Party Optimization Issues/World Advice [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : Party Optimization Issues/World Advice

Celcey

2014-11-21, 04:29 PM

Greetings, Playgrounders. I'm a fairly newbie DM who's going to be running two separate games at my school starting probably after Thanksgiving. Thankfully, I won't be going long without my DMG, but I'm pretty worried about the make-up of my parties. Overall, they're both missing important aspects of a balanced party, and I'd like your opinions on what to do about it.

The first party is made up of five people: two druids, a rouge, a bard, and an unknown (she hasn't picked yet). None of them have ever played D&D (or any RPG) before now. What I'm mainly worried about is the lack of muscle power on the team. Originally we had someone else playing a monk, but too many people ended up wanting to play, so I split the group in two (the monk is now in the second party). Unless my fifth player decides she wants to be a frontline class (and I doubt she will), I need to find a way to give them a melee fighter, and I'm not willing to ask or make them to change their classes.

I was thinking the best way to go might be a DMPC. There's another thread about DMPCs open right now, and the general consensus there was a War Cleric, which I'm not sure about- the last thing I need is another caster. On the other hand, with martial weapon and heavy armor proficiencies, they can both heal and fight, which is important.

But another idea- and this one I like better- was to have the creature be a monster, such as a Dragon Wyrmling. I was thinking maybe their first quest they could be (unknowingly) working for a poacher, who wants to steal a dragon egg from someone who's protecting it because the parent has passed. I think this would be better than playing a humanoid PC, because I have a very strong personality, and most of my players are pretty shy (albeit not around me- we're all close friends). I feel like this would fill the much needed strength niche, but without overpowering my players in RP-wise.

For now, I'm thinking this will be a fairly typical D&D world that will just develop as we go along. Any ideas you guys have to help would be muchly appreciated, as well as your opinions on all of the above.

Edit: The unknown player will most likely be playing a ranger.

Party two only has three players: a monk (probably Way of Shadows), a Dex-based archer fighter, and a rouge (also ranged, probably a thief, but maybe an assassin). Here I'm worried because they have literally no magic. The fighter will almost definitely go Battle Master, and the rouge specifically said he didn't want to do anything magical.

I'm also slightly worried about whether they have enough melee power. I think they'll be okay, because they have the monk (even if he does go way of shadows), but it that enough? I'm guessing the fighter will also be able to do melee, even if he'll mainly do ranged fighting. What do you guys think? I definitely don't want to do a DMPC for this group. They also all have experience in D&D (although one of them just barely), and all of them are new to official 5e.

The magic I thought I could fix by simply making it a very low-magic world, with casters being few and far in between. I'm thinking a sort of middle ages based (key word: based, not set it), with fortified, oft warring states, and lots of political intrigue. That way they can be very stealthy and such while still fighting enemies, and there are a lot of plots just waiting to happen. And while the setting would be low magic, I'm thinking it would be heavy in magic items- but the items are all very much coveted and sometimes worth killing for. (These would of course be interesting magic items, with possibly the occasional +# type thing. Maybe.) But will doing that actually fix anything?

However, one of my players (the archer fighter) has expressed interest in playing in the setting of the video game Skyrim. Having never played Skyrim, I'm not sure if I can do that. If any of you have played Skyrim, is it basically a (stereo)typical D&D world? Are there any particular features that stand out? Would it be possible to reconcile my above idea with the things that make Skyrim Skyrim (assuming having a low magic world would even help with the lack of magic on the team)?

Obviously, I'm more interested in making my players happy than in trying out my idea, but I think it could a fun world to play in, and I do have some ideas for it, including what would be their first quest. I'm going to be talking over my idea with all of my players to see what they think and what they'd rather do, but I'd love advice/ideas on how to handle it.

Edit: A fourth player joined, who will be a dwarf vengeance paladin.

That's about everything, I think, although if there's anything else, I'll edit that in. Please feel free to give you opinion on only part or on all of what I've said, because I really would like to hear what other people think.

MadGrady

2014-11-21, 04:34 PM

Is there a particular reason for this specific party split?

