Player Help "Standard" party composition today? [Archive]

View Full Version : Player Help "Standard" party composition today?

ZorroGames

2017-04-28, 08:43 AM

Ninja_Prawn

2017-04-28, 08:49 AM

BLUF: how many/what classes make up a minimum sized viable party to start into 5th Edition D&D?

One- and two-man parties work fine, in the right campaign, so there isn't really a minimum.

As to 'standard composition', most people now base their thinking on MMORPG conventions. Tank, DPR, Nova, Controller, Healer/Support, Face, Skillmonkey, etc. In 5e, you can build pretty much any role from pretty much any class (with varying levels of success), so it's no longer relevant to analyse parties by the classes in them.

Alejandro

2017-04-28, 08:54 AM

One- and two-man parties work fine, in the right campaign, so there isn't really a minimum.

As to 'standard composition', most people now base their thinking on MMORPG conventions. Tank, DPR, Nova, Controller, Healer/Support, Skillmonkey, etc. In 5e, you can build pretty much any role from pretty much any class (with varying levels of success), so it's no longer relevant to analyse parties by the classes in them.

Very true. Instead of saying 'does the party have a rogue' you might say 'how effective is the rogue, if you have one.'

JAL_1138

2017-04-28, 09:14 AM

Party composition varies wildly nowadays. There are a lot of classes, and each of those classes has subclasses with different strengths, and there are a lot of races, a lot of multiclass options, and to even list all of the possible combinations would be ludicrously difficult. And party size is variable as well, usually running from three to seven, but sometimes more and sometimes fewer. Four or five is pretty much the sweet spot.

Still, the "iconic" party is pretty much "Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard." In a lot of ways, most reasonably-balanced parties will offer some variant on the roles those classes cover even if none of those classes are actually in it.

You generally want to have someone who can fight on the front lines, both dealing damage and taking hits.

You generally want someone with respectable ranged damage ability.

You generally want a skillmonkey who's also effective in some additional capacity beyond just skill use (e.g., damage, spellcasting, etc.)

You generally want someone with access to crowd-control capability.

You generally want someone with at least a smidge of healing ability.

You generally want someone who has some good utility and/or buffing spells.

Those can overlap considerably, with one character filling multiple roles adequately enough, allowing for different party compositions to function quite well.

For instance, a Paladin can heal quite effectively, has some great party buffs, and can frontline well, but is kind of rubbish at ranged combat (unless they dip two levels of Warlock, in which case they can be solid at it too). A Bard or a Knowledge-domain Cleric is a respectable skillmonkey in addition to their spellcasting. A Rogue can deal good damage (if they can reliably get Sneak Attack) and is highly mobile in addition to their skillmonkeying. Etc., etc., so on and so forth.

The classes and races in and of themselves are a lot less important than the roles they cover, and how.

Resource-management is also a factor; you can start to run into "ten-minute adventuring day" scenarios unless you have a few classes in the party with some staying power, that aren't mostly dependent on long-rest resources to function effectively.

rollingForInit

2017-04-28, 09:28 AM

In a homebrew campaign, there's really nothing that can be said beyond what the DM suggests. 5e is easy in that nothing is really "required", and you can totally build encounters for parties where everyone is primarily ranged, or any sort of odd constellation.

For published adventures, it's usually good to consider the three pillars of adventure:

Social
You want someone who can manage in social encounters. That means having a party face, or at least someone who won't mess up all Charisma rolls. It's not necessary, of course, but it's good to have. It will open up new venues of adventure, might lead to better rewards and just all around make things easier.

Exploration
There's usually several parts of an adventure where you have to explore. Encounters that involve stealth, tracking, finding hidden objects, navigating around physical obstacles and handling traps are common. So having characters that can deal with at least some of those is good. Usually means having things like high Wisdom, proficiency in Investigation, Surival and Perception, not necessarily on the same character. Dexterity can be good for disabling traps.

Combat

Goes without saying, really. You need characters that can fight and kill enemies. How isn't really important. Having a mix of ranged and melee damage is good but not necessary. Most characters can have alternate, less effective ranged attacks. Even a 10-dex fighter can fire a longbow. Magic is very good, but not necessary either.

