Too many fighters?

[Reshy]

Okay, I'm trying to DM a game here and here's what everyone wants to be so far:

1 person wants to be a rogue

1 person wants to be a cleric

1 person wants to be a hex blade

1 person hasn't decided

and 3 people want to be fighter

WHY? Why do half the players want to be fighter in a 3.5 game.

[OldTrees1]

I had a similar situation when DMing in Highschool.
Everyone liked the non-casters for various reasons:
Some were trying to create something they had IRL experience with
Some preferred the passive bonuses and At-Will abilities of the non casters
One found a lot of really nice feats and Fighter allowed them to start with most of them
One wanted to play something based on a time in history

Such began the 2 year campaign with 1 Cleric, 2 Rogues, 2 Fighters and a Ranger
We all had fun.
The next campaign was similar but with +1 Sorcerer

[Defiled Cross]

No such thing.

:smallbiggrin:

[HalfQuart]

If that's what they want to play, just go with it.

[Trasilor]

Exact same thing happened to me (cleric, rouge then 3 fighters - I steered them to ToB)

If you are open to Tome of Battle, suggest having your players look there. Many times, they are looking play an archetype (the crusader, the sword master, the two weapon fighter, etc).

TALK to them. Don't belittle the fighter, just let them know that you want to have fun with their character the best way possible. Yes, its a new subset that take five minutes to learn, but it is lots of fun.

If you are running a low level game, fighters are not horrible either.

[HammeredWharf]

Different people like different things. It's only a problem if the Cleric overshadows the others completely, but he can easily abstain from doing so.

[Callin]

I dont really see anything wrong with that group makeup.

1 Fighter
1 Rogue
1 Cleric
1 Hexblade

Fighter is a Frontliner. Rogue flanks. Cleric does Cleric things, depending on what build. Hexblade can do some debuff and also be a frontliner of flanker, specially if he takes the ACF, later on gets a very small selection of spells.

The undecided can really be what they want to be. Ranged or Caster or even another melee if they so choose. There is no wrong way to play so I really dont see why you are seeing a problem?

[Telonius]

... to make the Bard feel better when he's inspiring six people instead of two? :smallbiggrin:

[Airk]

Fighters are iconic. Half Dryad Gish Sorcerers/Kobold Hexblades/Whatever off the wall race/class combination you came up with this week are not. Some people like playing iconic character types.

[Callin]

... to make the Bard feel better when he's inspiring six people instead of two? :smallbiggrin:

LOL oh man a DFI Bard would have fun in that group.

[TheIronGolem]

Fighter is the martial class that most people are familiar with, so naturally it tends to be the go-to for martial concepts that aren't more obviously covered by barbarian or ranger.

And the poor design of the fighter class isn't obvious to the casual player who doesn't read forums like this and rarely leaves the low-to-mid levels where its flaws are less clear.

[torrasque666]

I dont really see anything wrong with that group makeup.

1 Fighter
1 Rogue
1 Cleric
1 Hexblade

Fighter is a Frontliner. Rogue flanks. Cleric does Cleric things, depending on what build. Hexblade can do some debuff and also be a frontliner of flanker, specially if he takes the ACF, later on gets a very small selection of spells.



3 fighters. Though really all that does is make this a kinda large group.



The undecided can really be what they want to be. Ranged or Caster or even another melee if they so choose. There is no wrong way to play so I really dont see why you are seeing a problem?

Shh... don't let the optimizers hear you. They'll think you're crazy.

[Callin]

3 fighters. Though really all that does is make this a kinda large group.



Shh... don't let the optimizers hear you. They'll think you're crazy.


WOW how did I miss the 3 fighters thing... totally glossed over the number. UMMMM Yea.. still they can be varied. Unless all of em go Spiked Chain Trip Machines.