My thought first off is to have two parties of 4 (instead of 5 and three)

1. Druid, Rogue, Ranger, Unknown
2. Monk, Rogue, Druid, Bard

Also - are any of the druids Moon Druids?

Madfellow

2014-11-21, 04:47 PM

Greetings, Playgrounders. I'm a fairly newbie DM who's going to be running two separate games at my school starting probably after Thanksgiving. Thankfully, I won't be going long without my DMG, but I'm pretty worried about the make-up of my parties. Overall, they're both missing important aspects of a balanced party, and I'd like your opinions on what to do about it.

The first party is made up of five people: two druids, a rouge, a bard, and an unknown (she hasn't picked yet). None of them have ever played D&D (or any RPG) before now. What I'm mainly worried about is the lack of muscle power on the team. Originally we had someone else playing a monk, but too many people ended up wanting to play, so I split the group in two (the monk is now in the second party). Unless my fifth player decides she wants to be a frontline class (and I doubt she will), I need to find a way to give them a melee fighter, and I'm not willing to ask or make them to change their classes.

I was thinking the best way to go might be a DMPC. There's another thread about DMPCs open right now, and the general consensus there was a War Cleric, which I'm not sure about- the last thing I need is another caster. On the other hand, with martial weapon and heavy armor proficiencies, they can both heal and fight, which is important.

But another idea- and this one I like better- was to have the creature be a monster, such as a Dragon Wyrmling. I was thinking maybe their first quest they could be (unknowingly) working for a poacher, who wants to steal a dragon egg from someone who's protecting it because the parent has passed. I think this would be better than playing a humanoid PC, because I have a very strong personality, and most of my players are pretty shy (albeit not around me- we're all close friends). I feel like this would fill the much needed strength niche, but without overpowering my players in RP-wise.

For now, I'm thinking this will be a fairly typical D&D world that will just develop as we go along. Any ideas you guys have to help would be muchly appreciated, as well as your opinions on all of the above.

Party two only has three players: a monk (probably Way of Shadows), a Dex-based archer fighter, and a rouge (also ranged, probably a thief, but maybe an assassin). Here I'm worried because they have literally no magic. The fighter will almost definitely go Battle Master, and the rouge specifically said he didn't want to do anything magical.

I'm also slightly worried about whether they have enough melee power. I think they'll be okay, because they have the monk (even if he does go way of shadows), but it that enough? I'm guessing the fighter will also be able to do melee, even if he'll mainly do ranged fighting. What do you guys think? I definitely don't want to do a DMPC for this group. They also all have experience in D&D (although one of them just barely), and all of them are new to official 5e.

The magic I thought I could fix by simply making it a very low-magic world, with casters being few and far in between. I'm thinking a sort of middle ages based (key word: based, not set it), with fortified, oft warring states, and lots of political intrigue. That way they can be very stealthy and such while still fighting enemies, and there are a lot of plots just waiting to happen. And while the setting would be low magic, I'm thinking it would be heavy in magic items- but the items are all very much coveted and sometimes worth killing for. (These would of course be interesting magic items, with possibly the occasional +# type thing. Maybe.) But will doing that actually fix anything?

However, one of my players (the archer fighter) has expressed interest in playing in the setting of the video game Skyrim. Having never played Skyrim, I'm not sure if I can do that. If any of you have played Skyrim, is it basically a (stereo)typical D&D world? Are there any particular features that stand out? Would it be possible to reconcile my above idea with the things that make Skyrim Skyrim (assuming having a low magic world would even help with the lack of magic on the team)?

Obviously, I'm more interested in making my players happy than in trying out my idea, but I think it could a fun world to play in, and I do have some ideas for it, including what would be their first quest. I'm going to be talking over my idea with all of my players to see what they think and what they'd rather do, but I'd love advice/ideas on how to handle it.

That's about everything, I think, although if there's anything else, I'll edit that in. Please feel free to give you opinion on only part or on all of what I've said, because I really would like to hear what other people think.

