PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] What to expect from a no-caster group?



seedjar
2009-08-19, 05:35 PM
So, the group that I'm working on getting together thus far looks as though it will have nothing but melee types. I have two veteran players who are already geared up on their own fighter and rogue builds, and the rest of the players are all new to D&D and will probably reach for something easy. I have a feeling one of the newer, less decisive players may pick up a caster on impulse before the game starts, but I don't think I should count on it. This is totally counter to my experience as both a player and a DM - I'm used to there being at least one clever ducky on the rear lines ready to counter the opponent's energy resistance or go for constitution damage or something.
My question is this - what should I do to prepare encounters for such a group? The details of the setting make hirelings readily available, so healbots should be easy to shoehorn in, but is there anything I need to keep in mind? I'm guessing magic items will be more important - both equipment and consumables. Is it better to aim for lots of mookish enemies or a single, towering baddie? What am I missing?
Any help would be great. Thanks.
~Joe

Xenre
2009-08-19, 05:44 PM
Do what you normally do for a session or two, to see if that still works. If it doesn't you have more information on how/why it doesn't.

Eldariel
2009-08-19, 05:45 PM
Uhm, physically tough opponents are gonna be much harder as they can't be just hit with Glitterdust/Web/whatever to split them up/debuff them. Also, casters are gonna be much harder without access to Dispel Magic-line.

And unless someone has at least maxed out Use Magic Device, healing is going to be under a rock (they should at least hire a capable healer at some point, or Leadership one). You really need someone capable of at least using Wand of Cure Light Wounds/Lesser Vigor, and everyone needs a Healing Belt.


Basically, the whole game is gonna be harder. A lot harder. If they start on level 1, expect at least half the characters to die simply because they can't afford healing. If they start at level 3, it might work out provided they're savvy players and have enough magic items to compensate for flight, invisibility-detection, penetration of magical defenses and such being much more difficult.

You should just be careful not to challenge them too far out of their capabilities and make sure all of them make haste to acquire either flight or efficient ranged attacks...and definitely make sure they have access to sufficient healing or their "adventuring" will be "1 fight, 4 days of bedrest"-type.

SilverClawShift
2009-08-19, 05:46 PM
You sound like you've got the gist of it. Non-caster parties are going to depend either on situations remaining solveable with mundane solutions, or access to items with powers that will help them when magic is the only answer.

If the only way that the story can continue unbroken is for them to find a way to another plane, and they absolutely positively must be there overnight, you need a dungeon they can fight through to find an iron key that casts gate once a week. Ect, ect.

seedjar
2009-08-19, 06:00 PM
Cool, that's more or less what I expected. Anyone have any EL guidelines? Like, for a group of four level 10 melee-types, use encounters designed for a conventional party at level 8?
Here's the kicker; the new players wanted to start at epic levels. I told them no - we could plan to go epic but I didn't want to start at higher than ECL 15 or 10 class levels. In all likelihood all the players will have racial levels. These players also requested planar hijinks, which I am more or less prepared to serve up... but in any case, this is a very unorthodox starting point for me.
~Joe

Fax Celestis
2009-08-19, 06:06 PM
Well, depending on how UMD happy your experienced rogue is, you may not have ANY issues.

Myrmex
2009-08-19, 06:07 PM
Monsters with novel transportation modes- flight, burrow, dimension door, incorporeality, swim, climb, etc- will be difficult, due to their superior maneuverability.

Really big brutes, like giants or elementals (lots of HD, hard hitting attacks), will be especially deadly in face-to-face combat, since there won't be as many ways to mitigate their damage. A Slow, Enfeebled, Glitterdusted giant is much, much easier to take down than one that isn't.

The lack of buff spells means more WBL will have to go into both static bonuses on weapons, and way to circumvent things like level drain and stuff. Be careful with monsters that inflict status effects that persist outside of battle, since there will be much more difficulty in getting rid of them (like ability damage/drain, curses, etc).

Travel will also be much slower than the time it takes to blow a 5th level spell slot.

seedjar
2009-08-19, 06:21 PM
Travel should be taken care of for the most part. I'm trying to keep teleportation as a less-than-preferred method of transit, although it is accessible. Mounts and ferries will do the bulk of the expediting, but many of the locales I have in mind are places where the PCs will probably want to be on foot.
So, from the sound of it, I could tone down the severity of the opponents but keep them mobile to still present a challenge. Or would that make battles too drawn out? How do these conditions concern non-combat things like traps? I know that the power gap between casters and non-casters gets larger proportionate to character level, but is the same true for your average monster vs. non-casters? At first glance I would expect there to be little bias at lower levels, with monsters taking the lead as level goes up, but PCs also get a lot less squishy over time, so I'm not certain.
I'm hoping that the PCs take advantage of the hooks I plan to offer and make liberal use of hirelings and other NPCs. I don't intend to spell everything out for them, but I want a normal adventuring party dynamic to be available to them as long as someone has the presence of mind to say, "Hey, we paid that wizard 500 gold for the day, shouldn't he be busting out some grease on those hobgoblins?" (Assuming they think to bring a wizard to begin with.)
~Joe

