Is this party balanced? (DM Perspective) [Archive]

Alaris

2013-03-29, 10:42 PM

So, after the last adventure ended in my campaign world, I've started up a new one, and the players brought in mostly new characters (with one old PC returning from 'retirement').

Now, from my perspective, this party is pretty doomed, balance-wise, but I figured I'd get some perspective from the playground. I'm the DM, I'd like to avoid giving them NPCs to fill in the holes.

They are all starting at ECL 3, so without further ado:

-Wild Elf Duskblade 3
-Tiefling Monk 2 (All non-monk feats devoted to get Outsider Wings)
-Human Paladin 3
-Human Beguiler 3

-NPC - Half-Elf Duskblade 1 (They have the opportunity to re-recruit him. He is the apprentice of the Wild Elf Duskblade)

So... correct me if I'm wrong... but aren't they doomed? No Cleric, no Wizard... I guess the Beguiler can function as a rogue in some capacity...

Urk... I don't know what to do... I can build encounters around them so as to not completely destroy them... but part of me wants to teach them a lesson for not planning their party with one another...

Edit: Some world details are probably a good idea, to help the decision-making:

It is a relatively low-medium magic world.
I have not restricted classes in regards to Tier, or otherwise (besides Tome of Battle, officially).

Feel free to ask any other questions... I knew I was going to type up more data, but I forgot...

avr

2013-03-29, 10:53 PM

The beguiler can likely do traps, sneaking, maybe face, and battlefield control. Handy guy, that. The paladin can probably be the party face if necessary.

If CLW wands are easily and cheaply available, the paladin can cover healing starting next level. Just need to keep them alive until then.

The duskblade can kill things and draw enemy fire away from the beguiler, as can the paladin to a lesser extent.

The monk can ... sneak? Maybe? Flying and sneaky could be useful out of combat. A monk with LA isn't going to be any use at all in a fight though.

Depending on the details they might have trouble with ranged enemies, and healing isn't well covered, but I've seen worse.

dwlc2000

2013-03-29, 10:54 PM

I see what you mean. My group never talks about that kind of stuff. For three levels in my campaign the best thing my players had for a healer is a dragon shaman with a fast healing aura. The fact is no one wants to play the healer. I always wanna punish my party for that stuff, though it is just a game, and games are for fun, and its no fun playing a class you hate instead of playing a class you like and having fun. Thats what a game is for, after all.

Gavinfoxx

2013-03-29, 11:08 PM

No, it isn't balanced. Here is what I suggest you do:

Point the Monk player at...
-One of the Monk 2.0 classes. Unarmed Swordsage, Tashalatora Psychic Warrior, the Monk like Barbarian ACFs, whatever. I'll link you to a few when I'm not posting from my phone.
-Point him towards Fey'ri, Lesser Planetouched, the Alter Self handbook, and LA buyoff. He can have his cake and eat it to, no feats required, no permanent LA.

Point the Paladin player at...
-Crusader or
-Pathfinder Paladin

Make sure one person has maxxed UMD. Allow that Skill Knowledge or Apprentice Spellcaster or whatever to enable it.

Make sure everyone has a Healing Belt

Give the UMD guy two Wands of Lesser Vigor, or encourage the group to pool WBL to get at least one.

Give the Beguiler low power but useful items to support his role as face and primary trapffinder. Beguilers are better Rogues than Rogues, but still take some skill and understanding and correct skill placement and such. Make it clear to the player that he has trap duty.

Look up the handbooks that talk about level 1 battlefield control spells and grenade and throwable alchemical items and such that disable enemies. Encourage the party to get a mix of all of that sort of stuff, at least the good bang for the buck ones.

Do this and you will have a capable Tier 3 party that is quite balanced..

Alaris

2013-03-29, 11:45 PM

Indeed, well, I'm running the second session of the chapter tomorrow. I'll see how they manage in-game, and offer them the chance to re-adjust their builds one time before continuing the rest of the chapter. If they turn me down, then it is their loss.

Also, learned that the Beguiler traded out Trapfinding for something.

>.> Oh I am going to have so much fun with traps...

Fyermind

2013-03-30, 02:21 AM

Screwing the party over is generally not a good idea as DM. To a certain extent you can give them challenges that will need serious work to overcome, but they need to be surmountable.

For example, the lost relic that could destroy the true vampire is in a tomb. They need to get it out, but the tomb is heavily trapped and guarded. A normal party would go in and take it, but because of the traps, they can't. Instead, they have to find the best trapsmith in the area and convince him to accompany them. This rogue 1 expert 10 or whatever he is, is useless at combat, but is their only way of getting in so now they need to keep him alive through the combat encounters, but he'll automatically get them past most of the traps (quick descriptions are enough usually) until you reach and encounter trap (see dungeonscape for more details) where the party really has to work to stay alive and keep him alive while he disable the trap.

You can work with that party. You may need to do something special to bring the Monk up to the power level of the other characters, but they should be pretty much fine. Modules as written should not be too challenging assuming they get appropriate wealth by level and have access to wands of cure light wounds and a belt of healing or two.

If the monk is intent on playing someone who flies, perhaps you can suggest archery. If the monk is intent on getting up close and personal with his fists, perhaps you can suggest totemist. Binder may also give that player the sort of fluff and effects they are looking for.

Sadistic DMs often have a hard time getting along with their players and can create arms races. You have the opportunity here to be a sadistic DM. Don't do it.

rockdeworld

2013-03-30, 03:00 AM

No, the party is not balanced, internally or externally.
Internally, the Paladin and Monk are both tier 5, meaning they can't do even their own job well, whereas the Beguiler and Duskblade are tier 3, meaning they do their job well and are useful when their job isn't needed. The monk might be a second scout, and while he has the right idea about flight being important, he has the wrong idea about being a Tiefling to get it (the LA isn't worth it), and about how useful it'll be on a Monk. There's a race called Raptoran that gets flight for free at level 6 (fluff requires you to take the Skypledged PrC, but it's a full-casting class that isn't bad).