So it really is more about what characters can do, and not so much about which classes are used, because all classes can manage all of the above. Some are obviously better at them than others, but everyone can manage.

ZorroGames

2017-04-28, 09:46 AM

Thanks, all of this is firming up my observations on 5th Edition.

I just used "what used to be" to help you understand what I needed to confirm what I am seeing.

Opens up lots of potential for my first character.

Again, while most of this was in other threads this is helpful. Muchas Gracias!

Citan

2017-04-28, 10:02 AM

Hi!

I'd say a standard party could be made with only 3 people: Cleric or Bard, Wizard or Druid, and either Rogue or Fighter.

First covers healing, buff and social skills, second takes care of adventuring help and AOE / battlefield control as well as some adventuring-related skills, last take care of frontline and physical feats.

The most iconic being obviously Fighter, Cleric, Wizard.
But a Bard / Druid / Rogue could make for a more original and very fun party (especially since this one can be extremely stealthy: all DEX-inclined classes + Pass Without Trace from Druid).

For two-man parties, it's a bit more difficult, especially without feats, so you would usually have players choose together around a particular tactic: ex "stealth party" (Rogue + Monk or Shadow), "frontliners swordmages" (Eldricht Knight + War Cleric), "front&back" (Barbarian + Wizard), etc.

Taking specific feats such as Ritual Caster (++ adventuring), Sentinel (++ tanking), Inspiring Leader (+ survival) or Observant (++ awareness) will help much, as well as even just 1-level dips in other classes (ex Eldricht Knight dipping 1 level in Cleric for Healing Words and Bless).

Once you hit a 4-man party, anything goes. As long as people talk among themselves about how they intend to level up, you can pretty easily build a balanced party with nearly any combination of "unique classes" (1 player = 1 different class).

Demonslayer666

2017-04-28, 10:03 AM

Ninja_Prawn

2017-04-28, 10:12 AM

I discourage optimization in party builds when I run a game. I don't like the trope of needing a tank and a healer. Play whatever you want. As the DM, it's my job to challenge the party, not force certain roles.

Counterpoint: good encounter design (http://angrydm.com/2014/10/the-angry-guide-to-kickass-combats-part-3-lets-make-some-fing-fights-already/) happens when you build for the stereotypical (or 'platonic') party. That way, you know the encounter 'works' in a vacuum, and could be re-used in different campaigns or included in a published module. If your specific party make-up happens to trivialise some encounters and struggle with others, well, that's the whole point. A non-standard party should have advantages in some areas and drawbacks in others.

Laserlight

2017-04-30, 08:24 PM

If I were desiging a party without knowing anything about the campaign, I'd want: (Combat roles) Front line fighter who can block a doorway; AoE caster; ranged damage; emergency heals (Non combat) Social skills, climbing/moblity, lore skills, exploration skills. You can combine roles--for example, a paladin might combine the heavy fighter, the emergency heals, and the face.

Kane0

2017-04-30, 08:41 PM

I follow this pattern:

You want to be a frontliner (melee), backliner (out of melee) or secondliner (can fill in for both in a pinch, usually with good mobility). A party should have all three.

You want to be able to do two of the below, and the party needs to cover as much as possible (at least 4). The more coverage the better.
Dealing Damage
Taking Damage
Buffing
Debuffing
Battlefield control
Healing

Out of a fight you need to be able to do something. Getting around, talking good, knowing a lot, stealth/lockpicking, etc. The more you can do the better, and the less doubling up the better unless everybody is going for it for synergy (sneaky party, flying party, etc).

Slipperychicken

2017-04-30, 09:20 PM

The necessity of character resources devoted to healing depends on the number of fights you have in a typical day (or between long rests, to be more precise). If you're guaranteed to only have 1-3, then you can probably coast by on hit dice and healing word. If your days go far beyond that (5-6 or more fights) without some solid healing powers, it will stretch the PCs' hit points and risk breaking your party. For a party used to just one or two fights a day, sometimes a plot reason will compel them to fight many more times than that, and that can be a very dangerous situation.