Mr. Mud
2009-08-19, 06:28 PM
Well, I agree with the "DM normally, and see how it goes", and it it goes miserably, talk to one of your veteran players, and see if either one of them have any urges to play a Caster. If not, then throw in a caster and a cleric, for good measure. I always favored beefing up the party, before toning down the encounters.

Or maybe have an NPC by default? Such as, they're rescuing caster from the generic dungeon, and then joins the group? So you can get a feel for DMing a party without a caster PC, and if you like it, then stick with it. If not, well then, have the NPC join.

MY two cents, hope it helps :smalltongue:.

Flickerdart
2009-08-19, 06:31 PM
You'll want to be generous with loot more interesting than +X swords. Belts of Healing, Slippers of Spider Climb, stuff like that. Things that either mimic spells or grant completely unique abilities. Cut the book price on potions, too, it's too expensive as-is.

Myrmex
2009-08-19, 06:32 PM
Since battlefield control will be a problem, I would recommend against things that are maneuverable (unless they are fragile and/or lack a lot of offensive capability). If you do include them, be sparing, and don't throw too much other hard to fight stuff in there. Things that can cast their own BC spells will be very rough. Enemy spellcasters, if you play them as anything other than fireball-fireball-hail storm, should be at least 2 caster levels below the party, since not having access to divinations, abjurations or transmutations can be very rough on the PCs.

Try having interesting environments that the PCs can use to their advantage- upend tabled, push foes into spiky traps, lure golems across bridges, then cut the rope. There is plenty that can be done with alchemist's fire, 50 ft of rope, caltrops, and clever thinking.

Thrawn183
2009-08-19, 06:32 PM
I strongly disagree with some of the earlier advice. The one thing melee'rs are good at...is melee. That giant that is normally a problem is suddenly running into 4 full round attacks a round. Most on-level EL encounters simply can't withstand that kind of pounding.

The potential problems are going to come from enemy casters that aren't neutralized by your own, and ranged opponents in general.

seedjar
2009-08-19, 06:41 PM
My idea is somewhere along those lines, Mr. Mud. The PCs will be working for a well-equipped caster patron, and my planned introduction to the campaign will actually be rescuing said patron and some other adventurers out in the wilderness. The catch is that the patron is absent-minded and mildly self-centered (also distracted easily by shiny things,) and is bound to complicate matters roughly as often as he acts as a deus ex machina, unless the PCs take measures to point him in the right direction. The PCs can choose to involve him (or the other associated NPCs) as they like, but if they begin to depend on any one NPC too often I'll be sure to give them a hard time in-game about it. My hope is that I'll reach a certain balance with the players in this way and that the NPCs can fill the support roles while the PCs are still the primary sources of motion for the game.
~Joe

Myrmex
2009-08-19, 06:41 PM
I strongly disagree with some of the earlier advice. The one thing melee'rs are good at...is melee. That giant that is normally a problem is suddenly running into 4 full round attacks a round. Most on-level EL encounters simply can't withstand that kind of pounding.

The potential problems are going to come from enemy casters that aren't neutralized by your own, and ranged opponents in general.

I guess it depends how you run your giants. My DMs like to repick their feats (often using imp trip instead of bullrush/sunder) and have them drink potions, and if they can, stand somewhere inaccessible and lob boulders before anyone can close to range, or at least stand in a doorway and use their reach.

Also, look at melee monsters that are good at melee. They are often better than the PCs. Without magical healing, and having to trade full attacks, it's going to be very painful for one character every battle.

Mr. Mud
2009-08-19, 06:49 PM
My idea is somewhere along those lines, Mr. Mud. The PCs will be working for a well-equipped caster patron, and my planned introduction to the campaign will actually be rescuing said patron and some other adventurers out in the wilderness. The catch is that the patron is absent-minded and mildly self-centered (also distracted easily by shiny things,) and is bound to complicate matters roughly as often as he acts as a deus ex machina, unless the PCs take measures to point him in the right direction. The PCs can choose to involve him (or the other associated NPCs) as they like, but if they begin to depend on any one NPC too often I'll be sure to give them a hard time in-game about it. My hope is that I'll reach a certain balance with the players in this way and that the NPCs can fill the support roles while the PCs are still the primary sources of motion for the game.
~Joe

Exactly what I was getting at. Also, nice name :smallwink:.

awa
2009-08-19, 08:41 PM
exotic monsters are going to be harder and by exotic i mean ones with unusual attacks and defense. for example incorporeal monsters are going to be much tougher, as creatures that cause ability damage becuase the parties ability to deal with them is less. regeneration will be more annoying at lower levels becuase they could easily lack reliable energy damage and so on.