Regarding Party #1: They've got two druids who can Wild Shape. If at least one of them is a Moon Druid, they should be just fine. :smallsmile:

Regarding Party #2: An all-mundane party actually sounds like a lot of fun, even in a standard D&D setting. I haven't played Skyrim either, but from what I understand there are only a few things you need to know:
1) Skyrim is BIG.
2) Skyrim is COLD.
3) Skyrim has DRAGONS. Lots and lots of angry dragons.

Hope this helps.

MadGrady

2014-11-21, 04:56 PM

Let me encourage you by saying that your game should (in most ways) adjust itself to your players, not the other way around. As DM you do control setting, and can provide guidelines for your party, but the endgame is going to be for everyone to have fun. I commend your desire to not force them to change classes - this means you are on the right path.

The parties as is are fine, as long as you adjust perhaps some of your expectations on what you are going to throw at them. Often non-optimized builds/parties provide opportunities for a lot of fun character driven story vs a game you are out to win.

I second that a completely non-magical party sounds like a lot of fun. As you expressed that you are a new DM - this will help keep some of the crazy that can occur in games that can (sometimes) take some time to adjust to if you aren't used to it (not saying you can't handle, but it will make it easier at times to handle). A lower fantasy setting can still create epic memories.

Scirocco

2014-11-21, 04:59 PM

Regarding Party #1: They've got two druids who can Wild Shape. If at least one of them is a Moon Druid, they should be just fine. :smallsmile:

Regarding Party #2: An all-mundane party actually sounds like a lot of fun, even in a standard D&D setting. I haven't played Skyrim either, but from what I understand there are only a few things you need to know:
1) Skyrim is BIG.
2) Skyrim is COLD.
3) Skyrim has DRAGONS. Lots and lots of angry dragons.

Hope this helps.

Skyrim is also chock full of undead, shamans/barbarians, whatever you get when Drow turn feral, dwarven constructs, beasts, giants, and trolls.

MaxWilson

2014-11-21, 05:04 PM

There isn't strictly any need for front-line muscle. Druids can tank in animal form, and you can also use summons or just run away if the fight gets too close. The onus is on the party to adjust their tactics until they find something that works, but honestly, party #1 sounds fine.

The no-magic party is slightly problematic only in the sense that you may spend lots of time riding around the countryside. (Then again, in 5E that happens a lot even to the casters, because Flight now has a tiny duration, Polymorph only a slightly longer duration, and Teleport spells are high-level.) You could either provide magical means of travel when they get their quests ("here," says the king, "rescue my daughter. My royal magician will teleport you to the castle where she is held ransom and return to pick you up 24 hours later.") or just space your adventures out in time so they have time to actually travel there. Both conventions are workable.

Madfellow

2014-11-21, 05:57 PM

The no-magic party is slightly problematic only in the sense that you may spend lots of time riding around the countryside. (Then again, in 5E that happens a lot even to the casters, because Flight now has a tiny duration, Polymorph only a slightly longer duration, and Teleport spells are high-level.) You could either provide magical means of travel when they get their quests ("here," says the king, "rescue my daughter. My royal magician will teleport you to the castle where she is held ransom and return to pick you up 24 hours later.") or just space your adventures out in time so they have time to actually travel there. Both conventions are workable.

Or they could travel by montage. :smalltongue:

JoeJ

2014-11-21, 06:34 PM

Eten

2014-11-21, 06:55 PM

I've had a mismatched group and they've been just fine. Things might be rough for them early depending upon their caution, but for the most part I wouldn't worry much at all.

Ashrym

2014-11-21, 07:50 PM

Party 1 is fine because either druid could go moon druid, rogues aren't squishy with the damage mitigation abilities, and the bard has the valor option for easy similar AC to heavy armor.

Party 2 seems to require more stealth and rests because of less available in-combat healing, but potions and someone adding the healer and/or inspiring leader feat can pick up some slack there without much difficulty. Why weren't the druids split or the bard moved to the 2nd group?

Groups don't need specific classes so much as certain functions or reasonable alternatives to those functions.

Also, teleport is high level, unreliable, and risky. Wind walk is a better movement spell but travel is minor and flying mounts a possibility regardless of class.

