What happens when the party is not only short on numbers, but diversity as well?

[ourchair]

There's enough 4e theorycraft or stuff off the pages of Dungeon or Dragon magazine that posits that even in situations where the party makeup or numbers is 'unbalanced' one can properly adapt a campaign to account for missing roles or fewer numbers... tweak the numbers in the encounters, and choose particular monsters, blah blah.

I'm here to ask for advice on what to do about a campaign I'm setting up with husband-and-wife friends of mine. We're starting a campaign with just the two of them, and me running a silent DM character. My girlfriend might join irregularly, but for now we'll be a party of 2/3.

The problem is that despite my insistence that they explore party diversity, they seem to be going with strikers. The husband has already rolled up a Rogue MC Ranger, while the wife is favoring the Ranger as well. They're 3.5 D&D veterans having their first go at 4e, so I doubt play skill will be as big a problem as system familiarity.

So, what advice do you have for running a campaign for a game that is not only short of 1-3 players, but made up mostly of strikers?

 

[lukelightning]

Embrace it. Instead of being an adventuring party, they are a strike force... get in and get out.

You can easily take a standard dungeon crawl and adapt it to the party, to enable them to take on encounters in advantageous situations. Game-wise, you can do this by taking advantage of skill challenges; with stealth to sneak up on the enemy, bluff to distract them or create diversions to lure away other nearby encounters... if they party succeeds then not only do they get surprise, but maybe they start off with a +2 on their first attack (because of careful planning).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, the choice of DMPC can make a big difference as well. For example you could build a paladin. He'll be able to act as a defender as well as provide some healing. Give him a feat that helps his healing power a bit. If you have DDI you could make a hybrid paladin|cleric. A straight cleric will of course manage the healing part real well but won't have the Divine Challenge to use to force monsters to attack him instead of the rangers.

The other 2 players COULD do a good bit to tweak their characters to bring things a bit more towards a balanced setup too. I don't know their builds but the straight ranger could MC to pick up a leader power from warlord for example. Building a fairly high STR/CON melee ranger that takes heavier armor could be good too. That way he's more durable and can absorb some blows that the pally can't pull off him.

Item selection is also an area where you can do a fair amount. Provide some items that supply needed healing effects and leader-like bonuses or saving throws, etc.

As far as what kind of encounters to use, again its kind of hard to say. It depends a lot on how tactical the players are and their builds. Just start out easy and work your way into it. First try throwing an encounter at them that works to their strengths, like 2-3 archers vs a bow armed ranger and a rogue with a decent crossbow and see what happens. Kobolds are pretty good to experiment with.

In general you can really leverage minions with this group. They don't have spell casters to blanket area damage so the minions will be able to get to melee. Using them allows you to still have an encounter with say 5 interesting opponents were 2-3 can be minions.

 

[Nifft]

Small, stealthy parties can do things large, clank-laden parties cannot do. So: run with it, and tailor the adventures to things which allow a small, stealthy party to shine.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Herschel]

A leader/defender hybrid for the DM PC might work wonders and still be rather stealthy enough to go with the rest of the party (Swordmage/Artificer, Warlord or Bard?). Hopefully the Ranger is a melee ranger.

 

[Wonderland666]

small group, only striker = TPK (Total player kill)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/271565-encounter-difficulty-3-players.html

You will have that after 1-3 Encounter.

 

[mneme]

"All strikers" isn't actually that terrible a concept in 4e as some make it seem.

They don't get the reset button that a leader can pull, but when monsters go down fast enough, it doesn't really matter.

With rogue+ranger, I agree that both melee can work; I'd argue that both stealth+ranged can work as well; with enough stealth the monsters will spend some turns not having anyone to attack, which is always sweet (well, except for the DMC; oh no, they killed Timmy again! .

For the DMC, I'd actually want to play to the party's strengths rather than purely shore up their weaknesses (as a paladin would do). You want a leader, sure -- but one who will both get the PCs up when they go down and risk a TPK and who will make them able to be even more awesome than they'd otherwise be (eg, focus on leaders who give attack bonuses or defense debufs).