Eldariel
2009-08-19, 09:50 PM
I strongly disagree with some of the earlier advice. The one thing melee'rs are good at...is melee. That giant that is normally a problem is suddenly running into 4 full round attacks a round. Most on-level EL encounters simply can't withstand that kind of pounding.

The potential problems are going to come from enemy casters that aren't neutralized by your own, and ranged opponents in general.

If someone nails it with a Glitterdust or Grease, it's still going to be much easier than just brute forcing through it. The Giants are still larger and the party still takes AoOs when closing up and the Giant probably has far superior melee full attack.

There's always the "easy" way of removing most of the opponent's offensive and defensive capabilities through a spell targeting its weak save, and beating it up while it's not much of a threat, and the "hard" way of just hammering away at it with your own offense and hoping you deal enough before it kills you. For whatever reason, the "easy" way tends to result in lesser pain on the party's part. Now, this party is mostly robbed of the "easy" way because of their melee focus.


Sure, traps, alchemical items, versatile tactics and martial maneuvers can be used to gain advantage in combat, but it's generally much more difficult and requires much more forethought than throwing one of your spells at the problem.

Take a Fire Giant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/giant.htm#fireGiant) for example. CR 10, 142 HP, AC 23, decent full attack (3d6+15 and 2xpower attack) at 20/15/10 and horrible Reflex-saves. A simple Grease takes 4 points away from his to hit, 4 points from his AC (making massive power attack all the more lethal) and denies it the ability to move. A simple Grease on its weapon forces it to use its 1d4+10 Slams instead of its 3d6+15 Greatsword.

And that's before giving it equipment; ridding it of its magic sword while it's got Belt of Giant Strength is even more efficient, let alone a reach weapon - you don't want to face an (attack of) opportunist Giant on even ground. And Grease save DC on those levels? We're looking at Int 22-26 so without Spell Focus (which doesn't frankly seem unlikely with such a huge number of good Save-or-X Conjurations and a prerequisite for Archmage to boot) gives us DC 17-19 Reflex-save, something the Giant is likely to screw up. Even if it has a +2 Dex-booster and a Cloak of Resistance +2, it's still no better than 50/50 and that's vs. 1st level spell.

And frankly, 16/11/6 just isn't as efficient as 20/15/10; there's one relatively likely hit and two likely misses, while the first run has one likely hit, one relatively likely hit and one likely miss. And when the melee type mopping up can PA for a bit more, the thing will die all the faster.


Casters make everyone else in the party better (not convinced? Ask Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, Heroism, Protection from X, etc. and combat debuffs/buffs) and without them, the whole game is consequently going to be harder. This should be obvious.


@OP: Yeah, that sounds like a good way to handle it. If you're cutting CR, you can optimize your monsters a bit more, though be wary of the types of opponents the party is especially weak against (e.g. Dragons or focused spellcasters) - no reason not to use them, but in a bit easier encounters than normal.

NPC support sounds like a great solution - they'd have a source of magic items and spellcasting support when needed (might want to make the patron theurgic so he can cover both, arcane and divine item creation & casting) while also acting as a plot device.

ericgrau
2009-08-20, 04:00 AM
+1 just run it normal without any big changes. Interesting magic items should always be included in loot, but I suppose it's more important to not ignore them if you plan on giving the PCs challenges that require special ways to beat them.

Zeta Kai
2009-08-20, 05:31 AM
I expect you to die, Mr. Bond.
BWA-HA-Ha-hahahahahahaha!
<strokes cat on lap>

Haarkla
2009-08-20, 07:16 AM
All no-caster groups are great, it will encourage the players to roleplay and rely on mundane solutions.

I think the main poblem will be with healing, provide plenty of potions of healing and healing items as treaure.

Eldariel
2009-08-20, 09:22 AM
All no-caster groups are great, it will encourage the players to roleplay...

This...does not make sense to me. How does having no casters encourage role playing? How do classes in general affect how much people are going to role play? I thought you're playing a character, not a bunch of classes...

kamikasei
2009-08-20, 09:29 AM
This...does not make sense to me. How does having no casters encourage role playing? How do classes in general affect how much people are going to role play? I thought you're playing a character, not a bunch of classes...

