Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="haakon1" data-source="post: 2499597" data-attributes="member: 25619">Nod, well, that's the ideal, IMHO, but there's different ways to get to the same goals of party balance and strength.  Check out these different parties.  So far, 1 and 2 seem most effective, 4 the least.  Partially, the survival factor is also down to players playing to their strength -- the wizard guy is usually more effective if you let him play what he wants instead of telling him to shake it up.The different games I'm in or DM (some of which we haven't played for years) have:Party 1: - paladin- fighter/cleric (half-orc)- fighter- bardStrength: hand-to-hand combat, good low-level healingWeakness: the bard has to do the thieving and the maging, weak high level healing.  Party 2- ranger/thief- fighter- fighter/wizard (elf)- monk- cleric- wizard (elf)- wizard/sorcerer- druid (half-elf)Strength: hand-to-hand and missile combat, mage blastingWeakness: slow at healing (the cleric to wounded ratio is off), ranger/thief is not great with trapsParty 3- ranger (elf)- fighter (elf)- wizard - ranger/sorcerer (elf)- cleric (dwarf)Strength: missile combatWeakness: the dwarf clerics stonecunning is all we've got for trap findingParty 4 (victims of a recent TPK, and often on the verge)- barbarian (half-orc)- cleric- wizard - thief (gnome)- bard (half-elf)Strength: fast for running away!Weakness: nobody but the barbarian could kill much</blockquote>