Now externally. As mentioned the Beguiler can find traps and cast BFC, debuff, and utility spells from the illusion school. The Duskblade is a great secondary (or sometimes primary) meleer who can rip out damage, cast a few debuffs, and occasionally some utility spells. The Paladin can at least act like a meatshield with his d10 HD and armor, even if he doesn't get much else worthwhile. The roles of scout, tank, and caster are covered by those 3 classes, but there's no real support, aka someone to stop people from dying. Note that I don't use the word healer. Stopping people from getting hurt and/or killing enemies before they can hurt your allies is more effective than healing in D&D, and a good supporter uses buffs to boost his allies' capabilities. I don't see anyone who can do that, meaning when they're out of their league, they're out of their league.

If they turn me down, then it is their loss.

Also, learned that the Beguiler traded out Trapfinding for something.

>.> Oh I am going to have so much fun with traps...
I'ts probably not necessary to have more traps than normal. That's the kinda thing that makes one a killer DM.

Of course, you don't have to low-ball encounters so that they survive either. Just treat it like a video game, where they can die and whip up a new character at no penalty, and it'll be challenging and fun. I ran Tomb of Horrors that way that the party had a decent time, although they didn't want to do it again after not getting past the third door.

With anything I say, take whatever helps and discard the rest.

Screwing the party over is generally not a good idea as DM. To a certain extent you can give them challenges that will need serious work to overcome, but they need to be surmountable.

For example, the lost relic that could destroy the true vampire is in a tomb. They need to get it out, but the tomb is heavily trapped and guarded. A normal party would go in and take it, but because of the traps, they can't. Instead, they have to find the best trapsmith in the area and convince him to accompany them. This rogue 1 expert 10 or whatever he is, is useless at combat, but is their only way of getting in so now they need to keep him alive through the combat encounters, but he'll automatically get them past most of the traps (quick descriptions are enough usually) until you reach and encounter trap (see dungeonscape for more details) where the party really has to work to stay alive and keep him alive while he disable the trap.
Good example. Know when to fight, know when to run away. Know when you can solve a problem, and know when to get help. Railroad tracks aren't always needed to keep a party out of areas they're not supposed to be in.

Zerter

2013-03-30, 03:03 AM

Just adjust the challenge level in your campaign... When I opened this topic I thought it was going to be about a party in which the intra-party balance was off. That can be a problem. They play tier 3-5s that do not really go together? Big deal. I optimize my characters, I love doing it, but the suggestions here are naked powergaming for no reason. Do not be the kind of DM that gets his own topic on this site with players complaining.

Alaris

2013-03-30, 03:18 AM

I have no intention of being a killer DM. I like DMing, and I like my players as friends far too much to do that. But I'd like to teach them (in a way) to at least somewhat balance their party when they plan things out.

I have no problem if they want to play Monks and Paladins, so long as their builds can work together, and they aren't lacking in some major department (for instance, support in this case).

I suppose it'll be up to me to make interesting encounters that don't utterly destroy them, while still providing a challenge. At least I'll have a challenge on my side... a different one.

On the note of traps, I don't really intend to have more than I usually do, I more so meant I'm going to have fun designing some, since I'm confident that they won't be able to find them. [On that note, I am perfectly fine if the PCs wish to go hire a trapfinder of sorts. But I'm not going to give them one for free, nor will I give them a support cleric or druid].

Some of the major problems I really have here lies with the Monk. He's devoted all of his current feats to getting Outsider Wings, so he can fly at ECL 3. That's fine and dandy... except that he has no offensive capability beyond that. He can fly... he has an AC of 16, and he can deflect arrows (I think). The moment encounters discover he doesn't have much damage output, they'll cease focusing on the airborne monk, and focus on the grounded opponents. I am really... troubled as to the usefulness of the Monk.

I try to run a very character/plot-oriented campaign, so I don want to just outright kill the PCs, or high-ball their encounters too much. But... maybe if one of them ends up dying, they'll roll a support character to round them out. I dunno...

Ultimately, I'm running my game in about... 12 hours. So I'll have to get some sleep soon. Thanks for the advice, I'll run with them as is for this coming session of game, and if it does not go well, I'll offer to let them rebuild or alter a character or two before the campaign continues.

Thanks for the advice everyone. ^_^

Edenbeast

2013-03-30, 03:31 AM

Optimizers and tier rankers aside; party balance depends on what you throw at them. If you consider them doomed already, then you're inflexible.

rockdeworld

2013-03-30, 03:37 AM

the suggestions here are naked powergaming for no reason.
No, they're not. The suggestion to play a crusader rather than a paladin is not "naked powergaming for no reason," it's "playing a class that can actually heal people with reasonable efficacy rather than one that just pretends to."

The suggestion to play anything other than a level 2 monk in a level 3 party is "trying to keep that player from a having that feeling of frustration and powerlessness that we all felt at one time or another."

I don't appreciate when someone calls my suggestions "naked powergaming." I would prefer that you provide reasoned arguments instead of insults.

I try to run a very character/plot-oriented campaign, so I don want to just outright kill the PCs, or high-ball their encounters too much. But... maybe if one of them ends up dying, they'll roll a support character to round them out. I dunno...
Exactly right. There's no need to highball encounters either. Just treat them like normal enemies, and see what happens. Then don't feel bad.

Alaris

2013-03-30, 03:45 AM

Optimizers and tier rankers aside; party balance depends on what you throw at them. If you consider them doomed already, then you're inflexible.

Well, it's better put like this. If I were to throw CR-Appropriate encounters at them right now, I would wager that they would be hard-pressed to win. Going by that, saying they are 'doomed' is not too far'fetched.

Naturally I have to accommodate for their... 'interesting builds.' Or nudge them in the direction of playing something that can be somewhat competent.