*dusts off hat labeled "Devil's Advocate", dons*

Removing casters from the game removes a set of abilities assumed in the basic design. It takes players out of their comfort zone and forces them to come up with more innovative solutions to various problems that could otherwise be solved (as intended) with a spell. This can create greater immersion in the characters and in the game world. By removing casters specifically (as opposed to, say, decreeing that physical damage somehow doesn't apply) it moves the characters' abilities a little closer to their players' experience, possibly making it easier for them to get in to the mindset of their characters.

I have no idea whether this was what Haarkla was saying, though.

Eldariel
2009-08-20, 10:00 AM
*dusts off hat labeled "Devil's Advocate", dons*

Removing casters from the game removes a set of abilities assumed in the basic design. It takes players out of their comfort zone and forces them to come up with more innovative solutions to various problems that could otherwise be solved (as intended) with a spell. This can create greater immersion in the characters and in the game world. By removing casters specifically (as opposed to, say, decreeing that physical damage somehow doesn't apply) it moves the characters' abilities a little closer to their players' experience, possibly making it easier for them to get in to the mindset of their characters.

I have no idea whether this was what Haarkla was saying, though.

Pointless counterargument time: By that stance, removing casters might actually reduce players' incentives and capability to roleplay. Removing casters also removes many abilities players can use creatively in-game! Think Images or Shaped Anything or spells to that effect; they can do whatever the players can imagine truly emphasizing the creativity-part. If innovative solutions are what allows the players to immerse themselves in the game world, surely you want magic around to enhance that immersion!

The very existence of magic gives you a billion different means at every single end. This helps move the players away from their experience allowing them to fully focus on roleplaying their character leaving their own personality out of it. They can leave the world of reality and enter a world of imagination truly giving them a separate "game world" within.

kamikasei
2009-08-20, 10:16 AM
Heaven-and-Earth-Uniting Glorious Nitpicking Technique: What you say certainly has merit, but depending on the group, the easiest way to get them to be creative with their magic may be to first take it away and require them to be creative without it in order to get anything done. If they have too much power and versatility built in to the nice, discrete, as-described spells and powers, they may never bother to get creative with them.

Deepblue706
2009-08-20, 10:21 AM
NPC Hirelings/Helpers + Undeterred access to consumables will be highly important. With those, the party should do well if each PC is built in a responsible manner.

Gnaeus
2009-08-20, 10:24 AM
Have you considered encouraging the newer players to take easy classes with casting abilities that solve some of these problems?

Warlock is simple, and gives a little arcane support.
Beguiler is pretty easy for a clever, but not rules intensive player. Because they only use a handful of spells per level, players don't have to read the entire PHB and 10 splatbooks to be effective. Same with dread necro if the party is non-good.
Dragon Shaman would lend some useful abilities to this party, either as a 1 level dip or dual classed with something like barbarian, fighter, or rogue to give it a little more punch.
A sorcerer or favored soul isn't hard to play, especially if you, the DM, give them some recommendations on spell selection.
Tome of Battle is generally full of win, and with good power selection you could take movement and anti caster powers that would make those enemy casters a little less overwhelming.
Even a quasi caster like a ranger, paladin, or Blackguard would be able to use healing and some utility wands, allowing you to dump your NPC healbot and leave more actions in the hands of the PCs.

I'm not saying that you should tell players what to play, but I would flash these options in front of players and encourage them to go that way if they show interest.

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 10:54 AM
This...does not make sense to me. How does having no casters encourage role playing? How do classes in general affect how much people are going to role play? I thought you're playing a character, not a bunch of classes...

Not necessarily encouraging roleplaying, but generally speaking I prefer epic quests to find a way to another plane as opposed to "I prepared Plane Shift today. Prepare to rock on the Elemental Plane of Cupcakes," or "Bob's bleeding out, I have a spear in my gut, and Jenny's missing an arm, we're holed up in a cave" to "hey guys, it'll take them a few hours to bust down that cave wall, and look what I brought... HEALING WANDS FOR EVERYONE!"

Do think it's telling that even a well-written humor comic based on D&D has made and consistently kept teleportation and planar effects fairly hard to obtain for the party.

@OP - rather than burden them with so many magic items you can't tell they're not casters, I would change the pace of the game so they deal with difficult, actually rolled-out encounters less and throw in stuff like "and along the way here you run into brigands which you easily dispatch, so we resume after you've beaten down two of them and the third is tied up..."

seedjar
2009-08-20, 11:36 AM
I expect you to die, Mr. Bond.
BWA-HA-Ha-hahahahahahaha!
<strokes cat on lap>

LOL, this is my favorite suggestion thus far.


Have you considered encouraging the newer players to take easy classes with casting abilities that solve some of these problems?