[Brookshw]

Hmmm....you're right. One of them should go monk :smalltongue:

More seriously that's fine that they all want to be fighters. A group of fighters with coordinated tactics and builds can do some nice stuff. Hope they have fun :smallbiggrin:

[Telonius]

It can work. :smallbiggrin:
http://periannath.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/partybalance_500x400.jpg

[lytokk]

I think it would work just fine. Hopefully they're all different builds, otherwise theres going to be a lot of competition for that first +1 longsword.

[Hazuki]

Fighters are iconic. Half Dryad Gish Sorcerers/Kobold Hexblades/Whatever off the wall race/class combination you came up with this week are not. Some people like playing iconic character types.Aww. I wanted to be the first person to insult people who play with a different style. You ninja. :<

[Airk]

Aww. I wanted to be the first person to insult people who play with a different style. You ninja. :<

I guess we're setting the bar for "insult" pretty low these days. I'm pretty sure "Off the wall" isn't, and I could offer an objective proof about the non-iconic nature of the Kobold Hexblade. :P

[HighWater]

In this party? As long as the cleric is capable of playing nice, this should not be much of a problem!

At least all the fighters are the same Tier, there's only one T1 (and he can BFC/Buff for the others), and the Rogue and Hexblade are only one Tier above Fighter. You almost have a perfect balance there, as long as one player doesn't high-op while the rest goes low-op.

Should make balancing encounters and estimating how they go a lot easier, as Fighters tend to be much more predictable than magic-users.

[khachaturian]

It can work. :smallbiggrin:
http://periannath.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/partybalance_500x400.jpg



don't forget the outsider dmpc who has all the goodies

[dascarletm]

My early games were like this.

As the DM send out lots of little guys, maybe homebrew dragons to not have spells, or give them draconic invocations instead.

If you have them fight strong casters make them limited in spell scope, don't have contingencies for contingencies, and play them like how you see them in popular media. UNLIMITED POWER!

It can be really fun, one of my most memorable fights came from an early group similar to yours.

The fighters made a clear front line holding off a large swarm of enemies. The cleric buffing and healing behind, while the rogue was frantically trying to unlock/detrap their exit path. The last player, a sorcerer, was spamming large AOE's to give the front-line some respite. It was long, it was glorious, and I will always remember it fondly.

[Angelalex242]

If it really bothers you, just rule no two people can have the same class in your campaign.

Then somebody's gotta go ranger, barbarian, paladin, monk, whatever.

[Eldariel]

There aren't enough buff and healing resources in a kingdom to sustain that party. It's also gonna be real restricted in terms of skills, with only Rogue really being relevant in that regard. I wonder if some of the Fighters aren't wanting to play concepts that wouldn't be better realized with Ranger, Barbarian or some combination there-of. TWF, two-handers, archers, they can all work with Fighterless class comboes. I know my first character was a Fighter 'cause I didn't realize Ranger is more than just a nature funky.

Of course, ToB would help a lot too. But as it stands, well, they can certainly play with that party but they'll be burning through Cure Wands and they better get a ton of Pearls of Power for the Cleric to have any prayer of keeping them all buffed with the relevant buffs while still having some spell levels to actually play around with.

[Hazuki]

I guess we're setting the bar for "insult" pretty low these days. I'm pretty sure "Off the wall" isn't, and I could offer an objective proof about the non-iconic nature of the Kobold Hexblade. :PI needed a nice way to say what I was thinking, really. It definitely felt like a comment that came from a position of supposed authority, like if I said "I like to play Dryad Gishes because I don't want to be stereotypical like you do." Neither comment is really an insult, but they sure can feel like one.

[Reshy]

They all seem to want to be generic sword warrior guy. It's not encouraging.

[OldTrees1]

They all seem to want to be generic sword warrior guy. It's not encouraging.

Sounds like they want to play one of the iconic characters. Perhaps let them have their fun.

[icefractal]

Encourage them to buy some wands of healing; one Cleric is not going to be enough for that big a group, even if he wants to play heal-bot.

