ~ level 13.

Fighters you can do without. Rogues are easily replaced by 'utility' casters.

 

[Empirate]

I beg to differ on both points.

Minions you do not have to get rid of much of the time. At very low levels, there is no such thing as a minion - every enemy is dangerous in their own right. At mid to high levels, you can usually get to the boss more or less easily, as you will have more forms of movement available to you. Also, often you don't have to 'get to' somebody (as in, get in melee range), since you can shut them down for a round or more by employing one of the many means of battlefield control.

Yes, a primary spellcaster who can do AoE stuff is very important in many encounters, especially if it is not readily apparent which enemy will be the greatest threat. Sometimes, you fight a bunch of similarly and reasonably powerful opponents. In such cases, area effects are your friends.
But: damage is absolutely not the required and only possible kind of AoE in these situations. In fact, a well-placed Web or Solid Fog or Entangle can just make your day. The only reason for lobbing a Fireball instead would be if you knew for sure that, even if they make their save, they'll still be dead, coz that's how few HP they have.

Party members dying a sudden death will be a problem at all levels really. In-combat healing doesn't mitigate this fact. Sure, if your chum only has a few HP left and the big bad monster gets ready for another full attack, you'd like to heal him before that happens. But you could also take out the big bad monster instead, or whisk your ally to safety with Regroup or plain old Invisibility, or grapple/trip/bullrush/Grease the big bad monster. Also, facing a big bad monster's full attack, a Cure Moderate Wounds won't cut it.

Basically, as long as there's no Heal online (which it actually wasn't in most of the campaigns I've played in or DMed), in-combat healing is really not that useful a way to go spending your actions. Out of combat, a Rogue UMDing a Wand of CLW is a good healbot, or a Dragon Shaman with the right aura, or tons of other stuff really. Sure, a Cleric can do nifty healy stuff with Close Wounds, and Revivify if all else fails. But you do not absolutely need a Cleric to be successful!

So sure, Clerics are Awesome, but not necessarily for their healing abilities. The same goes for Druids, only even more so, as they're worse healers and overall even more flexible.

 

[Jhaelen]

Sure, a Cleric can do nifty healy stuff with Close Wounds, and Revivify if all else fails. But you do not absolutely need a Cleric to be successful!

Well, we have to disagree then, because that's precisely the spells that have shown to be decisive in (almost) every meaningful encounter. It's true, that regroup et.al. can serve a similar purpose, but if the wizard has to use it, it's one action less to actually deal with the threat.

In fact that's the main recipe for success for opponents: Try to keep the pcs from dealing damage by forcing them to use their actions for their defense. In most combats the pc spellcasters don't even get to cast their area-effect spells until late in the encounter, because they have to deal with other things first.

And of course, I'm not just talking about AE-damage spells, here, e.g. Evards Black Tentacles is also a potent AE spell.

My group also has a druid player but he's less important to the party's success than either the cleric or the psion, or wizard. He's actually also less important than the party's fighter, but I realize that is something that is specific to my game and not something that will commonly be the case.