what do you do with high strength base attack bonuses?

[IndyPendant]

Well, I didn't mean to imply that a party needs a tank, if that's what came across. It certainly helps, but it's not necessary. However, if you don't have a tank in the party, or above-average healing abilities to compensate--don't act as if you do. From the scenario given, that's precisely what this party tried to do: go toe-to-toe with a massive damage dealer.

I stand by my statement that the party presented is a total mess, too; it looks like everyone played the 'wouldn't-it-be-cool-if' char they wanted to try (except probably for the Sorceror), without any thought given to the other player's chars or party balance and diversity. The result? One offense-melee-oriented char that can't take damage (the rogue/ranger/fighter); another char that quite simply sucks in terms of mechanics--but is probably loads of fun to play (the paladin/monk); a combination cleric/elemental adept--so that he can neither heal nor nuke well; and the sorceror, most likely played as a nuking battlemage with 1 or 2 defensive spells and 1 or 2 buff/debuff spells.

Now, there's nothing wrong with creating a party like this; if the players are having fun, good for them! However. If they then fail to use tactics, trying to take on powerful enemies in a I-attack-you-attack format, and then whine that the rules are unfair....

Tough. They chose their chars; live (or die) with that choice. Don't snivel that the rules are unfair; learn to run away.

But then again, I have been accused of being a very harsh-but-fair GM myself--a description I happyily accept...

 

[johncolossus]

Thanks guys....
So can i presume then most people that replied are DMs? It is interesting that no-one has changed it and i will certainly take on board what the opinion has generally said. I agree that if there was a definite "tank" in the party then we would not have had the question.
However, I have to speak in some defense against Indypendants description of them as a mess......I did not give levels which will probably change things around slightly, but most of the decisions are roleplay based on what they wanted their character's to be, so are not (well not entirely min/max their characters).....so if anyone (esp. IP) is interested here are the splits.....

Risen Demon (ECL1) Paladin 1/Monk 5
.....the paladin choice is a roleplay choice, fitting in with the infernal turned good background (and unknown to them, fitting in with the storyline of RttTOE!). He is really the main hand to hand combatant and can do fairly good damage if includes Iron Fist feat. Problem is that if he cannot handle dire bears hand to hand the way he sees it, is that he is useless because he has not diversified. Perhaps this encounter will change his mind......

Halfing Rogue 5/ Fighter1/Ranger1
.......He plays more like a rogue with sneaking around as you would expect but fancies himself as a dagger expert and wants to be legendary with knives (oooo....I wonder is there a FFG product with this class in I wonder). The guy who plays him roleplays well his character and does not often go into hand to hand combat. Bounces around alot as he has fairly good tumble skill.....

Elven Sorceror 7
.......Fairly on the mark Indypendant....this is the Monte version of the sorceror......

Human Cleric 6/Elemental Adept 1
........He has not weakened any healing abilities because he still has the same spells as a Cleric 7. He is weaker on turning but with a charisma 10 this was not always his best ability.

So hopefully you can see they are an interesting group albeit not totally fitting the stereotypes. Therefore, I feel the term mess is slightly harsh.....

Cheers anyway.....I am sure the strength debate will not end yet with my group. I suppose in the end the game is meant to be fun for both DM and players and the players are meant to be the heroes (unless they act really stupid). Therefore, if aspects cause consternation and causes problems then compromise (ie house rules) are the way forward.

JC

 

[Spatzimaus]

Yeah, it's not fair to think of them as a mess, but the point was, this is a group that's not optimized for raw physical combat. They're pretty much the stereotypical group type (except substituting a second Rogue-type for the Fighter). It's hard to tell from your first post, but I think the problem may have been the confusion between Challenge Rating and Encounter Level; a Dire Bear may be CR 7, but the EL could be lower or higher depending on circumstances, and "party composition" counts as a circumstance.

You have a party of 4 ECL 7 characters, fighting a CR 7 beast. That falls into the "You should win, but it should use up some resources and have a few risks" category. Against most enemies this might not be so bad, but the Dire Bear happens to match the group's single biggest weak point: raw physical combat. They don't have any high-HP fighter types who can protect the more vulnerable members and provide valuable flanking for the Rogue. That, right there, would probably be enough to bump the encounter up to EL 8, which leads to the situation you saw where they won but had a serious chance of losing a player.

You have to adjust these sorts of things a bit, up OR down. A spellcaster enemy, would be relatively weak against them, because that's what Rogues and Monks do best, so you could end up with ELs below the CRs that way too.

Anyway, the group should definitely look into acquiring some muscle. The Sorcerer or Cleric might want to start using Summon Monster-type spells. The Sorcerer could take Leadership and ask for a Fighter cohort. The Rogue could go Shadowdancer and get some shadow buddies.

 

[IndyPendant]

So hopefully you can see they are an interesting group albeit not totally fitting the stereotypes. Therefore, I feel the term mess is slightly harsh.....

Ha! Ok, I'll retract calling them a mess. I must admit, I was thinking 'true' multiclass when I read your description (3/4 in each class for example); in each case you've described, they only have one level in their 'secondary' classes, something I call a 'splash' (thought that is a MtG term and likely not used by anywhere near the majority of roleplayers).

However, while I'll retract some of the intensity of my previous posts--I do believe the general theme still applies: they have no tanks, so they shouldn't be playing like they do. Perhaps as suggested, give them an NPC Fighter? They're easy to play--and can be interesting if you want an NPC with personality, or boring in a 'Hulk-Smash!' sort of way if you don't.

(One thing I do standard with my games is play a single NPC party member. This char is designed to fill in any needed 'holes' the party may need; in your case, I would of course play a Fighter. If there's no Divine spellcaster, I'll likely play a Cleric. Etc etc. There's only two 'types' of classes I won't play: arcane casters and lockpick/trap rogues. Arcane casters because playing them properly is all about picking just the right time to cast their limited selection of incredibly powerful spells--and as the GM I almost always know when that 'best time' is, making it immensely difficult to keep from 'stealing the glory' so to speak--something you should rarely if ever do as a GM. Lockpick/trap rogues for similar, but more concrete reasons: as the GM, I always know where the locks and traps are, so it becomes almost impossible to properly play out the roll of nervously checking for traps, out of fear of not being thorough and getting slaughtered by the trap my char missed...)

Anyways, I would recommend that: discuss with your players perhaps whether they'd want a tank NPC created to adventure with them that you as GM control, almost as if it were 'your character' (though of course rigorously avoiding any favouratism). If they decide not to--after all, as a full-fledged party member, the NPC would dilute the xp they receive--then tell them to buck up and deal with their weaknesses, or they will die again. And again. And again...: )

 

[Dr. Zoom]

I am in agreement with those that have shown that your group's weakness right now is a lack of brute force and toughness. A dire bear is nothing to take lightly, even by those more able to handle one.

Oh, and the dire bear's attack bonus of +18 is not its BAB. Its BAB is +9, its strength bonus +10, and it size penalty -1. Sorry for the nitpick.

 

[Angcuru]

Strength bonuses to attack aren't just for bashing through armor, you know. If you're REALLY strong, you can swing a sword (or the bear's claws) with greater force and therefore greater speed than others could. Think about it; if you have a strength bonus of +9, you are swinging the sword with so much force and speed that even the most agile characters have a hell of a time dodging your attack. Against armor-encased characters who make no effort to dodge, you interperet the bonus as being able to penetrate armor to that much of a degree.

The STR bonus to hit works fine the way it is.

 

[Victim]

Brute monsters like Dire bears are usually pretty dangerous if you just close to melee and attack. Also, in this case, the characters have relatively low ACs too.