In terms of balance, everybody playing Fighters is actually easier to balance than one person playing one - just throw somewhat easier challenges at them, and factor in that certain types of foe will be more difficult than normal. The Cleric could faceroll everything, but it's not at all guaranteed. Even a reasonably well-optimized Cleric can easily go the "sharing the buffs" route rather than CoDzilla.

The biggest problem I'd see is that with everyone being so similar, differences in stats/build could become very noticeable. Some paths of Fighter are just strictly better than others, and in a much more obvious way than how a Wizard is better.

[OldTrees1]

Encourage them to buy some wands of healing; one Cleric is not going to be enough for that big a group, even if he wants to play heal-bot.
Alternatively you could just give the party an "unlimited out of combat healing up to half max hp" feat(Touch of Healing/Draconic Aura(Vigor)) or item.

[dascarletm]

A lack of sustainable healing could help the fighter that chooses sword and board over THF. A few hits not taken (assuming adequate enemies that don't always auto hit) could end up being very useful.

[The Insanity]

Okay, I'm trying to DM a game here and here's what everyone wants to be so far:

1 person wants to be a rogue

1 person wants to be a cleric

1 person wants to be a hex blade

1 person hasn't decided

and 3 people want to be fighter
Other then the obvious (too many players), I don't see where's the problem.

[Metahuman1]

I would also suggest showing the Tome of Battle to the party Asap. In addition, make the MiC available to them if possible, and showing Dragon Magics Dragon Fire Adept, PHB 2's Beguiler, Tome of Magic's Binder and the Bard with the cool splat book support to the undecided player to try and move him, subtly, in the direction of doing something other then a warrior.

If at all possible for the group at lest.

[Spore]

They all seem to want to be generic sword warrior guy. It's not encouraging.

Remember. One part of roleplaying is the crunch, a whole another part is fluff. The first guy could be a calm and silent doer while the second one is a frothing rager who curses after every missed swing. The third one could be a paladinesque leader. Surely they would also work as Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin. But why complicate the game with rage, smite and class envy? Crunch and Classes should ALWAYS be second to roleplaying. If your clever fighter without ranks in Knowledge (Nature) knows to burn the treant, he does it. No questions asked. If the raging bard power-attacks a door and kicks it in, he doesn't have to roll on damage unless it's a Dwarven reinforced metal door.

Please do ask them: "Now that you've chosen your class, please tell me about your character. What are his strengths, what is his weakness? Where are his principles?"

And please do not pressure the undecided guy into playing a bard. While being mechanically superior for fights, maybe he is the world's worst bard. Maybe he hates the class and will quit after the second session.

[dascarletm]

Let them be similar. I assume they all know the others want to play similar characters, so they may enjoy being one of three sword warrior archetypes. Perhaps even they'll pick different races. Throw out the idea of a greatsword user, a sword and shield user, and a two weapon fighter. If they arn't interested don't press the matter. If down the road they decide they don't like being one of the three sword guys, let a couple of the characters seek a new party and depart gracefully looking for new employment where they are more needed. They can then roll up new characters at equal level that help round out the party, or seem interesting to them.

[nedz]

Give them Muskets. Of course these will be useless and so they will end up using their swords. Try pointing them at classes such as Swashbuckler or Knight — they might not be aware of these.

[ngilop]

I might be totally off base and about to be heckled by the rest of GiTP. But I have always been of the mold the adventure to fit the party NOT the party to fit the adventure type.

SO I would suggest that instead of complaining that your players want to play as X you just alter the adventure so that the party works out.

[Nightcanon]

Particularly if they're new to the game, fighters might be ideal to get to grips with the mechanics of things. If you want to help them power up a bit later, you could have them visit a fighter school/ martial college where they can learn some ToB tricks, or you could try out some new houserules for fighters. If the cleric plays nice and goes down a healer/buffer route (again, not unheard of for a new player) then no-one gets overshadowed.