I'm not pushing anyone towards classes that require any additional knowledge on my part - I'd rather file the sharp edges off of all my encounters than be simultaneously running the game and coaching players as to how to use their builds. If the new players are dead-set on a focused magic user, I'm looking at Factotum, Beguiler or Warlock, or maybe a multiclassed Wizard or Sorcerer - after I'm sure that I can't make them happy with a re-branded Ranger or Paladin. Starting at such a high level and with new players, I don't want to have to account for high-powered spell effects. For at least the first half a dozen sessions I want to keep everything on the PCs side below level five or six - preferably, no magic at all besides the magic items that they've acquired (which seems to me to be much easier to plan ahead for.)
Tome of Battle, while cool in some contexts, is totally off the table for this group, class-wise at least. If everyone had similar experience with D&D and wanted to run high-CR encounters, I might be swayed, but this group is way too mixed. Anyways, my experienced players tell me they'd be happy running straight core so as far as I'm concerned, I'm already spreading myself unnecessarily thin. This game isn't a contest and I don't give a damn if the melee types think their damage output is too low - as far as I'm concerned, martial maneuvers are just as magic-y as any other paranormal ability in D&D, even if it's dressed up all kung-fu-like.


Pointless counterargument time: By that stance, removing casters might actually reduce players' incentives and capability to roleplay. Removing casters also removes many abilities players can use creatively in-game! ... They can leave the world of reality and enter a world of imagination truly giving them a separate "game world" within.

I appreciate your caution, but I see it the other way around. Without a PC spellslinger, there is no longer the option of looking across the table at the top of an encounter and saying, "Hey Bill, your guy knows stoneskin - hook me up!" (Which, in my groups, usually seems to slowly devolve into OOC arguments among the non-casters at the beginning of each encounter about who's turn it is to get buffs.) Magic is not really any less accessible to the characters - it's just no longer a mere action that the players assume will always be available. If the players want or need magical effects, they must seek them out in-character.


@OP - rather than burden them with so many magic items you can't tell they're not casters, I would change the pace of the game so they deal with difficult, actually rolled-out encounters less and throw in stuff like "and along the way here you run into brigands which you easily dispatch, so we resume after you've beaten down two of them and the third is tied up..."

I'm a little surprised to hear this coming from you AF - I had always pinned you as more on the interactive side of things. Aren't you concerned that this would get a little monotonous after a while? I don't really understand how skipping past easy fights eliminates the need for magical effects. As for magic items, they'll be usually be readily available, but not always abundant. I want my players to have to plan ahead and think creatively. When they set their sights on something that's obviously beyond their party's skill set, they'll be able to call favors from NPCs and have a more well-rounded group at their disposal. But otherwise, I expect them to puzzle over carrying capacity, debate potions packed in vs. treasure packed out, and to occasionally retreat from fights when they're running out of healing items and it's too risky. I want them to have to do research when they go into town for gear - not just look up the coolest stuff in the books, but to actually go around and ask for deals, consult the priests at the healing temple about the most effective spells, go to the adventurer's guild after hearing stories about a cloak of greater invisibility.
The idea is to make items more like the Hookshot in a Zelda game and less like a health pickup in Unreal. Distinctive but interchangeable, crucial but not strictly necessary. I plan to throw lots of oddball loot at them - yes, someone is definitely getting a Bag of Tricks. (It was good enough for my PC, doggonnit! Nothing distracts the night watch like an angry weasel with bells tied to its tail.) Conventional stat-boosters and enhanced weapons will be available for purchase/order, but I want to make most of the treasure and freebie type stuff genuinely weird.
~Joe

Johel
2009-08-20, 01:21 PM
So, the group that I'm working on getting together thus far looks as though it will have nothing but melee types. I have two veteran players who are already geared up on their own fighter and rogue builds, and the rest of the players are all new to D&D and will probably reach for something easy. I have a feeling one of the newer, less decisive players may pick up a caster on impulse before the game starts, but I don't think I should count on it. This is totally counter to my experience as both a player and a DM - I'm used to there being at least one clever ducky on the rear lines ready to counter the opponent's energy resistance or go for constitution damage or something.
My question is this - what should I do to prepare encounters for such a group? The details of the setting make hirelings readily available, so healbots should be easy to shoehorn in, but is there anything I need to keep in mind? I'm guessing magic items will be more important - both equipment and consumables. Is it better to aim for lots of mookish enemies or a single, towering baddie? What am I missing?
Any help would be great. Thanks.
~Joe

Low-level (1-6): a few towering baddies.
It's the point where quantity counts more than quality so you better not swarm them. Instead, force them to fight their way against though opponent, using a combination of battle manoeuvres.
Mid-level (7-12): Mooks !!!
It's chopping time !! You got several attacks but aren't ready for the demons and stuff yet. So... you got to fight against tons of mooks.
High-level (13-20): one big mean baddy and a few elite mooks.
Mooks definitely don't make it past 1st round, now. Even the "elites" are only an annoyance. So, small but powerful teams.