Vknight

2013-03-30, 03:53 AM

Set the monk on fire and see if he stop drops and rolls or lets his things burn away and the occasional 1 damage a round

But to be serious tell the monks player that he is hurting himself with his build choice as the monk cannot compete compared to the Paladin, Duskblade, or Beguiler.
Especially with LA.
Nudge him towards the change up of lesser planar.
Or Pathfinders Monk

VeisuItaTyhjyys

2013-03-30, 03:56 AM

Vknight

2013-03-30, 04:00 AM

As a guy who often-to-always gets stuck playing meatshield beatsticks because nobody else wants to and the party has to be "balanced," don't "teach them a lesson." The only lesson I ever learned about balanced parties is that my friends are just as bad at compromising as they are at planning. If one isn't running a published module, it's part of the DM's responsibility to base stuff around the party.

Then your friends are a lot like mine.

I didn't punish them but I didn't edit things and told them
And said I did not care it was there choice how to handle things.
This lead to them consistently being killed/murdered/causing there own deaths.

Look at any number of my stories all the same group

Simply put one must accept there short comings and force them to both adapt well easing back.
Don't push to hard but don't give them a free ball. After all monsters are smart

rockdeworld

2013-03-30, 04:11 AM

Look at any number of my stories all the same group
Where can I find these stories? I want to read them.

Also, I decided to post this down here rather than editing my post, since the OP posted again in the meantime.

For the record, here's what I consider to be common tactics, in order of increasing efficacy:
Self-Preservation:
1. Testing defenses: Creatures fight to first blood. If any of them are seriously hurt or killed, they run. Note that this is much more effective if they are guerrilla fighters, but this ranking assumes they don't come back.
2. Mob: Creatures only attack when they are bigger or in sufficiently large numbers (eg. their total volume is greater than their opponents), or both. If either of these two conditions are lost, they run away.
3. Fervor: Creatures fight to the death, but a few may run away if they are seriously injured and/or alone. Most intelligent opponents are probably about here.
4. Heartless: Creatures fight until they can't fight anymore. If information is involved, they commit suicide when they're beaten. Most animals and mindless opponents are probably about here. For other opponents this increases the CR.

Offensive Tactics:
1. Defending a location: Creatures only attack those who come close to them. They don't actively engage opponents and they nor follow those who retreat.
2. Brawl: Creatures attack those closest to them or whoever last dealt them damage (for revenge). They actively engage opponents that they can find. This is probably where most encounters in the MM are meant to be.
3. Focused: Creatures focus on their target without getting distracted by attackers or obstacles. They only stop when they know their target is eliminated, negated, or momentarily out of reach. This increases the CR, because a regular fighter, paladin or monk can't tank these enemies.
4. Strategic: Creatures attack efficiently. They attack force multipliers first (such as BFCers, buffers/debuffers, supporters), then high-damage opponents, and last tanks. If the tank is also a BFCer, they do their best to avoid or negate him. This usually increases the CR beyond what the MM and DMG account for.

Group Makeup:
1. Alone: Self-explanatory, weakest (meaning equal to the CR of the creature).
2. Like-kind: With family or eg. a guild. This or alone is generally what the MM assumes, and the rules for adjusting CR are written there or the DMG (they're in d20SRD anyway).
3. Mish-mash: Several creatures, often with no relation to one another even within the plot. May be weaker than like-kind or much stronger, but it's entirely up to chance. This sometimes appears in preconstructed adventures and the adjustment to CR varies by makeup.
4. A party: Individual weaknesses are covered by others' strengths. Individual strengths are multiplied by other creatures strengths. Can hit the party with multiple forms of attack that are difficult or impossible to defend against. This increases the CR of an encounter.

These are based on my experience. I'm a killer DM, and used all 4's when I started. I've since learned to tone it down relative to my PCs.

Edit: typo

Zerter

2013-03-30, 04:29 AM

I don't appreciate when someone calls my suggestions "naked powergaming." I would prefer that you provide reasoned arguments instead of insults.

No, they're not. The suggestion to play a crusader rather than a paladin is not "naked powergaming for no reason," it's "playing a class that can actually heal people with reasonable efficacy rather than one that just pretends to."

Forcing (suggesting? really?) players to play stronger and similiarish classes because you don't want to tone down the power level you had in mind is forcing them to powergame to accomadate your needs. Now, I guess that's fair if at the outset of the campaign you informed them that this was going to be that kind of campaign and they agreed. But this is how this looks: after outlining the campaign, they come with a party that you don't like because it's not strong enough. 10 hours before the campaign starts you are rushing to fix it somehow but you think a good solution might be to punish them for not accomadating your needs. That is pretty screwed up and I am trying to save your ass over here, if you instead decide to feel insulted, be that person! Does not affect me at all :smallwink:.

DMVerdandi

2013-03-30, 04:36 AM

Perhaps introduce retraining into the campaign through an adventurer's school in a city. Allow them one free admission into the school, which usually costs all of the PC's Wealth to be admitted.

Have them meet with a party adviser who offers to teach them more efficient ways of combat based on their individual personalities.

Have the Beguiler and Duskblade have their feats retrained, and the paladin and monk retrained into Possibly TOB classes. If they don't like the suggestion, suggest that the monk learn carmandine monk for SAD instead of MAD, and the paladin retrained into a cleric.

Make paladin sound like the poor man's Cleric of nobility and law. And that the adventurer is doing it wrong. Also give the Now cleric, the smite acf.

Kill the NPC. Replace with healer with a personality (Maybe addicted to drugs or booze, but trying to change life around through hospitality.)

Alaris

2013-03-30, 04:36 AM

Forcing (suggesting? really?) players to play stronger and similiarish classes because you don't want to tone down the power level you had in mind is forcing them to powergame to accomadate your needs. Now, I guess that's fair if at the outset of the campaign you informed them that this was going to be that kind of campaign and they agreed. But this is how this looks: after outlining the campaign, they come with a party that you don't like because it's not strong enough. 10 hours before the campaign starts you are rushing to fix it somehow but you think a good solution might be to punish them for not accomadating your needs. That is pretty screwed up and I am trying to save your ass over here, if you instead decide to feel insulted, be that person! Does not affect me at all :smallwink:.

Err, I want to make it clear that I'm not the one who said those things, and I'm the OP.