MaxWilson

2014-11-21, 08:35 PM

GiantOctopodes

2014-11-21, 09:50 PM

I've found long travel times to be a non-issue. You only play out the exciting parts. For the rest, it doesn't really matter whether the DM says, "you disappear in a flash of light and arrive at Port City," or "after three long months at sea you arrive at Port City."

It matters a bunch if your DM is evil and keeps the clock running on the plots and machinations of the villains at all times, even when you haven't discovered their existence yet (actually, *especially* then!), as that's 3 months of plot advancement for the villain, while it's 3 months of 'wasted' montage travel for the PCs. Not necessarily recommending this at all, just saying, it can be a really fun campaign in which to play, and as long as you're not one dimensional about it (not just the villain does things, but villages shore up their defenses or get sacked by orks, major cities start sweeping reforms or fall into the hands of dubious lords through back alley deals, etc), my point is that the passage of time in a campaign can mean much more than 'it's now a different calendar day, for those keeping track'. With magic levels being what they are, it's not a terrible idea too to have the changing of seasons play a drastic role in the type and / or quantity of enemies faced in various parts of the world, too. Mountain caves full of frost giants might stir with the onset of winter, while raids by orks drop, and in the middle of summer, grasslands or deserts might become deadly, both due to the heat and lack of water, but because fire elementals are known to make an appearance.

Just saying, don't discount the passage of time as a means to make players feel like they're in a living, breathing world. By all means, travel montage there and back, but imho you should use that opportunity for things to be different when they return.

Camman1984

2014-11-22, 08:56 AM

I think there is sometimes too much emphasis placed on the typical mmorpg party. With a tank, healer and dps. 4th edition did a lot to emphasis that.

With no aggro/threat mechanic it is entirely down to the dm which party members get beat down. It is definitely helpful to have a balanced party, but sometimes even that is unnecessary. I once played a crime themed game where all of us played rogues. It was great fun, loads of sneaking and conniving.

Sometimes an unbalanced party can be a blessing to the dm. It means they don't have every resource at their fingertips so the dm can make plot hooks out of it. Need to fly up to a floating Castle, shame you are all fighters and need to bargain with a new patron for assistance.

I struggled in one of my campaigns, I couldn't challenge the party without having to neuter one of the players in a cruel and unfair manner (see vaarsuvius in oots).

I think it is just down to the dm, don't throw multi attacking high dps monsters with superb movement at a party that are all a bit squishy, throw in more flying/ranged creatures. I think it's the same as you wouldn't throw loads of difficult puzzles at players that can't solve puzzles.

Madfellow

2014-11-22, 09:37 AM

I think there is sometimes too much emphasis placed on the typical mmorpg party. With a tank, healer and dps. 4th edition did a lot to emphasis that.

Nah, the "classic" roles of tank, sneak, healer, and blaster have been around ever since the rogue was introduced back in ODAD. All 4e did was give them labels.

BW022

2014-11-22, 09:56 AM

Let me encourage you by saying that your game should (in most ways) adjust itself to your players, not the other way around. ...

+1.

As a DM you shouldn't try to dictate what characters players should play. Some players like playing certain characters and most resent the heck out of being told what to play or even being 'encouraged' to play certain roles. Let people choose to play whatever they wish. Players can adapt if they are missing certain rolls. The game does not require any role. Many groups can find it fun and challenging to have to think of ways to overcome encounters without balance. Even if a party is 'unbalanced' that means it has extra PCs in another role. Everyone has stories of monks who have tanked, parties who have gone thorough dungeons without clerics, parties without spellcasters, etc.

As a DM, you need to recognize that any party can always run into things they can't handle. You need to realize the strengths and weaknesses of the party and adjust the game accordingly. That may mean making some encounters easier, it may mean including NPCs to help with certain encounters, it may mean access to extra healing potions or wands, it may mean encouraging parties to sneak past enemies or use ambushes, it may mean more non-combat encounters, it may mean a familiar needs to be more active scouting, it may mean giving the party a powerful "one-use" item to get them out of trouble if you or they make a serious mistake, etc.

McBars

2014-11-22, 10:12 AM

Best answers are:

This

I think there is sometimes too much emphasis placed on the typical mmorpg party.