Magic items are only importants if the enemies have a easy access to magic themselves. If not, that good old steel works well.

seedjar
2009-08-20, 04:31 PM
Low-level (1-6): a few towering baddies.
It's the point where quantity counts more than quality so you better not swarm them. Instead, force them to fight their way against though opponent, using a combination of battle manoeuvres.
Mid-level (7-12): Mooks !!!
It's chopping time !! You got several attacks but aren't ready for the demons and stuff yet. So... you got to fight against tons of mooks.
High-level (13-20): one big mean baddy and a few elite mooks.
Mooks definitely don't make it past 1st round, now. Even the "elites" are only an annoyance. So, small but powerful teams.

Magic items are only importants if the enemies have a easy access to magic themselves. If not, that good old steel works well.

How does this scale if I'm starting around level 10 to 15 and then moving towards epic challenges? The campaign is high-magic, but not uniformly high-level, so I was planning at least a fair share of encounters with mooks, mobs/crowds, etc. Provided I'm not throwing out obnoxious counterspelling NPC opponents, an all-melee group decked out with magical equipment should be more or less doable, right? In my mind, I imagine that encounters should go faster and involve more hefty damage so long as I'm not pulling the party's magical provisions out from under them (which I don't plan to do... often.)
I'm feeling safe about wilderness encounters, and humanoid encounters. Maybe magical beasts too - most of them don't get too outrageous. What about undead? I really want to have a little bit of zombie horror in the first adventure I run them through. If I leave the opponents so that the players can hit them the majority of the time, and the heavy hitters can drop them in a turn, that should be a fairly 'safe' mob, right?
~Joe

Gnaeus
2009-08-20, 06:33 PM
So, the group that I'm working on getting together thus far looks as though it will have nothing but melee types. I have two veteran players who are already geared up on their own fighter and rogue builds, and the rest of the players are all new to D&D and will probably reach for something easy. I have a feeling one of the newer, less decisive players may pick up a caster on impulse before the game starts, but I don't think I should count on it. This is totally counter to my experience as both a player and a DM - I'm used to there being at least one clever ducky on the rear lines ready to counter the opponent's energy resistance or go for constitution damage or something.
My question is this - what should I do to prepare encounters for such a group? The details of the setting make hirelings readily available, so healbots should be easy to shoehorn in, but is there anything I need to keep in mind? I'm guessing magic items will be more important - both equipment and consumables. Is it better to aim for lots of mookish enemies or a single, towering baddie? What am I missing?
Any help would be great. Thanks.
~Joe


I'm not pushing anyone towards classes that require any additional knowledge on my part - I'd rather file the sharp edges off of all my encounters than be simultaneously running the game and coaching players as to how to use their builds. If the new players are dead-set on a focused magic user, I'm looking at Factotum, Beguiler or Warlock, or maybe a multiclassed Wizard or Sorcerer - after I'm sure that I can't make them happy with a re-branded Ranger or Paladin. Starting at such a high level and with new players, I don't want to have to account for high-powered spell effects. For at least the first half a dozen sessions I want to keep everything on the PCs side below level five or six - preferably, no magic at all besides the magic items that they've acquired (which seems to me to be much easier to plan ahead for.)
Tome of Battle, while cool in some contexts, is totally off the table for this group, class-wise at least. If everyone had similar experience with D&D and wanted to run high-CR encounters, I might be swayed, but this group is way too mixed. Anyways, my experienced players tell me they'd be happy running straight core so as far as I'm concerned, I'm already spreading myself unnecessarily thin. This game isn't a contest and I don't give a damn if the melee types think their damage output is too low - as far as I'm concerned, martial maneuvers are just as magic-y as any other paranormal ability in D&D, even if it's dressed up all kung-fu-like.
~Joe

Your first post sounds like your party happens not to have any casters in it, you are concerned about that prospect, and are even considering throwing in NPCs to remedy the problem.

Your second post sounds like you are intentionally discouraging casters and other magic users, and if PCs insist that you are nerfing them by forcing them to multiclass.

Now, thats entirely up to you, as its your game. Forcing party balance by insisting on low tier PCs is fine. But if that is what you are doing, you might as well be honest about it. We can give better advice if we know what kind of campaign it is. Also, I would be a lot more merciful to a party that I had FORCED into running without casters, rather than one that had chosen to go that route on their own.

seedjar
2009-08-20, 06:50 PM
Your first post sounds like your party happens not to have any casters in it, you are concerned about that prospect, and are even considering throwing in NPCs to remedy the problem.

Your second post sounds like you are intentionally discouraging casters and other magic users, and if PCs insist that you are nerfing them by forcing them to multiclass.