The same principle applies to condition removal as well as hit point healing; status effects can accrue and break you down in much the same way as hit point damage. Get lesser restoration, remove curse, and dispel magic, and you'll be reasonably covered against typical conditions. Once you have access to it, you'll want something that deals with possession like Dispel Evil and Good. Some redundancy is helpful, in case your cleric gets hit with something that keeps him from curing himself.

I've experienced it a few times, seeing my party slowly ground to dust by a long series of relatively easy encounters, or sent scrambling back to town with our tails between our legs over some disease or curse effect. I have to say it's one of the most painful and humiliating ways to lose in a roleplaying game, especially if you start getting desperate near the end to avoid fighting. Come to think of it, that's probably why I spend so much text on here singing the virtues of life clerics that take the healer feat. It's great insurance against a number of common and foreseeable tragedies.

Arkhios

2017-05-01, 04:50 AM

I can't speak for the masses, but from my own limited experience (scheduling issues mostly having caused rather infrequent sessions over the past few years) I've found out that 3 players + DM has worked quite well. As for the party composition I don't have anything to add to what others have already said.

mephnick

2017-05-01, 06:53 AM

Counterpoint: good encounter design (http://angrydm.com/2014/10/the-angry-guide-to-kickass-combats-part-3-lets-make-some-fing-fights-already/) happens when you build for the stereotypical (or 'platonic') party. That way, you know the encounter 'works' in a vacuum, and could be re-used in different campaigns or included in a published module. If your specific party make-up happens to trivialise some encounters and struggle with others, well, that's the whole point. A non-standard party should have advantages in some areas and drawbacks in others.

Yeah, I've actually seen people say stuff like "If your PC's don't have any good ranged options, you can just leave flying enemies out of your encounters." Like..what? What's the point of the game if I tailor every encounter to every party? The world doesn't change because no one decided to pick up a bow.

Beelzebubba

2017-05-01, 07:16 AM

Here's the standard party composition:

Hopeless
Runs a fighter. Looks up their armor class every time they're attacked. Picks up the wrong dice more than half the time. Other people point out things on their character sheet for them.

Comic
Has a pun, movie reference, or meta reference for every single thing that happens at the table. Never notices people's patient frustration when going to the same joke for the 900th time.

Rules Lawyer
Knows everything. Knows other characters better than their players. Quotes Sage Advice on stealth/invisibility/perception rules way more often than the DM or players want to hear.

Min-Max Munchkin
Creates the most convoluted character concept ever to justify a multi-class with four level-1 dips across four sourcebooks. Makes the rest of party superfluous. Plays dumb about it.

Roleplayer
Makes the ground-breaking artistic choice to play a Dwarf with a Scottish accent. Loudly. Uses 'but that's what my character would do' to justify obnoxious TPK-causing behavior.

:smalltongue:

2D8HP

2017-05-01, 08:01 AM

BLUF: how many/what classes make up a minimum sized viable party to start into 5th Edition D&D?

Brief history of my party composition observation through AD&D 1st first. Remember I came to D&D through roll play aka war games and not role play.

White Box - classes were at first (D8) Fighter(s) (D6) Cleric (D4) Mage... Dwarf Elf and hobbit. Yeah I know Dwarf and Elf and hobbit each were a class, sort of... Three Alignments- Law (implied good) Chaos (implied evil) and Neutral. No non-human clerics that I remember. Dwarf Elf and Hobbit capped at mid level (Hobbits as Fighters at 4th level.). Only humans were uncapped RAW.

Not that it matters that much, but "white box" had all classes at a d6, it was the Greyhawk supplement that changed classes hit dice

Everyone had one of each (well I skipped Elf and Hobbit usually) but quickly added another fighter.

Greyhawk supplement introduced Thief and Paladin. And IIRC 5 alignments?

Greyhawk did indeed add "Thief" (which every race could be), and "Paladin" (which only humans could be).