I am not trying to rush to fix it, I was ultimately planning on letting this session run it's course (to see how the players manage without certain roles filled), and then taking possible action after this session. I was seeking guidance pretty much for after that.

Nonetheless, I appreciate all the advice in this thread, I believe it will be helpful in coming to a determination.

rockdeworld

2013-03-30, 04:37 AM

Forcing (suggesting? really?)
*Checks back at the posts above yours*

Here is what I suggest you do:

I'll see how they manage in-game, and offer them the chance to re-adjust their builds one time before continuing the rest of the chapter.

You can work with that party.
What you've posted doesn't correspond to this thread.

eggynack

2013-03-30, 04:39 AM

I don't think this party seems particularly imbalanced. A party that ranges from tiers 3-5 is pushing the limits of party balance, but not to the point that it will become a serious issue. One way it could go wrong is if the tier 5's aren't particularly optimized. Beguilers basically optimize themselves, so in a low op party it could be overpowered. Still, you're probably right to suggest the ToB classes. If the monk and paladin switch to an unarmed swordsage and a crusader respectively then the game will change from pushing the limits of balance to having maximum balance levels. Either way, in the currently existing party all of the team members will probably have places where they can participate. Just make sure that the monsters are balanced against the party's power level, and all things balance should work themselves out.

Malroth

2013-03-30, 04:44 AM

with Talshorashta and a few psionic warrior levels that monk might wind up worth something but at best he's going to be a late bloomer. I'm not a big paladin fan but with Smite to song and or sword of the arcane order they can be alright party members and can fill out that support slot they're lacking.

Forum Explorer

2013-03-30, 05:00 AM

It's actually looks pretty balanced to me. They all suck :smalltongue:

More seriously they have just made a weaker team. However the Paladin can heal, they have decent social skills, damaging ability and spells. Suggest they get a wand of CLW at the first opportunity.

PersonMan

2013-03-30, 06:00 AM

For the record, here's what I consider to be common tactics, in order of increasing efficacy:
Self-Preservation:
1. Testing defenses: Creatures fight to first blood. If any of them are seriously hurt or killed, they run. Note that this is much more effective if they are guerrilla fighters, but this ranking assumes they don't come back.
2. Mob: Creatures only attack when they are bigger or in sufficiently large numbers (eg. their total volume is greater than their opponents), or both. If either of these two conditions are lost, they run away.
3. Fervor: Creatures fight to the death, but a few may run away if they are seriously injured and/or alone. Most intelligent opponents are probably about here.
4. Heartless: Creatures fight until they can't fight anymore. If information is involved, they commit suicide when they're beaten. Most animals and mindless opponents are probably about here. For other opponents this increases the CR.

I disagree. Although it's often played otherwise, most animals who are fighting you are probably hungry and will run after they realize that you can hurt them enough that the effort isn't worth it.

What you have here only applies when they're defending their den/cubs/whatever, I'd say.

rockdeworld

2013-03-30, 06:23 AM

I disagree. Although it's often played otherwise, most animals who are fighting you are probably hungry and will run after they realize that you can hurt them enough that the effort isn't worth it.

What you have here only applies when they're defending their den/cubs/whatever, I'd say.
Fair enough. In that case, animals would get bumped down to "testing defenses" if they haven't seen your kind before, and "mob" if they have.

By the way, are you related to this Person_Man (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=15131) at all?

Roclat

2013-03-30, 06:40 AM

I had a lvl 3 group that was a
3 fighter (Archer)
3 Fighter (Tank)
3 rogue
3 Druid (Healer)
3 Ranger

I put in a vampire with 1 level of fighter and some armor/shield and it completely wrecked them, It made the druid re-evaluate her spell set-up.

I don't believe there is ever a inherently bad balanced group per se, they will struggle in some areas harder than others, but others they will overpower quickly with their melee prowess.

I rarely suggest things to my players, I feel like if I do I could pre-suggest counters to stuff I plan later, so what I would do is throw a lot of different undead, lycanthrops even some low level demons and/or devils at them so they get a feel for how hard a DR/regen/high AC/Immunity to crits/sneak attacks will play out and get them thinking about how to over-come a lot of these problems early.

TuggyNE

2013-03-30, 06:47 AM

By the way, are you related to this Person_Man (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?u=15131) at all?

Nope! They get mistaken for each other, but to my knowledge are quite unrelated and chose similar names by accident.

Gnaeus

2013-03-30, 07:08 AM

Perhaps introduce retraining into the campaign through an adventurer's school in a city. Allow them one free admission into the school, which usually costs all of the PC's Wealth to be admitted.

Why would you charge all their wealth to be admitted? So you can change one problem (weak class) for another problem (low WBL?).

We had a campaign where every time you leveled up, you could retrain a previous level or feat for free. It caused no problems at all. It did have the side effect of allowing PCs to take one level dips that were short term helpful and retraining them later, but we saw that as more of a feature than a bug (since it smoothed out the level power curve a little).

Malroth

2013-03-31, 06:43 AM

Gnorman

2013-03-31, 07:30 AM

Nope! They get mistaken for each other, but to my knowledge are quite unrelated and chose similar names by accident.

This is probably why (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5GVrp8obC0) (1:07).

Xerxus

2013-03-31, 09:21 AM

That monk is going to be very bad and sad, unless he has str, dex, con and wis 20 for some reason. Sure, you can balance challenges for a party, but you could never ever make that monk useful (except maybe in an anti-magic field outdoors with a hundred poisoned shuriken).

Deophaun

2013-03-31, 09:43 AM

No, they're not. The suggestion to play a crusader rather than a paladin is not "naked powergaming for no reason," it's "playing a class that can actually heal people with reasonable efficacy rather than one that just pretends to."
Except it doesn't.

Great, you can recover HP. A wand of CLW can do that. Now, how about you break the curse on your buddy? What's the matter Crusader? Can't hit something and make it better? How about ability drain? No? Level loss? Resurrection? Nothing? Look, here's a dead guy. Can you at least tell me what killed him? No? Yeah, some cleric replacement you are...