I can see where it might sound that way. The fact that my two veteran players are reaching for straight Fighter and straight Rogue is totally beyond my control and a surprise to me. I had hoped at least one of them would pick something that could cover/support the new players, but as I've been told, they have builds that they've been toying with and that's what they want to bring to the game, however it fits into the campaign. Also a surprise is the starting level that the players are asking for (which is epic, but we'll be compromising at something between 10 and 15.) It's not that I don't want to allow casters, it's that I don't want my first session to end with my experienced players transforming into girallons and ripping the enemies in two while the new players are still saying, "What's my attack bonus?"
If they wanted to play first level Wizards, or Chameleons, or Druids or whatever, I wouldn't really care - my problem is that as they're wanting it they could be showing up to the first game with 8th level spells. As for the new players, if the starting level is 15, I think it's kind of cruel to ask them to build a caster - I'll probably be prebuilding as it is, but unless one of them expresses interest in running a caster, I'm going to point them towards something easy to learn.
I'm not a bad DM, but I'm also not the messiah of DMs - I need to start with something manageable.
~Joe

AstralFire
2009-08-20, 07:13 PM
The idea is to make items more like the Hookshot in a Zelda game and less like a health pickup in Unreal. Distinctive but interchangeable, crucial but not strictly necessary. I plan to throw lots of oddball loot at them - yes, someone is definitely getting a Bag of Tricks. (It was good enough for my PC, doggonnit! Nothing distracts the night watch like an angry weasel with bells tied to its tail.) Conventional stat-boosters and enhanced weapons will be available for purchase/order, but I want to make most of the treasure and freebie type stuff genuinely weird.
~Joe

I highly approve!

As for me being interactionist - I am, actually. When I thought about that post later, I decided it'd have been better to just use really low mooks. I blame it on my tiredness. But my point was simply to spread out the hard fights more in game time (even if not in real time) that won't hurt them health wise so much but give them something to do.

Myrmex
2009-08-20, 09:55 PM
Pointless counterargument time: By that stance, removing casters might actually reduce players' incentives and capability to roleplay. Removing casters also removes many abilities players can use creatively in-game! Think Images or Shaped Anything or spells to that effect; they can do whatever the players can imagine truly emphasizing the creativity-part. If innovative solutions are what allows the players to immerse themselves in the game world, surely you want magic around to enhance that immersion!

The very existence of magic gives you a billion different means at every single end. This helps move the players away from their experience allowing them to fully focus on roleplaying their character leaving their own personality out of it. They can leave the world of reality and enter a world of imagination truly giving them a separate "game world" within.

There are spells to accomplish virtually any task. Using a spell to solve a problem is hardly innovative, seeing how someone already wrote down the exact solution to a problem, then sold it to you in a splatbook. I find it takes a lot more work to get around problems when there is restricted access to spells. Players get creative when they can't just spam Conjuration(Healing), Conjuration(Teleportation) and Conjuration(Creation) spells. I feel like spells are a lazy solution. The hardest part is finding the spell in a book (or just googling it).

But how it relates to actual roleplay? I dunno. I haven't really seen much of a correlation either direction.

At least, in my experience.


NPC Hirelings/Helpers + Undeterred access to consumables will be highly important. With those, the party should do well if each PC is built in a responsible manner.

I like that. "Built in a responsible manner." Yeah, that's the way to say it.

seedjar
2009-08-21, 12:32 AM
But my point was simply to spread out the hard fights more in game time (even if not in real time) that won't hurt them health wise so much but give them something to do.

I'm all for throwing in the occasional easy fight. Or even more than just occasionally. The way I see it, if the PCs are heros, they shouldn't always be coming across fights that take them exactly to the point of exhaustion and no further. For one, it's awfully convenient story-wise, and two, it's less of a challenge to players. If you keep them second-guessing about how much further they need to go before they can rest and restock, you get a lot more cleverness at the table. I had all sorts of fun with my last group throwing "false" encounters at them - nothing like having the PCs camped out before a siege and watching them blow half their day's spells buffing for a fight with some wandering herbivores. They got to know better, and eventually got rather sophisticated in protecting or hiding their campsites just as a routine precaution rather than waste spells and other consumables on chance wilderness encounters or other false alarms. Rope Trick sure is a spoiler, though.
~Joe