The Good/Evil alignment axis was in the 1977 "bluebook" Basic rules, and before that a magazine article:

*sigh*

This again.

In the novel Three Hearts and Three Lions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hearts_and_Three_Lions) by Poul Anderson,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg/220px-ThreeHeartsAndThreeLions.jpg
which was published before and inspired Moorcock's "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, it was only sometimes "Law", and usually it was indeed "Order" vs. "Chaos", and Anderson expressly conflated Holger's struggle against Morgan le Fay and the "Host of Faerie" with the battle against the Nazis in our world.

To learn what is ment by "chaotic/good", "lawful/evil" etc. ask the DM of that particular table, it means what the DM says it means

If you want you can also read the article which first had the term.

I first read a copy of it in the 1980 "Best of The Dragon" which is next to me. It reprinted the original article in the;
Strategic Review: February 1976 (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KYLvpKSI/AAAAAAAAGrk/gxPmMlYaDIQ/s1600-h/illus1%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KaWTQKmI/AAAAAAAAGrs/EY_aYEhHcvs/s1600-h/n1%5B5%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KcgaWCfI/AAAAAAAAGr0/cZZSquIxTn4/s1600-h/n2a%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KfERen3I/AAAAAAAAGr8/Sb0VAeS3nKM/s1600-h/N2b%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh4.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KifB_yhI/AAAAAAAAGsI/O4eV2OSXAng/N3_thumb.jpg?imgmax=800)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KhU85a1I/AAAAAAAAGsE/nnA-2gMCFyI/s1600-h/N3%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg)

illustration (http://lh5.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9KmQCwDXI/AAAAAAAAGsU/_suYkwtUadA/s1600-h/Illus3%5B2%5D.jpg)

THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL

by Gary Gygax

FEBRUARY 1976

Many questions continue to arise regarding what constitutes a “lawful” act, what sort of behavior is “chaotic”, what constituted an “evil” deed, and how certain behavior is “good”. There is considerable confusion in that most dungeonmasters construe the terms “chaotic” and “evil” to mean the same thing, just as they define “lawful” and “good” to mean the same. This is scarcely surprising considering the wording of the three original volumes of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. When that was written they meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time. The wording in the GREYHAWK supplement added a bit more confusion, for by the time that booklet was written some substantial differences had been determined. In fact, had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil. Before going into the definitions of these four terms, a graphic representation of their relative positions will help the reader to follow the further discourse. (Illustration I)

Notice first that the area of neutrality lies squarely athwart the intersection of the lines which divide the four behavioral distinctions, and it is a very small area when compared with the rest of the graph. This refers to true neutrality, not to neutrality regarding certain interactions at specific times, i.e., a war which will tend to weaken a stronger player or game element regardless of the “neutral” party’s actions can hardly be used as a measure of neutrality if it will benefit the party’s interest to have the weakening come about.

Also note that movement upon this graph is quite possible with regard to campaign participants, and the dungeonmaster should, in fact, make this a standard consideration in play. This will be discussed hereafter.

Now consider the term “Law” as opposed to “Chaos”. While they are nothing if not opposites, they are neither good nor evil in their definitions. A highly regimented society is typically governed by strict law, i.e., a dictatorship, while societies which allow more individual freedom tend to be more chaotic. The following lists of words describing the two terms point this out. I have listed the words describing the concepts in increasing order of magnitude (more or less) as far as the comparison with the meanings of the two terms in D&D is concerned:

Basically, then, “Law” is strict order and “Chaos” is complete anarchy, but of course they grade towards each other along the scale from left to right on the graph. Now consider the terms “Good” and “Evil” expressed in the same manner:

The terms “Law” and “Evil” are by no means mutually exclusive. There is no reason that there cannot be prescribed and strictly enforced rules which are unpleasant, injurious or even corrupt. Likewise “Chaos” and “Good” do not form a dichotomy. Chaos can be harmless, friendly, honest, sincere, beneficial, or pure, for that matter. This all indicates that there are actually five, rather than three, alignments, namely

The lawful/good classification is typified by the paladin, the chaotic/good alignment is typified by elves, lawful/evil is typified by the vampire, and the demon is the epitome of chaotic/evil. Elementals are neutral. The general reclassification various creatures is shown on Illustration II.