Xerxus

2013-03-31, 09:46 AM

Except it doesn't.

Great, you can recover HP. A wand of CLW can do that. Now, how about you break the curse on your buddy? What's the matter Crusader? Can't hit something and make it better? How about ability drain? No? Level loss? Resurrection? Nothing? Look, here's a dead guy. Can you at least tell me what killed him? No? Yeah, some cleric replacement you are...

So he should be a cleric, is that what you're saying?

Soranar

2013-03-31, 09:49 AM

Paladins' effectiveness can change drastically depending on their build. I'd tell your player to have a look at the paladin handbook (just google it, as usual Dictuum Mortum made one).

The beguiler should be your saving grace but he traded away trapfinding.

Now how did he do that? Cause beguilers don't have alternate class features as far as I know. Still, he can act as a party face if need be (they do get access to social skills and they have a lot of skillpoints). I guess he just ignored search and disable device or something?

The duskblade should do fine, they're fairly simple to play

The monk is bad enough to start with, now he took an LA race on top of it? And he's wasting feats on flight? Try to convince him to play an unarmed swordsage, that could help a lot. Point out that shadowblade also works with unarmed strikes (letting him concentrate on DEX) , might help a little. Or just kill his character in the first encounter, that works too...

For most parties, you need:

-a face (beguiler or paladin)
-a tank (paladin or duskblade)
-a striker (duskblade)
-a battlefield controller (beguiler)
-a skillmonkey (should be beguiler but it's not so ???)
-a mascot (usually an animal companion, in this case I guess it's the monk?)
-a healer (paladin again)

If you lose a major role (say healer paladin cause he's also tanking) your party is in a lot of trouble. Same goes if you lose your battlefield controller or simply because what you're facing is immune to mind effects (like a bunch of undead)

Should be an interesting game

Deophaun

2013-03-31, 09:58 AM

So he should be a cleric, is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that switching to a crusader doesn't solve the imbalance problem. 3.5 is quite unkind in this regard, as there are a lot of nasty effects that need to be removed, and precious few classes that can cover them.

Now, the paladin is actually in a better position here, because he can use a Holy Avenger. Greater dispel magic at-will is a powerful bacon saver that the crusader cannot match.

Alaris

2013-04-14, 11:58 PM

Well, the session went decently, as the party managed to survive. But the unfortunate part now is that... well, the player of the Beguiler has made an exit, due to life-events.

A new player is joining (pretty much as the other player leaves), and thus the party will now have a Bard. >.> This does not remedy any situation at all. Well, one of the players explained to her what the party has, and she insisted on a Bard (and not say, a Cleric, or a Wizard... or anything the party actually needs).

So we now have...

1x Duskblade 3
1x Paladin 3
1x Monk 2
1x Bard 3

>.>

I really don't know what to say... they don't want to change builds... they have the opportunity to hire people if they want... and they could get magic items to tend to their... missing features, but I'm not going to hand them stuff. I've been accused of coddling players before, and I'll have no hand in it any further.

Blarg...

eggynack

2013-04-15, 12:40 AM

That doesn't really change anything at all. Bards and beguilers are at the same tier, so the balance of the party should remain the same. There's a bit of finagling upward, because bards are good in an all melee parties, and a bit downward if she's bad at optimizing, because bards get a higher rate of returns from optimization than beguilers do. Your party is perfectly balanced with itself, and that's a good thing. You don't want there to be a wizard in the party. All you need to do is make sure that the encounters are balanced against them, and it all works itself out. Because they're all at the same approximate power level, you just need to balance against the party as a whole. If there were a wizard or a cleric, you'd need to balance against the low tiers and high tiers separately. Down that road is annoyance. Don't force your players down that road if it's not one they want.

Trinoya

2013-04-15, 01:22 AM

Isn't this the same game with the player who said, "I'm ready to abandon all the other members of the party at the drop of a hat."

Oh and with the player who outright demanded other people change their characters because they were 'difficult' and he didn't feel like having any challenge to his authority as a leader ("because even though I'm not a good leader my character is!!").

My advice remains the same. Continue to throw them dungeons as you would any party. Do not adjust the number of traps, required healing, bosses, adventures, etc. If they can not form a balanced party currently eventually the survivors of their adventures will thanks to natural selection.

If a party doesn't have a trap finder, it doesn't give anyone free reign for traps, but the party can't sit by and say, "oh no, we don't want traps because wah." They will encounter the occasional trap. They will encounter the occasional location that really could have used that invisibility spell, and they will encounter that time when their pockets are empty because they are spending all their gold on healing items. Sooner or later the problem will fix itself, bad party balance is almost universally self resolving.

And remember, these are the same players who thought that you had coddled them too much and have complained about the slightest increase in difficulty already to you. Honestly they could use a lesson in CR and a lesson in working together.

I'm curious to see how it all turns out... but don't change YOUR style because of their bad decisions (that goes both for increasing or decreasing things like traps etc). Have it flow naturally... and sooner or later when the BBEG notices they have no cleric or wizard solutions will be inbound as PCs die off.

Or..

Perhaps..

Succeed against all odds. :smallcool:

avr

2013-04-15, 01:29 AM

Do you know if the monks' player actually wants to participate in combat? If the answer is no, adventures which involve puzzle-solving, planning and/or sneaking around might keep him/her better involved. If the answer is yes, letting events kill the monk might be the best course.

Bard for a beguiler who didn't have trapfinding anyway is probably not a huge change. Less battlefield control, more buffs.

eggynack

2013-04-15, 01:32 AM

I don't see why a DM would do that. The low powered campaign is a perfectly viable way to play. A DM doesn't have to throw softballs all the time, but the challenges should be able to be overcome. I'd rather have a duskblade paladin monk bard party to DM for than a paladin bard wizard cleric party any day. There's a little room for additional balance in the party, but that balance would involve pushing the paladin and monk up, or the bard and duskblade down. It wouldn't involve forcing characters into higher tiers so that they can destroy all challenges in their path. It's the job of the DM to craft a fun and interesting adventure. He shouldn't leave the capabilities of the party entirely out of the consideration, because that's no way to have fun. It doesn't mean that games can't be difficult. It just means that when adjusting the game in the direction of difficulty, the DM is aware of the changes being made, and is keeping the party in mind. If a DM wants to kill party members repeatedly, that's entirely his prerogative, but if he doesn't want to, then there's no obligation to.