[Nightcanon]

They all seem to want to be generic sword warrior guy. It's not encouraging.
Tanis Half-Elven, Caramon Majere, Kitiara, Sturm Brightblade, Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Arthur (and his Moonshae alter-ego Tristan), Lancelot (post his fall from Paladinhood)- all generic sword warrior guys (or gals). Sure, some of them were badged as knights or rangers but not to the extent that it was their additional powers that distinguished them from their fellows- different personalities is what counts.

[Urpriest]

They all seem to want to be generic sword warrior guy. It's not encouraging.

Find whichever told you first, and tell the others they can't have the same character concept. If they want to be a Fighter, they need a different fighting style or personality to distinguish them, otherwise they're just stealing the first one's spotlight.

[Melayl]

I might be totally off base and about to be heckled by the rest of GiTP. But I have always been of the mold the adventure to fit the party NOT the party to fit the adventure type.

SO I would suggest that instead of complaining that your players want to play as X you just alter the adventure so that the party works out.

I completely agree with this. Don't force them to be something else.

[Eldariel]

Tanis Half-Elven, Caramon Majere, Kitiara, Sturm Brightblade, Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Arthur (and his Moonshae alter-ego Tristan), Lancelot (post his fall from Paladinhood)- all generic sword warrior guys (or gals). Sure, some of them were badged as knights or rangers but not to the extent that it was their additional powers that distinguished them from their fellows- different personalities is what counts.

Well, that would appear to be kind of a simplified view. Of course different personalities count. But it's not just the personality, history, relationships and such that makes a character: abilities and skills also count. Aragorn certainly doesn't register as a "dude with a sword" to me; his abilities to lead and inspire masses, impeccable tracking skills, mastery of the wilderness in general (stealth, observational skills, healcraft, etc.) all seem more important than his skill at arms. Faramir would be similar minus the tracking skills, and Arthur would be the inspirational leader archetype (Crusader/Marshal/4E Warlord-type). Lancelot is the perfect knight, of course. All of those have skillsets (and in certain cases, artifacts) that are at least as important as their portrayal, and in some cases more so (see Arthur).

[Calimehter]

You will probably never have a better opportunity to actually use some of the formation rules and feats (phalanx fighting, shield walls, etc.).

:smallbiggrin:

I suppose you could convince them all to play Healers instead. Save the world one puppy at a time . . .

[grarrrg]

This webcomic (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/its-what-vin-would-have-done)

[ericgrau]

If that's what they want to play, just go with it.
This pretty much. Don't mess with what they want to play. They want to be what they want to be. They might want to be what you want them to be only by pure coincidence, but odds of them having fun is 10 times better with what they chose over what you choose.

Maybe they only want something normal for hitting stuff. The only hint of anything fancy I see is the hex blade. Now if you had paladins and rangers that might be different.

If anything I'd take it as a sign that you should introduce flaws so people can get more feats. Particularly if a lot of people are playing humans. Or maybe they like swinging a cool weapon and/or slaughtering masses of gobbos. You might look into MiC weapon crystals in the treasure, and look into tactical battle-map setups with cover and choke points. Potions of enlarge person are nice too. I greatly appreciate the sacrifice a DM puts into a game, but regardless of what you deserve I'd suggest looking in to the fun and desires of 7 players over your own.

Some other interesting items from core: silversheen (bypass DR/silver), whip feather token (fights alongside you), bag of tricks (summons), alchemical splash weapons (for fighting unusual foes that weapons don't work well against), horn of fog (oh s**** button), elemental gem (1 off beefy summon), necklace of fireballs I (overcome party's weakness against groups from time to time), rope of climbing (overcomes obstacles, uses a skill fighters have). I'll bet MiC has a bunch more, but hopefully those will help you figure out what to look for.


I would also suggest showing the Tome of Battle to the party Asap
I wouldn't have so much urgency. They may be picking fighters specifically because they want something simple, or they'd be playing casters. Then you could be pushing them to exactly what they don't want and they may reluctantly give it a go only to be annoyed. I would however gently suggest ToB to them and see what they think. If they say ya I like those cool moves, then bring it in.