And this

Let me encourage you by saying that your game should (in most ways) adjust itself to your players, not the other way around. As DM you do control setting, and can provide guidelines for your party, but the endgame is going to be for everyone to have fun.

Perseus

2014-11-22, 01:56 PM

Let me encourage you by saying that your game should (in most ways) adjust itself to your players, not the other way around. As DM you do control setting, and can provide guidelines for your party, but the endgame is going to be for everyone to have fun.

Edited by me to because this is some of the best advice for a new or experienced DM.

Way to many DMs think the game is about their story or their ideas on what a game should be and tend to ignore all the other aspects of D&D and the players.

Composer99

2014-11-22, 05:39 PM

The archery fighter will have no problem in melee, even if they're not as good as a fighter specced for melee.

Just go a little easy on the party with 3 PCs, if not in enemy tactics, then in numbers (they'll quickly get swamped by large numbers).

The party with 5 PCs will be fine, especially if any of the druids is a moon druid. (I think that's come up a few times now. :smallbiggrin:)

Celcey

2014-11-22, 08:18 PM

First of all, thank you guys all so much!

Secondly, in response to those who asked if I couldn't switch around some players, the answer is unfortunately not, it has to be these, because of who's friends with who (whom?).

I also don't know which of the druids is going to be what. Since none of the classes we have so far pick their subclass at level one, none of them have (at least, not officially. I'm pretty sure party 2 is going to be Battle Master, Thief, and Way of Shadows).

There will definitely be a lot of travel by montage if they have to go very far, but I love the idea of having stuff happen as they go on, and the villains continuing their tirades as they move.

Party 2 seems to require more stealth and rests because of less available in-combat healing, but potions and someone adding the healer and/or inspiring leader feat can pick up some slack there without much difficulty.

Yeah, I was thinking a very stealth-inspired setting would be best. That's why the world I'm thinking of if we don't do Skyrim-style will have a lot of political instability- perfect for plot hooks and sneaking around spying on people. And I'm planning on giving them rings of healing that will scale with level as the reward for their first quest, although I'm not entirely sure how exactly to scale them (any ideas?).

Also, teleport is high level, unreliable, and risky. Wind walk is a better movement spell but travel is minor and flying mounts a possibility regardless of class.

Flying mounts are a possibility I didn't think of- but that's a good idea for a higher level. Wind Walk, though, I think you can really only move as fast as you would walking. If it's the spell I'm thinking of, it comes out to the same as someone who has 30 walking speed.

In general, I'm hugely planning to base the game around the players. I haven't got any plot whatsoever beyond what will effect their first quests and a possible idea for party 2's main villain. Also, I'd like to know, what do you guys think of the wyrmling idea? The general consensus seems to be that it's unnecessary, is that correct? If so, I'll just have it be a one off thing, where they rescue the baby dragon egg and that's it (perhaps it could become a reoccurring character). Also, any other opinions/general advice would be lovely, and thanks so much again!

MaxWilson

2014-11-22, 10:40 PM

Yeah, I was thinking a very stealth-inspired setting would be best. That's why the world I'm thinking of if we don't do Skyrim-style will have a lot of political instability- perfect for plot hooks and sneaking around spying on people. And I'm planning on giving them rings of healing that will scale with level as the reward for their first quest, although I'm not entirely sure how exactly to scale them (any ideas?).

You don't need rings of healing.

Back in the day, a cleric was an indispensable part of any party, because non-magical healing was sloooooow. On the order of 3 HP per day, IIRC. This means that one medium-difficulty fight could take a bunch of high-level fighters out of the fray for weeks or days while they slowly regained hit points. A cleric could speed up that process by orders of magnitude, since his spell slots scale up with level.

In 5E, a long rest *automatically heals all your lost HP*. Clerics are no longer necessary. If it's time to heal up, all your party has to do is grab lunch (short rest) or set up camp for the night (long rest).

Flying mounts are a possibility I didn't think of- but that's a good idea for a higher level. Wind Walk, though, I think you can really only move as fast as you would walking. If it's the spell I'm thinking of, it comes out to the same as someone who has 30 walking speed.

Wind Walk gives you a speed of 300'.

I agree that the wormling is unnecessary. But it might be fun, so feel free to do it.

Celcey

2014-11-22, 11:14 PM

You don't need rings of healing.

Back in the day, a cleric was an indispensable part of any party, because non-magical healing was sloooooow. On the order of 3 HP per day, IIRC. This means that one medium-difficulty fight could take a bunch of high-level fighters out of the fray for weeks or days while they slowly regained hit points. A cleric could speed up that process by orders of magnitude, since his spell slots scale up with level.

In 5E, a long rest *automatically heals all your lost HP*. Clerics are no longer necessary. If it's time to heal up, all your party has to do is grab lunch (short rest) or set up camp for the night (long rest).

Hmm... possibly. I'm thinking I might give them one ring of healing (attunement required) and have it scale like a paladin's lay on hands, but I'm not sure if that's too cheat-y. But having it heal fairly little and only having one between the three of them might make up for it. And although I suppose they probably won't need it, I'd rather they have it, just in case. You never know, particularly since I'll be adjusting a lot of monsters to make them suitable enemies.

Wind Walk gives you a speed of 300'.

Oh, maybe I misread the thing, because that is the spell I was thinking of. I was wondering how it could be so little, because that would make it fairly useless.

MaxWilson

2014-11-23, 02:46 AM

Oh, maybe I misread the thing, because that is the spell I was thinking of. I was wondering how it could be so little, because that would make it fairly useless.

It is still moderately useless. It makes you pretty vulnerable, and it's not all that much faster than a 3rd-level Phantom Steed ritual. Unlike Phantom Steed you can bring along the whole party, but still.

Justin Sane

2014-11-23, 09:31 AM

Yeah, I was thinking a very stealth-inspired setting would be best. That's why the world I'm thinking of if we don't do Skyrim-style will have a lot of political instability- perfect for plot hooks and sneaking around spying on people.Skyrim, at the start of the game, is smack in the middle of a civil war, which makes it a rather appropriate setting for that kind of story. If you need more information without playing it, this site (http://uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Civil_War) has you covered.

Ashrym

2014-11-23, 02:48 PM

It is still moderately useless. It makes you pretty vulnerable, and it's not all that much faster than a 3rd-level Phantom Steed ritual. Unlike Phantom Steed you can bring along the whole party, but still.
It also prevents movement costs based on terrain an can bypass a lot of encounters because it's 8 hours of fly speed.

The inability to due any actions other than dash and a full minute to change back and forth are huge drawbacks but it's useful for overland movement.

Maxilian

2014-11-24, 02:19 PM

Celcey

2014-11-25, 06:30 PM

First of all, thanks again for all your help. I guess Ill see about giving them a magic item that casts wind walk (edit: or something that can speed them up temporarily), because mages are not really a thing in the party 2 world. Maybe I'll have that be their first quest item- a ring of speed, because another player joined so there's a paladin in the party. Also, we're doing my idea, not Skyrim (but still thanks for the link).

New question now: The paladin is probably not going to be able to cast spells, due to the nature of the world, so what should I do instead of that?

Also, the unknown player from party one is probably going to be a ranger.

Shining Wrath

2014-11-25, 07:11 PM

You have no problem, because you decide what the parties will run in to. Don't throw hordes of mooks at the no muscle party, don't throw situations where only magic can solve the problem at the no spells party - or, even more fun, have them know where to get the flying carpet they need to cross the Bridgeless Chasm of You Can't Jump This And You Can't Climb It Because Reasons, and have an exciting time getting the carpet.

Justin Sane

2014-11-25, 07:30 PM

New question now: The paladin is probably not going to be able to cast spells, due to the nature of the world, so what should I do instead of that?Oh wow, that's rough. There's plenty of stuff you can do, like giving him the Battlemaster's Maneuvers instead of his spells (but that means losing Smite), tell him to suck it up and just use the spell slots for Smite (obviously, do not use the words "suck it up"), or just call his spells Divine/Supernatural/HesJustThatAwesome Abilities (there's still plenty of supernatural stuff in your world, right?).

Safety Sword

2014-11-25, 07:48 PM