Alaris

2013-04-16, 04:04 PM

I guess that is a valid point, were I actually worried that my group optimized their Wizards or Clerics. But they don't, so if they were to play a Wizard or Cleric, it would not really be an issue. The closest thing to optimization by PCs in the past has been a Bard/Sublime Chord, and a Barbarian/Frenzy Berserker. The second of which resulted in a PC death.

Put simply, I would be fine if the PCs decided to play Tier 1 classes, because they don't attempt to cheese things out to the point of it not being fun. They play things pretty standard.

I have no intention of simply 'killing PCs off repeatedly.' That's not the kind of game I like. However, while I'll take PCs capabilities into consideration to a point, I'm not going to remove entire chunks of adventure or challenge from the game because they lack a certain feature. Dungeons will still have traps, even if they don't have a rogue. If they choose not to hire a Rogue or find another solution, then it will be their funeral.

Currently, the way I see it, they have the following roles in the party covered:

-Tank (The Duskblade)
-Tank (The Paladin)
-Skills (Bard)
-Skills/Lite-Tank (Monk)

They are essentially lacking entirely in healing/buffing/battlefield control. And if they do not endeavor to find a way to cover those flaws, then I think it would be unrealistic if any recurring enemy NPCs did not take note of this, or take advantage of this.

My opinion, naturally, and I'm open to other suggestions/opinions on the matter.

Trinoya

2013-04-16, 04:09 PM

eggynack

2013-04-16, 04:33 PM

What I'm suggesting, is that a thing that isn't challenging for a high tier party can easily be highly challenging for a low tier party. You don't necessarily have to cut out whole swathes of your campaign. Just modulate the challenges a bit downward to compensate. You actually have the opportunity to run a campaign with higher challenge, and not even use enemies that are that powerful. You can have whole adventures that would be obsoleted by a high level caster. You could have one of the PC's fall ill from an enemy, and require them to find a healer for aid before the character dies, and there won't be a party cleric to just heal them the next morning. You could have the PC's need to cross a vast jungle in order to even get to the bad guys, and they won't have a wizard to just teleport them across.

The variety of challenges hasn't been cut down at all. What has changed is the type of challenge you should present. The monsters should probably be toned down a bit in difficulty, but what you're left with is a more mundane and gritty campaign, where the PC's have to actually think their way through basic problems rather than shooting class features at them. The latter type of campaign is an entirely viable one, but that doesn't make this type less viable. If what you really wanted was a high power campaign, then you should have said that at the beginning when they were making characters. However, I will leave you with a final example. You could actually put a chasm between the party and their goals, and that would be an actual problem. They'd have to build a bridge, or go around, or anything. For a party with a caster, it's the most trivial task in the world. You could have a game with chasm challenges. It could be yours.

edit: Also, traps as they currently exist are lame. The rogue just searches for them, rolls against them, and the whole thing ends immediately. It's not even a challenge. It's just a rogue tax. Instead, I suggest you use one of two alternatives for the way you use traps. First, you can make it so that traps are can be destroyed by puzzling through them instead of rolling, and make them visible to anyone who searches rather than relying on skill rolls. It'd go something like, "You see a chest in front of you, gilded with gold." "I examine it for traps." "You see a mechanism that looks like it'll send a poisoned dart your way if you open the chest." "I'll jam the mechanism with this handy screwdriver, and open the chest." "Unfortunately, the mechanism was strong enough that the screwdriver just rotated with it, and the darts shoot forward into your chest." You can put much more thought into it than that, but that's just the basic idea.

The second option is encounter traps from dungeonscape. They're large scale traps that are designed like encounters, and can be defeated by the whole party even without a rogue. I think that a rogue would still make it easier, but your party would do fine against it. Check it out, cause it's super neat.

Trasilor

2013-04-16, 05:15 PM

...Also, traps as they currently exist are lame. The rogue just searches for them, rolls against them, and the whole thing ends immediately. It's not even a challenge. It's just a rogue tax. Instead, I suggest you use one of two alternatives for the way you use traps. First, you can make it so that traps are can be destroyed by puzzling through them instead of rolling, and make them visible to anyone who searches rather than relying on skill rolls. It'd go something like, "You see a chest in front of you, gilded with gold." "I examine it for traps." "You see a mechanism that looks like it'll send a poisoned dart your way if you open the chest." "I'll jam the mechanism with this handy screwdriver, and open the chest." "Unfortunately, the mechanism was strong enough that the screwdriver just rotated with it, and the darts shoot forward into your chest." You can put much more thought into it than that, but that's just the basic idea.

The second option is encounter traps from dungeonscape. They're large scale traps that are designed like encounters, and can be defeated by the whole party even without a rogue. I think that a rogue would still make it easier, but your party would do fine against it. Check it out, cause it's super neat.

Wow, that clearly states my thoughts on traps...

I thought all traps had a CR and the group always got XP for 'defeating' them?

Regarding the original OP - don't change how you run the game. You can tone down the encounters so they are not all killer encounters. Your players may surprise you with their creativity and ingenuity. They may rest more, retreat more, but they want these characters to survive.

give 'em a chance and see how they do.

Scow2

2013-04-16, 07:26 PM

The roles I'm seeing are:

Tank+Backup healer: Paladin
Healer+Support: Bard
Striker+Arcane Support: Duskblade

Athlete: Monk

Traps should be a creative inconvenience that changes a situation when it's inevitably triggered, instead of "Kill 1d3-1 Party members every door."

The monk is good at mobility-based challenges, especially with flight - although, that's probably about it. I'd suggest sticking with some sort of dungeon crawling, with above- and below-ground dungeons with enough 'headroom' for the monk to use its wings, but enough terrain diversity so that direct combat with the monsters isn't the only option. Bottlenecks, falling objects, and stuff like that.

eggynack

2013-04-16, 07:48 PM

I thought all traps had a CR and the group always got XP for 'defeating' them?