[Sir Chuckles]

The only real problem is if they all overlap.
If the three Fighters become one Sword and Board, one TWF, and one THF, then there might be a problem.

Strong suggest ACFs and Variants. It can turn into a Dungeoncrasher, Targeteer, and Thug group, which is much more entertaining to DM for, and much more capable.

[Xerlith]

Most of the time the Fighter gets chosen not because of the simplicity, but because it is THE sword-fighting guy generic archetype. They want to fight on the frontline. So they pick Fighter (duh). If the players are inexperienced, it's no wonder they perceive the class as the best portrayal of what they want to do.

I'd either show them the Crusader and Warblade (after asking WHY and deciding they'd be better off playing one of those classes) or point them to very different Fighter builds (Dungeoncrasher, lockdown/tripper, Hit-and-Run, Imperious Command Zhent, Targetteer, etc).

In both cases, show them other (Greatsword and spikes TWF, Glaive/spikes, Spiked Chain, Sword and board TWF), non-obvious styles of play. There may be variety of fighters. But you must show them the unconventional idea first. They may be (and probably are, if they've got little experience) still locked in the generic sword-guy Fighter image.

[Curmudgeon]

It sounds good to me. Rogues need flanking partners, and this way there's a choice. :smallcool:

[Brookshw]

I might be totally off base and about to be heckled by the rest of GiTP. But I have always been of the mold the adventure to fit the party NOT the party to fit the adventure type.

SO I would suggest that instead of complaining that your players want to play as X you just alter the adventure so that the party works out.

Heckle heckle heckle (actually I generally agree and appreciate you mentioning this)

[weckar]

well, there are Fighter-like alternatives that actually have class features. Marshal, Swashbuckler...

[Sir Chuckles]

I might be totally off base and about to be heckled by the rest of GiTP. But I have always been of the mold the adventure to fit the party NOT the party to fit the adventure type.

SO I would suggest that instead of complaining that your players want to play as X you just alter the adventure so that the party works out.

Eh, it can go both ways.
If you call for a aquatic campaign and everyone chooses to be fullplate Knights with normal horses, you don't change the adventure. You modify the treasure to include certain potions, and have a slightly bigger boat.

[Eldariel]

I might be totally off base and about to be heckled by the rest of GiTP. But I have always been of the mold the adventure to fit the party NOT the party to fit the adventure type.

SO I would suggest that instead of complaining that your players want to play as X you just alter the adventure so that the party works out.

Just as much as it's the players' right to choose what they play, it's the DM's right to choose what kind of a campaign they want to DM. DM is the one who puts the most work into the whole deal so if anything, their opinion should have more weight, not less. If the goal is to try and ensure everybody gets to enjoy themselves, compromises are necessary, and it's not just the DM's responsibility to compromise. The other alternative is of course have DM just DM the game they want for the players who play what they want and if the two don't match, the players hopefully die soon enough to start a new game.

But I don't think it's fair to say that the players can do whatever they want and the DM has to adapt everything from the adventure to the sources to serve that; the DM is no servant, he's there to have fun as well.

[nedz]

I might be totally off base and about to be heckled by the rest of GiTP. But I have always been of the mold the adventure to fit the party NOT the party to fit the adventure type.

SO I would suggest that instead of complaining that your players want to play as X you just alter the adventure so that the party works out.

Yes, but only to a degree.

The PCs should be built to suit the game — ideally with consensual agreement. If the game says everyone must play a Dwarf, then it's poor form to bring along an Elf.

Also: I prefer to run a variety of encounters. Some encounters should be challenging and allow the non-Fighter PCs to shine otherwise in the next game everyone will play a Fighter. New players need some education otherwise they will never grow out of their box.

[KorbeltheReader]

I might be totally off base and about to be heckled by the rest of GiTP. But I have always been of the mold the adventure to fit the party NOT the party to fit the adventure type.