Placement of characters upon a graph similar to that in Illustration I is necessary if the dungeonmaster is to maintain a record of player-character alignment. Initially, each character should be placed squarely on the center point of his alignment, i.e., lawful/good, lawful/evil, etc. The actions of each game week will then be taken into account when determining the current position of each character. Adjustment is perforce often subjective, but as a guide the referee can consider the actions of a given player in light of those characteristics which typify his alignment, and opposed actions can further be weighed with regard to intensity. For example, reliability does not reflect as intense a lawfulness as does principled, as does righteous. Unruly does not indicate as chaotic a state as does disordered, as does lawless. Similarly, harmless, friendly, and beneficial all reflect increasing degrees of good; while unpleasant, injurious, and wicked convey progressively greater evil. Alignment does not preclude actions which typify a different alignment, but such actions will necessarily affect the position of the character performing them, and the class or the alignment of the character in question can change due to such actions, unless counter-deeds are performed to balance things. The player-character who continually follows any alignment (save neutrality) to the absolute letter of its definition must eventually move off the chart (Illustration I) and into another plane of existence as indicated. Note that selfseeking is neither lawful nor chaotic, good nor evil, except in relation to other sapient creatures. Also, law and chaos are not subject to interpretation in their ultimate meanings of order and disorder respectively, but good and evil are not absolutes but must be judged from a frame of reference, some ethos. The placement of creatures on the chart of Illustration II. reflects the ethos of this writer to some extent.

Considering mythical and mythos gods in light of this system, most of the benign ones will tend towards the chaotic/good, and chaotic/evil will typify those gods which were inimical towards humanity. Some few would be completely chaotic, having no predisposition towards either good or evil — REH’s Crom perhaps falls into this category. What then about interaction between different alignments? This question is tricky and must be given careful consideration. Diametric opposition exists between lawful/good and chaotic/evil and between chaotic/good and lawful/evil in this ethos. Both good and evil can serve lawful ends, and conversely they may both serve chaotic ends. If we presuppose that the universal contest is between law and chaos we must assume that in any final struggle the minions of each division would be represented by both good and evil beings. This may seem strange at first, but if the major premise is accepted it is quite rational. Barring such a showdown, however, it is far more plausible that those creatures predisposed to good actions will tend to ally themselves against any threat of evil, while creatures of evil will likewise make (uneasy) alliance in order to gain some mutually beneficial end — whether at the actual expense of the enemy or simply to prevent extinction by the enemy. Evil creatures can be bound to service by masters predisposed towards good actions, but a lawful/good character would fain make use of some chaotic/evil creature without severely affecting his lawful (not necessarily good) standing.

This brings us to the subject of those character roles which are not subject to as much latitude of action as the others. The neutral alignment is self-explanatory, and the area of true neutrality is shown on Illustration I. Note that paladins, Patriarchs, and Evil High Priests, however, have positive boundaries. The area in which a paladin may move without loss of his status is shown in Illustration III. Should he cause his character to move from this area he must immediately seek a divine quest upon which to set forth in order to gain his status once again, or be granted divine intervention; in those cases where this is not complied with the status is forever lost. Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee. Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.

As a final note, most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With proper leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good. Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil.

Three graphs on alignment

Made simple-
https://1d4chan.org/images/thumb/4/45/Alignment_Demotivational.jpg/350px-Alignment_Demotivational.jpg

From Pratchett's Discworld-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/71/47/1c/71471c4a84496bb6ae3cb129d35b036c.jpg

And from
THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO GOOD AND EVIL
by Gary Gygax

In the February 1976 issue of The Strategic Review (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv201.pdf)

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

Hope they help!

There will be a test.

:amused:

Everyone grabbed a Thief (snore, usually a hobbit) and another cleric plus usually another D4 mage. Sometimes another Fighter.

Blackmoor supplement introduced the hyper brittle (IMO) Monk and (debatable as a PC) Assassin. Monks just seemed like survival class failure with 1D4 for initial HPs.