For a ranged party, I'd want a leader who also tends to attack at range. Maybe an eagle shaman, to continue the theme of "nothing to attack", or an artificer with a crossbow (and a melee weapon, of course, just in case). There are no leaders who have dex as secondary or stealth as a class skill, but there are several that can do their stuff (presient bard as well) from a hell of a long distance. The eagle shaman is great here, as they can give the rogue a second chance to attack with combat advantage, and can also lock the enemy into a situation where they have to eat another ranged attack from the party just to get into range to attack.

For a melee party, I'd want someone who can slug it out along with them (even moreso for a mixed party); most leaders have builds that fit this role, but shamans (whose spirit gives them a secondary defender role a lot of the time), Strength Clerics, and Tactical warlords are of particular note here.

The other problem this kind of group can have are encounters with a bunch of minions, but the party can deal with that partially by taking some are of effect powers (as both rogues and rangers have at least -some-).

 

[The Human Target]

I agree, there is nothing wrong with tailoring a game to a party, if that playstyle fits you as a DM.

But don't be afraid to tell them that the game is designed for a group that has at least one of each of the four roles, and that as a 2ish person group they're already going to be limited in the kinds of stuff they do, even more so if they are both strikers.

 

[Nytmare]

My vote would also be to just run with it. I actually prefer parties that don't fall into the standard "we need a tank, and a face, and a mage, and a cleric..." build. Mostly, I think that it makes for more interesting problem solving when your resources are limited.

With 2 players, having 1 character drop means that they're losing 50% of their actions and resources. On top of that, the remaining character's choices are pretty limited. They can try to save the first player (which they probably won't be much good at) or they can fight on and try to end the encounter (which leaves the first player sitting around doing nothing but rolling to see if they've died).

I'd be afraid that catering things too heavily towards making an all-strikers game really good makes it more likely that any new or replacement character will also be a striker. I'd measure every change that you make against what kind of choices it makes for future characters.

With only 2 or 3 characters, I think that the big thing is that you're going to miss out on one of the most interesting parts of 4E combat. You really need to have at least 4 characters (be they players or monsters) before the interesting combinations and synergies really start to show up. With only 2 or 3 players fighting 1 to (what 6 tops?) monsters, you're never going to see much of the "and look how neat they are when they work together" moments.

I'm torn as to whether or not I'd suggest NPCs. I'd probably wait till they have a much better handle on the rules (like 3 or 4 levels worth of a better handle), and then maybe give each of them a statblocked sidekick to run during combat.

Be careful when you're making encounters. I'd avoid pitting them up against monsters that are more than like level+1, and I'd bet that you're better off having most of the things they're fighting be level-1 or even -2.

Combat is going to need to be more about maneuvering and line of sight. Maybe even have a goodly chunk of the things they're fighting be right at that balance point where they can go down in one hit if they roll well enough. Try not to feed them too many big, open, well lit areas with bad guys lined up waiting to die. Rooms full of things you have to run around and climb over, and hide behind. Make sure that encounters have big open avenues of fire that they have to fight for and hold.

I don't know how you or your players feel about resource management, but I'd make ammo counting an important part of the early game.

Give em potions like crazy. If their wish lists end up being a little too focussed on enhancing damage, maybe fill in the blanks for them with items that give them maneuverability, defense, and control.

Can you post their characters so we can see where possible problems might be hiding?

 

[ourchair]

Wow great responses.

Right now, as I mentioned, we already have a fully-generated Ranger who has MCed to get the Rogue Sneak Attack and Thievery skill.

His build involves throwing javelins, and he's got a melee back up weapon. He takes his inventory seriously, being fully decked out with oil, flint, flasks, thieving tools, spare parchment, eternal chalk, etc.

The other character is pending, though I suspect she wants to be a Ranger or Rogue as well. She's toyed with being a Ranger/Cleric though I have no idea how that'd work thematically or mechanically.

It's obvious these guys are being totally old school because someone is trying to figure out how to not overlook being a Cleric.

@mneme: Yeah, a stiker party isn't all too bad, which is why I'm accepting that in the first place. I'm just trying to figure out encounter design. If they were all Leaders then we'd be f---ed.

@Nytmare: I like the idea of running with it, as you suggested. I don't want to hamstring preferences or playstyle by covering up their weaknesses or force anyone to play against their role. At worst, somebody dies.