SO I would suggest that instead of complaining that your players want to play as X you just alter the adventure so that the party works out.

I agree completely. Yes, of course the GM can set certain parameters to mold the campaign or weed out broken classes (of which the fighter is NOT one, despite being weaker than full casters), but that's not what we're talking about here.

Players are pretty good at finding their niche in a party, and 3.5 makes it much easier to adjust your character's skill set mid-campaign than previous versions. Besides, since its only class ability is a ton of feats, you can have three very different characters that are all fighters.

A bunch of melee types with a cleric and a rogue is classic. I think this will be a fun setup.

[Curmudgeon]

I might be totally off base and about to be heckled by the rest of GiTP. But I have always been of the mold the adventure to fit the party NOT the party to fit the adventure type.
If you're running a module, it's a huge amount of work to revise things for an ill-suited party; the whole point of using a module is to be able to run a game without having to put in a great deal of scenario design time. Similarly, if you've already crafted a game to be fun for some assumed party makeup, altering it for some different sort of group is likely to take the fun out of it for both DM and players.

SO I would suggest that instead of complaining that your players want to play as X you just alter the adventure so that the party works out. Can you imagine the time and effort involved in altering Tomb of Horrors to suit a party that doesn't have any Rogues? It's completely ridiculous. :smallfurious: Yes, I believe you're totally off base here.

[Blackhawk748]

My god 3 fighters, ITS A SHIELD WALL. No seriously these guys can pull the Saxon Shield wall and actually use that Tactical Feat from CW (maybe point one of them at it). Also these guys could make the Dwarven Defender work as three of them, with good positioning, could threaten an entire room.

Edit: also there is no such thing as to many fighters :smallbiggrin:

[Angelalex242]

Personally, I'd just say 'no two people can be the same class.'

Then they can roll dice to see who gets to be the actual fighter, and who has to play other classes.

[OldTrees1]

If you're running a module, it's a huge amount of work to revise things for an ill-suited party; the whole point of using a module is to be able to run a game without having to put in a great deal of scenario design time. Similarly, if you've already crafted a game to be fun for some assumed party makeup, altering it for some different sort of group is likely to take the fun out of it for both DM and players.

Can you imagine the time and effort involved in altering Tomb of Horrors to suit a party that doesn't have any Rogues? It's completely ridiculous. :smallfurious: Yes, I believe you're totally off base here.

Good point on the module with an ill-suited party. However that is not what we have in the OP. We have an unusually but still suited party.

Altering Tomb of Horrors to suit a party without Rogues:
Option 1: (3 minutes of thought, actually tested ~4 years ago) Everyone enjoys Trapfinding and max ranks in search while in the Tomb. Disable Device through creativity rather than skill checks.
Test results: No problems encountered. They had fun.

Option 2: (1 minute, not tested) Reduce Search DCs to 20. Removing the Trapfinding requirement. Disable Device through creativity rather than skill checks.

[Curmudgeon]

Altering Tomb of Horrors to suit a party without Rogues:
Option 1: (3 minutes of thought, actually tested ~4 years ago) Everyone enjoys Trapfinding and max ranks in search while in the Tomb. Disable Device through creativity rather than skill checks.
That's not altering the adventure (as ngilop requested); that's altering the game rules underneath the particular adventure, which is something else entirely.

[KorbeltheReader]

This party has a rogue and is far too level for Tomb of Horrors, so the argument is moot.

[dysprosium]

Tomb of Horrors without a Rogue would be hilarious!

But to answer the question (and echo some responses): As long as everyone is having fun it really doesn't matter what classes they take.

Another thing to note (and again echoing responses): If I told three different people to roll with the Fighter class, I would probably get three different approaches. The would have three different personalities.

Personally I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Togo]

I don't see the problem. I've won a tournament with 3 barbarians in a party of 4. Fighters are fairly customisable, the class covers a wide range of specialities, and they can always multiclass at second level if the game needs more variety.