Not sure (away from books) when Ranger showed up...

Yet another magazine article:

1975 issue of the Strategic Review (http://annarchive.com/files/Strv102.pdf)

RANGERS
AN EXCITING NEW DUNGEONS & DRAGONS CLASS
By Joe Fischer
Rangers are a sub-class of Fighting Men, similar in many ways to
the new sub-class Paladins, for they must always remain Lawful or lose
all the benefits they gained (except, of course, experience as a fighter).
Strength is their Prime Requisite, but they must also have both Intelli-
gence and Wisdom scores of at least 12 each, and a Constitution of at
least 15. The statistics regarding Rangers are:
Rangers Experience Points Hit Dice* SpelI Ability**
Runner 0 2 Nil
Strider 2500 3 Nil
Scout 5000 4 Nil
Guide 12000 5 Nil
Pathfinder 25000 6 Nil
Warder 50000 7 Nil
Guardian 100000 8 Nil
Ranger-Knight 175000 9 Cleric, 1st Level
Ranger-Lord 275000 10 +Magic-User, 1st Level
Ranger-Lord, 10th 550000 10 +2 +Cleric 2nd Level
Ranger-Lord, 11th 825000 10 +4 +Magic-User 2nd Level
Ranger-Lord, 12th 11OOOOO 10 +6 +Cleric 3rd Level
Ranger-Lord, 13th 1375000 10 +8 +Magic-User 3rd Level
*either with the standard system or the alternate system which
allows fighters 8-sided dice
**spell progression is as follows: when only 1st Level are usable,
then only one spell is usable, when 2nd Level spells can be
taken then the R-L gets 2 1st Level and 1 2nd Level, and at
3rd Level it is 3, 2 and 1 respectively.
Until they attain the 8th level (Ranger-Knight) characters in the
Ranger class are relatively weak, for they have a number of restrictions
placed upon them, These restrictions are:
- They may own only that which they can carry with them, and
excess treasure or goods must be donated to a worthy cause.
- They may not hire any men-at-arms or other servants or aides
of any kind whatsoever.
- Only two of the class may operate together.
Advantages which accrue to low-level Rangers are:
+They receive no regular bonuses for advancement due to ability,
but they automatically gain 4 experience points for every 3 earned.
+They have the ability to track the path of most creatures when out-
doors, and even in dungeons they are often able to follow:
Monster’s Action Regular Needs to Track
goes down a normal passage 01-65
goes through a normal door 01-55
goes through a trap door 01 - 50
goes up/down a chimney 01 - 40
goes through a secret door 01-3The ranger so tracking must have observed the monster no more than
six turns previously when in dungeon situations. On the outdoor he has
a basic 90% chance of following a trail, with a 10% reduction for every
day old the signs are.
Because of their ability to track Rangers also are difficult to surprise,
requiring a roll of 1 instead of 1 or 2.
All Rangers gain a special advantage when fighting against monsters
of the Giant Class (Kobolds - Giants). For each level they have gained
they add +1 to their damage die against these creatures, so a 1st Level
Ranger adds +1, a 2nd Level +2, and so on.
Upon reaching the 8th and higher levels, Rangers begin to accrue a
number of advantages besides the use of spelIs already indicated.
+From 2-24 followers will join the character as soon as 9th level is
attained by him. These followers are detailed later.
+Ranger-Knights are able to employ magic items which heal or cure
disease, including scrolls.
+Ranger-Lords are able to employ all devices which deal with
Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, ESP, Telepathy, Telekenesis, and Tele-
portation, including scrolls.
Drawbacks which apply to the 8th and higher levels are:
-The 4 experience points for every 3 earned bonus is lost.
- Followers who are killed cannot be replaced, although regular
mercenaries can be.
-As already mentioned, if a Ranger turns Neutral or Chaotic he
loses all benefits of the class, becoming an ordinary Fighting Man.
Special Followers: For each of the 2-24 followers the Ranger gains
a dice roll must be made to determine what the follower is. Further
dice rolls to determine type, class, and/or level will also be necessary.
Type Class (Men Only)
01-60 Man 01 - 50 Fighter
61 - 75 Elf or Half-Elf 51 - 75 Cleric
76 - 90 Dwarf 75 - 95 Magic-User
91 - 99 2 Hobbits 95 - 00 Thief
00 Extraordinary (see below)
Multi-Class (Elves Only) Level of Ability (Roll for each)
01 - 50 Fighter 01 - 50 2nd Level
51 - 75 Fighter/Magic-User 51 - 65 3rd Level
76 - 90 Magic-User 66 - 80 4th Level
91 00 Fighter/Magic-User/Thief - 81 - 90 5th Level
91 - 99 6th Level
00 7th Level
Extraordinary Followers
01 - 20 Ranger, 3rd - 7th Level
21 - 40 Lawful Werebear
41 55 2 Unicorns -
65 - 70 Pegasus
71 80 Hill Giant -
81 - 90 Stone Giant
91 - 99 Golden Dragon
00 Take two rolls ignoring any 00’s which might come up
Where not otherwise specified Rangers perform as Fighting Men.
They may build strongholds. In all cases the Ranger will prefer Lawful
to Neutral types.