I think that's how they work, but in practice it plays out as a skill roll. Even in a party with a rogue, traps are just an irritating resource tax for the most part. I'm going to toss a double recommendation towards encounter traps from dungeonscape though. They're basically what traps should have been from the start. You don't have to run all of your traps one way or the other, but I just don't see the point of generic traps at all.

Encounter traps are much better than regular traps for a few reasons. First, there's more than one way to solve them. They operate a bit similarly to combat, so variety exists to the extent that it exists in combat. Second, they're collaborative, rather than a single player only activity. Third, they're super cool. It's essentially Indiana Jones in game terms. Finally, and most importantly for this discussion, you don't need a rogue to beat them. You can toss fancy encounter traps at a rogueless party, and everyone will have a fun time.

The real issue you face with this party is magical healing. If you toss a disease at a cleric having party, it's just a drain on the party's resources. If you toss one at a party without a cleric, it could be crippling. You can still toss diseases at your players, but just be conscious that you're doing it, and good times will roll in. You don't want every encounter to end with the party running back to the local church to heal the crazy disease you gave them.

Trinoya

2013-04-16, 07:51 PM

Speaking from experience with his players... they don't do well with even the most mundane of puzzles (or riddles for that matter). I had entire sessions come crashing down around puzzles specifically built for them and their characters. I eventually removed them all because the players just wouldn't be bothered to do them (his players will actually take out their computers and start playing other games if a puzzle has the audacity to be within a 20 mile radius...).

At least they sometimes will throw a marble down a hall to deal with a trap... but yeah, my advice Alaris is avoid the puzzles. They won't appreciate them or their challenge in the least and YOU know that from personal experience.

Beyond that their suggestions aren't too bad. Don't make me edit your world map to put in jungles though! :smalleek:

ericgrau

2013-04-16, 08:01 PM

Low magic items screws over the first 3. The effects start in about 2-3 levels, though you guys might not notice until about 5 more levels.. They don't need a cleric as long as they can get wands of cure light wounds. A wizard isn't essential either.

Seems ok at least. "Low magic" always bothers me though.

eggynack

2013-04-16, 08:04 PM

That's the beauty of encounter traps though. They don't have to be particularly puzzle based at all. They're basically fought in the same way that regular monsters are. You can actually punch the traps to death, which should hold a lot of appeal for a hack and slash type party. It's kinda annoying that the party hates puzzles, but does that include regular problem solving? I'm referring to problems like, "In front of you is a chasm. Behind you is a grove of trees. One of you guys has craft(bridge). Get across the chasm." There's obviously ways to make it more complicated, but the point is that not all puzzles have to be of the, "In front of you are two buckets of 5 units and 8 units. Asmodeus has declared that you must fill one of the buckets with 4 units of water. Solve it now," variety. Also, The thing between the party and their goal has to be a jungle. If it's any other kind of environment then it won't work.

Palanan

2013-04-16, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Alaris
Well, the session went decently, as the party managed to survive.

Did your players have...fun? The player-fun quotient has not been touched on so far.

If fun was had around the table, and it was equally distributed, and if the DM even had a little fun himself...crikey, I wouldn't sweat it too much. They're a low-op, low-tier party. As eggynack points out, you have the opportunity to run a campaign where magic doesn't trivialize a lot of solid challenges. I would see that as opening up a lot of opportunities.

Originally Posted by Trinoya
...his players will actually take out their computers and start playing other games if a puzzle has the audacity to be within a 20 mile radius....

Meaning, playing something else in the middle of the game session?

I would find that incredibly rude, actually.

Originally Posted by Trinoya
Don't make me edit your world map to put in jungles though!

I think I read somewhere that jungles really help with party balance. The more detailed the better.

:smalltongue:

.

ericgrau

2013-04-16, 08:38 PM

I think I read somewhere that jungles really help with party balance. The more detailed the better.

:smalltongue:

.
Well it would help out a party ranger :smalltongue:. Actually I'm a big fan of detailed campaign worlds. Here are some wilderness based challenges. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm)

The monk has a use on traps. "Monk trapfinding" is where you walk in and pass your save. Somewhat similar to "barbarian trapfinding", the hp based version.

I agree traps should be more than just rolling a check, but the responsibility there lies on the DM not the trap list. Ask yourself how the trap works, where is the trigger, where is the business end. Consider what the player should see when he makes a search check, and physically where and how it's supposed to be disabled. It's not a "switch that triggers poison darts", it's only "A floor tile that can lower but you don't know what it activates." Or maybe he'll find the dart holes instead. Even without a rogue you can then plug the holes if you have the right materials. Etc. The more detailed you get the more creative the PCs can get with the solutions and the more engaged they will be. Not having a rogue could be a blessing in disguise, and what you learn can transfer over to when you do have a rogue.

Laharal

2013-04-16, 09:20 PM

I really don't know what to say... they don't want to change builds...

Well, if you warned them that they lack certain things and they told you that they don't care.. just let life happen: just build/roll random encounters like you'd do anyways and at one point they'll decide to adjust/quit/switch with hard-earned lessons.
I'd adapt if an unbalanced party was made for storyline/flavor purposes and if they told me beforehand, but that's me.
You could adjust a bit without being too easy on them.
It's like with most young kids ''Steve, don't touch the oven, it's hot''..Steve will do it anyways most of the time but never after :smallbiggrin:

Palanan

2013-04-16, 10:05 PM

The burned hand teaches best. After that, advice about fire goes to the heart.

:smallwink:

Alaris

2013-04-16, 10:13 PM

I think that's how they work, but in practice it plays out as a skill roll. Even in a party with a rogue, traps are just an irritating resource tax for the most part. I'm going to toss a double recommendation towards encounter traps from dungeonscape though. They're basically what traps should have been from the start. You don't have to run all of your traps one way or the other, but I just don't see the point of generic traps at all.

Encounter traps are much better than regular traps for a few reasons. First, there's more than one way to solve them. They operate a bit similarly to combat, so variety exists to the extent that it exists in combat. Second, they're collaborative, rather than a single player only activity. Third, they're super cool. It's essentially Indiana Jones in game terms. Finally, and most importantly for this discussion, you don't need a rogue to beat them. You can toss fancy encounter traps at a rogueless party, and everyone will have a fun time.

The real issue you face with this party is magical healing. If you toss a disease at a cleric having party, it's just a drain on the party's resources. If you toss one at a party without a cleric, it could be crippling. You can still toss diseases at your players, but just be conscious that you're doing it, and good times will roll in. You don't want every encounter to end with the party running back to the local church to heal the crazy disease you gave them.

I will take a look at Dungeonscape, sounds like more fun traps are always a good thing.

And yes, I'll be a bit more careful in regards to diseases/curses, but that doesn't mean I won't use them. Using them will be a good lesson in "this is why you should have some kind of healing type," be they PC, or hired NPC.

Low magic items screws over the first 3. The effects start in about 2-3 levels, though you guys might not notice until about 5 more levels.. They don't need a cleric as long as they can get wands of cure light wounds. A wizard isn't essential either.

Seems ok at least. "Low magic" always bothers me though.

It's relatively low-medium magic, which doesn't mean they can't get magic items. It just means that the majority of the magic items they will get are from loot, and not from "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe."

Did your players have...fun? The player-fun quotient has not been touched on so far.

If fun was had around the table, and it was equally distributed, and if the DM even had a little fun himself...crikey, I wouldn't sweat it too much. They're a low-op, low-tier party. As eggynack points out, you have the opportunity to run a campaign where magic doesn't trivialize a lot of solid challenges. I would see that as opening up a lot of opportunities.

Meaning, playing something else in the middle of the game session?

I would find that incredibly rude, actually.
.

They seemed to, they were each able to be somewhat effective in the encounters and roleplay; the monk was useful only insofar as the end of the session, where he was able to rescue someone with his flight.

And yes, we've had people do that (play something while in the middle of session). We've also had people put in ear buds and listen to music. Yes. It's rude.

Well it would help out a party ranger :smalltongue:. Actually I'm a big fan of detailed campaign worlds. Here are some wilderness based challenges. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/wilderness.htm)

The monk has a use on traps. "Monk trapfinding" is where you walk in and pass your save. Somewhat similar to "barbarian trapfinding", the hp based version.

I agree traps should be more than just rolling a check, but the responsibility there lies on the DM not the trap list. Ask yourself how the trap works, where is the trigger, where is the business end. Consider what the player should see when he makes a search check, and physically where and how it's supposed to be disabled. It's not a "switch that triggers poison darts", it's only "A floor tile that can lower but you don't know what it activates." Or maybe he'll find the dart holes instead. Even without a rogue you can then plug the holes if you have the right materials. Etc. The more detailed you get the more creative the PCs can get with the solutions and the more engaged they will be. Not having a rogue could be a blessing in disguise, and what you learn can transfer over to when you do have a rogue.

Well, it's a homebrew world, ever-being-fleshed-out, though the general skeleton of it has been created, so it will be fully detailed one day.

The "Monk Trapfinding" is only useful insofar as Reflex Saves. :P I wouldn't recommend it.

And yes... I'm taking a look at Dungeonscape to get a better idea on setting up cooler traps than just "search, disable."

Well, if you warned them that they lack certain things and they told you that they don't care.. just let life happen: just build/roll random encounters like you'd do anyways and at one point they'll decide to adjust/quit/switch with hard-earned lessons.
I'd adapt if an unbalanced party was made for storyline/flavor purposes and if they told me beforehand, but that's me.
You could adjust a bit without being too easy on them.
It's like with most young kids ''Steve, don't touch the oven, it's hot''..Steve will do it anyways most of the time but never after :smallbiggrin:

I have given them more than enough warnings. I was sadly foolish, and caved, giving them an Adept-Healer for the first session. He will be leaving the party next session, after thanking the party thoroughly for helping him escape the city.

Nonetheless, the idea is that they will fully be able to hire help to cover their bases. They can buy/obtain a Wand of CLW to cover their healing issue. Hire a rogue-type to find their traps. Even hire a Wizardy-type to help with buffing. But it will cost heavily on the resources. And that's presuming any of these individuals are interested.

Thank you all for your helpful suggestions, I'll see how it goes. I'm running my next session on May 4th.

Trinoya

2013-04-17, 03:50 PM

Also, The thing between the party and their goal has to be a jungle. If it's any other kind of environment then it won't work.

Oh you are just the-

I think I read somewhere that jungles really help with party balance. The more detailed the better.

:smalltongue:

.

...

Fuuuuuu :smallfurious:

HurinTheCursed

2013-04-20, 06:52 AM

Hi.

I'm now in a several years campaign in which we began by a balanced team. Introduction of new players when others left progressively unbalanced TOTALLY the group. At some point L11, we had a druid, a quite optimized barbarian charger, a artifact-lance-wielding paladin, a L10 ranger, a L7 monk (2LA racial) and as cohort a L6 ranger. Fights were messy but we were not put in difficulty except during longest dungeon crawling.
Some player's choices and constant character swapping forced the group to adapt (prestige feat, spontaneous healing from the druid...). Little by little, some balance is coming back.
We rarely had it the easy way like a full arcane caster can do it. We often fired traps, but hopefully not in the worst moments and he have HP. The lack of healing could be bad but the lack of restauration was crippling (negative levels that were a pain to get rid of, several permanent attributes maluses for a week or so for several of us). Let's say that when the paladin rejected a CN cleric NPC's offer to come with us against little money, my pragmatic character wasn't happy.

No dead character but some frustration in the group. The DM didn't adapt the difficulty or the loot but gave us RP easing at times. At least, new characters swaps made thing easier (even if there's still no full arcane caster) but the the monk has hard time to contribute in any role (player's fault, he didn't take our arguments into account).