Gnaeus
2009-08-21, 07:47 AM
I can see where it might sound that way. The fact that my two veteran players are reaching for straight Fighter and straight Rogue is totally beyond my control and a surprise to me. I had hoped at least one of them would pick something that could cover/support the new players, but as I've been told, they have builds that they've been toying with and that's what they want to bring to the game, however it fits into the campaign. Also a surprise is the starting level that the players are asking for (which is epic, but we'll be compromising at something between 10 and 15.) It's not that I don't want to allow casters, it's that I don't want my first session to end with my experienced players transforming into girallons and ripping the enemies in two while the new players are still saying, "What's my attack bonus?"
If they wanted to play first level Wizards, or Chameleons, or Druids or whatever, I wouldn't really care - my problem is that as they're wanting it they could be showing up to the first game with 8th level spells. As for the new players, if the starting level is 15, I think it's kind of cruel to ask them to build a caster - I'll probably be prebuilding as it is, but unless one of them expresses interest in running a caster, I'm going to point them towards something easy to learn.
I'm not a bad DM, but I'm also not the messiah of DMs - I need to start with something manageable.
~Joe

You know that in most ways that casters are easier to build than fighters, right? You can make a druid with 16 wisdom, 8 in all its other stats, with Skill Focus for all its feats and it will still be a playable character in a party with fighters, thats why some people call it the "DM girlfriend class" because it is so hard to eff up. Cleric is also easy to learn. If you pick your spells at random out of the book, with your spontaneous healing and good saves, hp and ac, you will still run ok while you are learning the ropes, and as you realize what kind of spells you like you just memorize a better spell list every day until you are on top of it.

Fighter types are actually much harder. It is easy to foul up a fighter build, and after you have done it, it is much harder to correct, because feats are more or less locked in.

The hardest are those multiclassed casters you mentioned. Actually knowing what is a good trade for a caster level is worthy of debate among board regulars. They really demand good spell and feat selection in order to be competent and survivable.

seedjar
2009-08-21, 01:43 PM
You know that in most ways that casters are easier to build than fighters, right? You can make a druid with 16 wisdom, 8 in all its other stats, with Skill Focus for all its feats and it will still be a playable character in a party with fighters, thats why some people call it the "DM girlfriend class" because it is so hard to eff up. Cleric is also easy to learn. If you pick your spells at random out of the book, with your spontaneous healing and good saves, hp and ac, you will still run ok while you are learning the ropes, and as you realize what kind of spells you like you just memorize a better spell list every day until you are on top of it.

Fighter types are actually much harder. It is easy to foul up a fighter build, and after you have done it, it is much harder to correct, because feats are more or less locked in.

The hardest are those multiclassed casters you mentioned. Actually knowing what is a good trade for a caster level is worthy of debate among board regulars. They really demand good spell and feat selection in order to be competent and survivable.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I can say my experience has apparently been unlike yours. As a new player shoehorned into supporting caster roles, my experiences were more or less negative. It was fun at times, and now that I'm confident in the rules I enjoy playing casters very much, but at the beginning I usually felt at least a little put upon to spend all my time tending after the players that knew how to take advantage of combat rules and focused on dealing damage.
Please consider the following:
My two new players that are most likely to be joining the group have never played pen-and-paper games at all, let alone D&D. One of them doesn't even know what a pen-and-paper game is; she's 11 years old. She's smart as a whip and I wouldn't be inviting her to join the game if I didn't think she could hack it. But, do you really think it's fair that I sit her down with a spell list for a 15th level sorcerer and expect her to do anything but boggle for the first few games?
Also, I'm a year out of practice and trying to run a group with materials I designed primarily for levels 7 through 12. My players want to start somewhere higher than level 10. Is it really prudent to risk TPK (or total dullsville as the veteran players plow through) on two players' first D&D games just to build a CL-appropriate encounter, or should hedge my bets and ask that no one build characters with scary powerful spells that I'm not used to adjudicating and build a first encounter I'm comfortable running?
I appreciate your concern, but I think what you're missing here is that I'm running a very mixed group and I'm already stretching in two directions to accommodate everyone. I'm not trying to stifle anyone's abilities over the long run in the campaign, I just want to ease into the power curve because I'm not used to running games at this level. If someone wants to do a full 20 levels in a single base class that's an available option over time, but that's not even a question at this point; my every indication is that none of the players are taking an interest in healing or supporting roles.
~Joe

Dragonmuncher
2009-08-21, 03:18 PM
Alchemical items might be neat. Tanglefoot bags, thunderstones, and a bunch more that I just don't remember.


If applicable, fluff it like Q from a Bond movie. "This bag looks like an ordinary bag of marbles. But throw it at an unsuspecting enemy, and watch! Instant stickiness!"

seedjar
2009-08-25, 01:20 AM
How many more alchemical items are there? I remember six or seven from the core books, and a few more in the Eberron books - but I haven't seen to many others. Or, if I did, they didn't make an impression.
Yes, the Q reference might fit in nicely with the "home base" idea I've been toying with. I'll try to fit that in. Can you imagine a Satyr with a British accent? I think it works.
~Joe