By the time AD&D came out most of the one player ran parties (and multiple player parties) averaged 2-3 Fighters, 1-2 Clerics, 1-2 Mages, a Thief, and the obligatory (one of the classes) Dwarf, Elf, and Hobbit.

Even multiple player parties averaged a PC and "sidekick" per player.

Yes, it varied but that was what I remember from pre-Basic (spit) and AD&D being introduced.

The best source of oD&D information at this Forum is probably Jay R, because he was already a college student and actually played (or tried to anyway) pre-Greyhawk.

While my first DM used oD&D, 1977 "Basic", and the AD&D Monster Manual were already out so I didn't get oD&D "undiluted" (plus I was only a pre-teenager of 11/12 years old, so my memories are dim, I actually remember the post D&D RP game play of the 1980's better, but for some reason I remember 1970's D&D rules better than the rules of games such as Traveller that I spent more time playing, riddle me that).

While I thrilled to get the AD&D PHB back then, I now think the division of D&D/AD&D was a mistake.

5e's Starter set, "Basic" (free online rules), and "corebooks" that are all compatible, seems a better way now.

I wish TSR and WotC 5e D&D, were more compatible, but they're both fun.

For the two coppers it's worth, I like 5e better at first level and TSR better at higher levels, but I'll gladly take a seat at either games.

As far as a "Standard" party goes, I think party composition matters less in 5e than in TSR, but I can still remember all Fighter parties once-upon-a-time.

So I wouldn't worry about it.

For the one copper it's worth, I almost always play a Fighter or Rogue in 5e, just as I usually played a Fighting-man or Thief back then.

ZorroGames

2017-05-01, 08:43 AM

2D8HP,

Thanks, I as running from 1970s memory without the books stored in the basement (sold off all the original Strategic Review and single digit Dragon magazines a year or two ago) so reading you corrections jogged the memory cells.

I like what I see in 5th Edition. Creative elements galore. Monks are actually playable, Clerics don't need to be everybody's bandage dispenser(my class fave,) Dwarf has more skill flexibility, and Gnomes being playable may bring my wife back into FRPGs.

I know I ask a lot of questions that some people roll their eyes at but I am trying to understand the complexity and simplicity (begone cruel 3.0) of 5th Edition.

Thanks.

2D8HP

2017-05-01, 09:34 AM

2D8HP,

Thanks....

You're very welcome!

:smile:

Always glad to learn of others who call 3e "new" D&D, rather than "old" D&D.

Here's the standard party composition...

....:smalltongue:

:redface:

I think that I'm at least two of those.

KorvinStarmast

2017-05-01, 12:05 PM

Brief history of my party composition observation through AD&D 1st first.
[QUOTE]Remember I came to D&D through roll play aka war games and not role play. So did most of us who got in early.

