PDA

View Full Version : Favorite type of party?



Private-Prinny
2010-04-14, 07:57 PM
What do you enjoy having a party composed of? High melee? High magic? Large group? Small group?
Or do you maybe prefer the iconic fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric party?

Favorite classes, average party tier, be as specific or vague as you want.

Personally, I prefer a group filled with casters. When there's no BSF, the occasional Warmage or Warlock can seem a lot more useful.

Il_Vec
2010-04-14, 08:04 PM
Traditionally, my groups tend to be 5 or 6 people, with 3/4 "fighter-types", 1 problem-solver and 1 cleric/druid.
Its good times, as the Cleric/druid makes special effort not to outshine anyone.

ReluctantDragon
2010-04-14, 09:56 PM
Honestly, if the iconic roles are filled (skill-monkey/arcane/divine/meatshield) the group I previously gamed with would have a fairly good time. More importantly, as our numbers hovered around 4-5 people, and the DM would change out amongst the players, we tended to have a good time no matter what the group makeup.

My last group was up to about 8-9 people and it was just horrible. More of an excuse to socialize than to game. Don't get me wrong, I like to socialize as much as the next person, but if we're going to play, then let's play. We had quite a few redundant classes played, and virtually no arcane(aside from a bard). Made for interesting situations, and rather than problem-solving, the end result would be hack 'n slash or run away.

I think the biggest thing is no matter what the group make-up is, if the DM and players can adapt, then everyone is sure to have fun.

Vitruviansquid
2010-04-14, 09:57 PM
I like parties that have good synergy.

Townopolis
2010-04-14, 10:06 PM
I prefer a party with only 1 spellcaster. Beyond that, any combination of skillmonkeys and meatshields is fine with me.

I also like low-magic worlds (with a slight preference for high-heroism).

Trekkin
2010-04-14, 10:22 PM
Oddly, I like parties where everyone's some kind of caster. Preferably different classes, or at least different schools; wizard/cleric/psion/warlock is always fun. It's just interesting to see a party where everyone's incredibly powerful and terribly fragile.

Yukitsu
2010-04-14, 10:33 PM
My favourite that actually happened was a group of 3 necromancers. In theory, my favourite would be a slightly more balanced party, but definitely leaning on caster heavy.

Flickerdart
2010-04-14, 10:35 PM
The Liber-...no wait.

I prefer a good mix of melee and martial, simply because it gives the party a good set of tools for dealing with situations, and doesn't cause excessive crowding when people start Enlarging in narrow corridors.

Crosswinds
2010-04-14, 11:13 PM
I prefer low-magic parties.

Sure, arcane/divine spells are fine and dandy, but having the caster solve every problem the party comes across gets pretty tedious.

Also, pretty much every group that lets me play a Factotum is good for me.

DragonBaneDM
2010-04-14, 11:29 PM
A 4th Edition Shaman, Invoker, Battlemind, and Druid.

Aaaaaaahhh yeahhhhhh. :smalltongue:

But in 4e I like everyone to try to be of a different power source, and as long as we get Leader and Defender covered everyone else can do whatever they like.

Back in 3.5...Hm... Well a big meaty guy, one or two spellcasters(one divine, one arcane), aaaand one guy who was free to do whatever he wanted!

Mongoose87
2010-04-14, 11:38 PM
Any where the roleplaying is fun and interesting for everyone, and the combat challenges us without being unduly difficult or annoying.

Endarire
2010-04-15, 12:23 AM
In 3.5, if everyone's heavily a caster, Psion, or/and martial adept, we're in good shape.

I mentally eyerolled when I DMed a newbie who insisted on being a CW Samurai.

arguskos
2010-04-15, 12:38 AM
Any where the roleplaying is fun and interesting for everyone, and the combat challenges us without being unduly difficult or annoying.
Amen brotha, preach it louder! :smallbiggrin:

Though, any party that permits the Binder and/or Shadowcaster (with fixes) is ideal, just that willingness to try the really out there stuff. I like esoteric parties.

Mastikator
2010-04-15, 12:54 AM
My favorite kind is the group of roleplayers who don't care about class synergy. As long as the characters have interesting personalities and the DM roleplays the NPCs I am happy.

mikej
2010-04-15, 02:06 AM
In 3.5, if everyone's heavily a caster, Psion, or/and martial adept, we're in good shape.

This.

Not something the other players I've known to share :smallyuk:

Escheton
2010-04-15, 02:17 AM
Dread necro, cleric of illmater, enlightened fist of illmater, warmage/lock theurge thingy, multi-class madness intbased fightertype/skillmonkey

I also like sticking a halfdrow rogue and a dwarven paladin in a party...

absolmorph
2010-04-15, 02:18 AM
In 3.5, if everyone's heavily a caster, Psion, or/and martial adept, we're in good shape.

I mentally eyerolled when I DMed a newbie who insisted on being a CW Samurai.
Don't doubt the power of Intimidate.

Personally, as long as someone can heal (not a heal-bot, just able to heal), I don't care much about the party make-up. I'll take whatever role I feel is un-covered (which, in one campaign, is melee and caster. Yay for multiple characters :smallannoyed: ).

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-04-15, 02:42 AM
I like any party with synergy, because that means they're thinking about how their character fits in with the group. Individual optimization in 3e might be important, but group optimization is severely underrated. It's also ultimately more rewarding for me, as I get to see the entire group tackle challenges and shine as a whole.

That said, parties that mesh well together will generally have it so that at least one character covers any of the following:

(a) Debuff
(b) Buff
(c) Battlefield Control
(d) Meat shield
(e) Healing
(f) Direct Damage
(g) Information Gathering
(h) Diplomacy/Intrigue
(i) Trap detection and disabling or circumventing

You could do this with an all arcanist party with something like
(1) Wizard/MotAO covers a, b, c, g, and sometimes f and i
(2) Wizard/Malconvoker covers d, a little f, and a little left over
(3) Sorcerer/Incantatrix (mailman) covers f, and a little left over
(4) Beguiler covers a, g, h, i, e (UMD), and a little b

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-15, 04:18 AM
Strong melee or skill, only one or maybe no full caster at all. At least 2 fighters or rogues with different builds, or maybe one fighter or rogue and one of either barbarian, knight, scout, monk or swashbuckler, any crossclass of those of course being fine. Uh, I guess my preferred party is "low tier" :V

I also prefer mainly human parties. 1-2 demihumans, tops. A cast of Spocks and Worfs doesn't make a good ensemble, you need humans to bounce them off of and you need a recognizably human society as a baseline to have a good setting for my money. I don't want to follow all-elf or all-dwarf stuff, that just turns into the Smurfs.

I don't care if they all neatly fit into an individual slot, but I don't want a bunch of charge-and-bashers all acting in unison. I prefer characters that aren't worthless if you take away their "gimmick," and also characters that can handle a fair bit of unusual setpieces like, fighting while scaling a cliff or fighting in deep snow, or whatever.

I strongly prefer low-magic parties and low-magic games, you can probably tell.

EDIT: It feels like I shouldn't even have to say this, but more than anything, an interesting balance of personalities is a must. I'm not gonna DM a bunch of boring, stoic badasses; save that **** for the 40k novels please. Characters in conflict are interesting. Adventuring's an extreme profession and probably attracts extreme personalities. Without going overboard, if the players can pull off interesting clashes like the lawful knight and the chaotic rogue, or the prim monk and the laid-back barbarian, or whatever, then that's just gravy.

Amphetryon
2010-04-15, 06:24 AM
Dread Necromancer, Warlock, Hexblade, Wilder, Psychic Warrior.

Optimystik
2010-04-15, 06:52 AM
All Psionic!

Mostly because of this. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metaconcert.htm)

Emmerask
2010-04-15, 07:01 AM
I always wanted to play an all rogue party (or at least rogue like classes but no full casters at all)

Adventures would be more like a shadowrun game I imagine could be pretty cool :smallbiggrin:

maybe

rogue
rogue
bard
paladin [variant that has nothing against stealing stuff] (with the sneaky prc thing from complete adventurer^^)
ranger (city variant)

Renchard
2010-04-15, 07:33 AM
I've always believed that there ain't no party like a West Coast party, cause a West Coast party don't stop.

Therefore, the best party is all warforged with no classes that require rest periods to recharge.

druid91
2010-04-15, 08:26 AM
In 3.5, if everyone's heavily a caster, Psion, or/and martial adept, we're in good shape.

same here.

Kaiyanwang
2010-04-15, 08:37 AM
1 fighting-man, 1 thief, 1 magic user and 1 cleric.

OR 14 gnome bards.

pasko77
2010-04-15, 09:07 AM
What do you enjoy having a party composed of?

Girls.:smalltongue:

Scorpions__
2010-04-15, 09:26 AM
My favorite kind is the group of roleplayers who don't care about class synergy. As long as the characters have interesting personalities and the DM roleplays the NPCs I am happy.

This, or at least as a DM, this is what I like to see. When the players are roleplaying, and asking what everything looks like around them.





DM[F]R

Optimystik
2010-04-15, 09:59 AM
Girls.:smalltongue:

I see what you did there.
(And speak for yourself!)

Winter_Wolf
2010-04-15, 10:01 AM
The Independence Day pool party at uncle's house.
Oh, right, that kind of party.

The party where the players all get along with each other. After that, any party where I don't have to play the spellcaster. Oh sure, all powerful and blah blah blah, but I don't like fiddling with spell lists. If I had to pick a party, I'd like five PCs: ranger, rogue, druid, barbarian, sorcerer or psion.

Dust
2010-04-15, 10:02 AM
Low magic, high stealth.

drengnikrafe
2010-04-15, 10:14 AM
My group generally makes for interestingly strange DMing. It tends to consist of...
1 Cleric who doesn't like to heal.
1 Rogue who is mediocre at trapfinding.
1 Meattank that can't hit.
1 Character (changes every time) that picks up the slack for the rest of the party.

And then they complain that there aren't enough battles... All that being said, though, I really do enjoy that type of thing.

Il_Vec
2010-04-15, 10:31 AM
The most fun I had with groups were: Me, as diviner/magelord/archmage; one Paladin of Tyranny, one Orc(not half) Eye of Gruumsh and one Druid; And me as Orc Frenzied Berserker, one Dwarf Druid, one Dwarf Bear-Warrior, one elf Arcane-Archer, and one elf scout/ranger.

Weimann
2010-04-15, 11:34 AM
I tend to favour small parties. Three or four people is a good amount, possibly even just a pair at times. It gives everyone more screen-time and makes it easier to have large areas of expertise.

Captain Six
2010-04-15, 12:11 PM
All I need is a party that gets along, I've quit most of my recent games due to most players around enjoying social conflict and moral dilemma. They enjoy themselves but I often end up leaving wishing I hadn't shown up. After spending so much time muddled in fantasy politics it would be a refreshing change of pace to go save a princess or something.