I put a level or two of fighter into most of my melee builds, and they're mechanically very different.

I can see the problem if they all decide to play exactly the same type of character, with the same equipment, fighting stlye and personality, but is there any indication that they want to do that?

[Knaight]

Just as much as it's the players' right to choose what they play, it's the DM's right to choose what kind of a campaign they want to DM. DM is the one who puts the most work into the whole deal so if anything, their opinion should have more weight, not less. If the goal is to try and ensure everybody gets to enjoy themselves, compromises are necessary, and it's not just the DM's responsibility to compromise. The other alternative is of course have DM just DM the game they want for the players who play what they want and if the two don't match, the players hopefully die soon enough to start a new game.


There's an obvious compromise here, where everyone figures out what the concept is, then everyone builds whatever they need to (characters, various GM side things) for said campaign. If the pitch that was agreed upon was something like "a kingdom of dwarves are forced to move to the surface when their mountain is struck by a massive earthquake", the players have no business making an elf. On the other hand, "I'm GMing this game, deal with it" is an unreasonable stance. "I'll GM this particular game, if you don't like it GM something else" works, though it's generally not the best option.

In this particular context, it looks like basically no guidance was given, and a bit of an unusual party was made. It's an easy compromise for the GM to change some things. After all, the characters are the one thing players get control over, so you might as well work around them.

Really, the only hesitation I'd have over this group is the sheer size of it. Six players and a GM is kind of a lot, and I personally would be inclined to try and split the group - but, that's a matter of personal preference.

[OldTrees1]

That's not altering the adventure (as ngilop requested); that's altering the game rules underneath the particular adventure, which is something else entirely.

Disputable.
But Option 2 was altering the traps and thus the dungeon and thus adventure.

In summary:
1) The OP does not need to alter the adventure to suit the PCs since the PCs are already suited despite having more of one role.
2) If the OP did want to alter the adventure to better suit the party (remember the party already fit the adventure) then they should be encouraged to do so since it is rather easy to do.

[Vogonjeltz]

Don't try to force them to play another class, they'll just resent you for it.

Instead of thinking of this as a problem, think of it as an opportunity, and encourage them to pick synergistic class feat(ure)s. Also, take a good look at the teamwork options (PHB II, Heroes of Battle, I don't remember what else) because this is actually an opportunity for members of the group to take part in them.

Some feats benefit from multiple party members having them or using the same/similar fighting styles: Formation Expert, Phalanx Fighting, Vexing Flanker/Adaptable Flanker, Hold the Line, Swarmfighting (if small), Expert Tactician and so forth.


If the game says everyone must play a Dwarf, then it's poor form to bring along an Elf.

Agreed in part. If the DM wants to run a thematic game (i.e. You're all dwarves from the mithril hills) and informs the players ahead of time that that is the theme of this adventure, then it would be totally poor form for the players to ask to play half-fey half-minotaur water orcs and see who can out template each other.

On the other hand, when no restriction has been agreed upon ahead of time, it is equally poor form to try and restrict class choice after the fact. Now, there's nothing to say there won't be consequences for those class choices (perhaps some difficulties with healing, though the players might be warned to compensate in their gear choices...i.e. buy healing potions!).


Option 2: (1 minute, not tested) Reduce Search DCs to 20. Removing the Trapfinding requirement. Disable Device through creativity rather than skill checks.

This doesn't require a change in search DCs. Exploring a dungeon without a trapfinder means being very very very very cautious. With this particular group it wouldn't be a problem because Clerics get Detect Traps.

Without a Cleric or a trapfinding class, other classes can resort to using 10 foot poles, throwing objects to trigger things and, upon finding a trap, disabling it by destroying the mechanism. This could mean just hulk smashing it, or creative RP (i.e. making a dexterity or initiative check to wedge a wrench in the gears, etc...). Characters can do anything people can do, and people can deal with any trap with the proper application of caution, time, and work.