White Box - classes were at first (D8) Fighter(s) (D6) Cleric (D4) Mage... Dwarf Elf and hobbit.
Nope. All 1d6, 3 classes, F, Cl, MU. Greyhawk made a sea change. Elf and Dwarf were almost their own class, since an Elf could be a Fighter MU.

Three Alignments- Law (implied good) Chaos (implied evil) and Neutral. Not that simple, if you'd read Anderson and Moorcock. But if you hadn't, yeah, which is too bad.
No non-human clerics that I remember. Correct.
Dwarf Elf and Hobbit capped at mid level (Hobbits as Fighters at 4th level.). Only humans were uncapped RAW. Dwarf at 6, Hobbit at 4, but IIRC in Greyhawk, you could be up to 8th level with an 18 str as a dwarf. Greyhawk page 6:

Dwarves with a strength of 17 can work up to 7th level fighter and those of 18 strength can work up to 8th level. Among the dwarves themselves, but never as a player, there are clerical types. Dwarf clerics are found as high as 7th level (Lama), and they can cure and resurrect their own. These clerics are also fighters.

Greyhawk supplement introduced Thief and Paladin. And IIRC 5 alignments?
No, still 3 at that point.

Everyone grabbed a Thief (snore, usually a hobbit) and another cleric plus usually another D4 mage. Sometimes another Fighter. The Thief/X hybrid was common for Elves and Dwarves once greyhawk came out. At least, it was at our table. Rangers and paladins and MOnks and assassins were hard to qualify for when you rolled 3d6 in order. See the page 6 in Greyhawk for detail. For example:
Hobbits can be either fighters or thieves, and as thieves they have better chances for doing most things ... and are not limited to how high in levels they can progress.

Blackmoor supplement introduced the hyper brittle (IMO) Monk and (debatable as a PC) Assassin. Monks just seemed like survival class failure with 1D4 for initial HPs.
Not in my experience, the monks I played with did pretty well, but there were not commonly played at our tables.

Not sure (away from books) when Ranger showed up... Strategic Review Number two, Summer 1975; Ranger never made it into the OD&D supplements. First book was AD&D 1e PHB.

Even multiple player parties averaged a PC and a "sidekick" per player. Not uncommon at the tables where I played.

Yes, it varied but that was what I remember from pre-Basic (spit) and AD&D being introduced. Pre Basic was immense fun. We were all working without a net ...

NecessaryWeevil

2017-05-01, 01:10 PM

Yeah, I've actually seen people say stuff like "If your PC's don't have any good ranged options, you can just leave flying enemies out of your encounters." Like..what? What's the point of the game if I tailor every encounter to every party? The world doesn't change because no one decided to pick up a bow.

While that's true, we play D&D to tell stories of epic heroes, not the story of would-be adventurers who went off on their first adventure and died embarrassing deaths to flying enemies because no one decided to pick up a bow.

2D8HP

2017-05-01, 01:41 PM

...Pre Basic was immense fun. We were all working without a net ...

I have to second this.

I DM'd using the 1977 Basic Set before I got to play, but my first time as a player (rather than a DM) was 1978 or '79, and the DM (Richard Lindstrom-Whaley on Dwight Avenue), used oD&D, with Greyhawk, Blackmoor, the Arduin Grimoires, etc., and the AD&D Monster Manual.
Beyond that the foes were more often Giant Spiders, and animated skeletons rather than Goblins and Orcs, I don't remember that much detail, but I very distinctly remember the joy I felt playing it, and that in the 1980's I begged for us to play "old fashioned D&D again" because it was more fun.

Maybe it was they age I was, but I don't think that the joy I had in my brief time playing oD&D has ever been equaled.

And yes many of the rules we interpreted "wrong" (the writing was a little obtuse).

While that's true, we play D&D to tell stories of epic heroes, not the story of would-be adventurers who went off on their first adventure and died embarrassing deaths to flying enemies because no one decided to pick up a bow.

Speak for yourself sonny boy!
My first level PC's died like flies AND WE LIKED IT!
(OK.. the majority of PC's surviving to reach 2nd level may be an improvement)

:smile: