Lopsided parties

[Eldariel]

This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?581196-So-What-is-your-Ideal-adventuring-party) got me wondering about peoples' opinions on lopsided parties. I'm particularly interested in people who hold to the WotC/grandfathered status quo. Why is it again that I keep reading how anything that's not Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard with equivalent roles is bound to fail? Is this because people play with people who couldn't build their way out of a paperbag, nevermind play a class competently, or does it have more to do with peoples' perceptions? How many have actually seen a Wizard/Wizard/Wizard/Wizard, Rogue/Rogue/Rogue/Rogue or Cleric/Cleric/Wizard/Druid or similar in action? How many have seen it fall flat on its face with a neutral DM doing zero tailoring? What about with an actively hostile DM? How well were the characters built?

In my own experience, even a two-character party composed of only casters can easily clear most modules above level 9 and they have little trouble on any level. And stealth-parties function better, not worse, than mixed parties overall. Is my own experience aberrant? Is it because I mostly play with rather experienced players with rather high system mastery (that they, admittedly, use to silly ends much of the time)?

[AmeVulpes]

I'd like to preface this by saying that my players are not rules experts. They play various editions, can't recall all of the rules flawlessly all the time, and forget that they have certain abilities. This leads them to build often simple, single-focus characters.

In my examples (see linked thread), I had a specific pair of rogues in mind. And they did very well, for quite a while, but as I wasn't tailoring to them, they did encounter things they couldn't handle, as a pair of rogues. Aggressive undead made things difficult.

For another matter, throw an Allip at a level 3 no-caster party who hasn't been lucky enough to stumble upon a magic weapon yet. TPK, every single time. For that one enemy alone, I personally find a caster to be a necessity.

Take a party of archers, regardless of class. A storm happens. They fail to find cover in a timely manner. They encounter pretty much anything CR-appropriate. Their principal weapon doesn't work, putting them at an intense disadvantage.

Admittedly, casters fare better. They do pretty much laugh at everything, until their magic doesn't work. Maybe they get an AMF dropped on them, or enter a Dead Magic zone, or even just screw some checks and end up getting their rest interrupted at the worst time it could be. A party with martial classes would have some small amount of power left here, (non-optimized) casters, in my experience, less so. I think in this case, failure (and my problem) comes down to not having a contingency plan.

Sometimes my players want to team up on an idea, go in as one uniform force, and every time it ends badly, or at the very least, causes me frustration trying not to drop a TPK from an appropriate CR encounter.

[Darth Ultron]

I don't think there is anything like 'lopsided parties'. The idea that some how a couple people get together to play a game, have a ''lopsided party''....and then oddly, can't do anything about it.

The big problem is more the focus on pure mechanical endless combat in a 'safe' game world setting, with lots of set house game rules. Somehow, nearly everyone gets the idea that a ''perfectly balanced party" is exactly one of each ''type" of character. And that is it.

I've often run games with only one type of character class or not with the ''must have" roles.

If any game falls flat it's really on the DM, and much less on the Players.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think it's a matter of tradition, and perhaps preconceptions effect a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, I expect that some DMs will expect the party to die to traps (more often) if there is no rogue, and somewhat adjust trap lethality upwards if that isn't happening. Not with any intention of antagonizing or punishing the players, just as a step in the general process of calibrating the game.

[AmeVulpes]

I think it's a matter of tradition, and perhaps preconceptions effect a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, I expect that some DMs will expect the party to die to traps (more often) if there is no rogue, and somewhat adjust trap lethality upwards if that isn't happening. Not with any intention of antagonizing or punishing the players, just as a step in the general process of calibrating the game.

I have expected this to occur in my games before, but what has ended up happening is that another party member who just happens to have Evasion (or Improved Evasion) takes point and survives the trap.

In fact, I've never had anyone but a Rogue (and NPCs) die to a trap. Be severely inconvenienced, yes, but die, no.

Your point is taken, and may be correct even in my case sometimes. However, I don't believe this holds up to my example of an Allip being randomly rolled for a level 3 party with no caster, and not lucky enough to have magic weapons yet.

[maruahm]

I actually ran a five wizard game some years ago with an IRL table. We were going through PF's Rappan Athuk. They TPK'd in the false tomb (with the crushing ceiling), and when I gave them a merciful resurrection at the Ferry, they TPK'd again at the kraken.

They'd play a more standard party later, with a druid, a sorcerer, a fighter, a cleric, and a kineticist. They did much better, by which I mean they made it to level 4 or 5 before TPKing to a room full of golems (IIRC). The druid was a 3.5e import, by the way, since the player was super new but smart enough to handle the bookkeeping and I wanted to give him a mechanical leg-up.

I think if they knew how to practically optimize, they wouldn't have had any trouble with the all-wizard party. But, being inexperienced and all, they didn't know how to use their wizards' versatility to cover the gaps created by their lopsided composition.

Or maybe they just got savvier after their first two deaths and did better the next time around. shrugs Who knows.

Edit: And before I get asked why I ran new players through Rappan Athuk, they asked for a Dark Souls-like experience and I obliged. :smallcool:

[MesiDoomstalker]

In a non-pre-written game; any GM who purposefully sends an encounter after the party they are mechanically incapable of handling (ex: Allip vs. a casterless, magic-weaponless party) is failing to be a proper GM. It's no fun to run into a brick wall (and then the brick wall fall on you). The point of these games is to have fun. Plain and simple. Now that doesn't mean a party with a clear weakness in its composition should never have that weakness targeted. Just that such targeting should be carefully measured and adjusted to be challenging but not impossible.

However, in pre-written games, a closer holding to a classic 4 man is usually preferred. Mainly, because the majority of pre-written adventures assume a classic 4-man in their planning because that's the easiest way to write them. That doesn't mean a GM couldn't adjust what a pre-written adventure send at the party of course. I'd always suggest adjusting pre-written adventures for your party.

[AmeVulpes]

In a non-pre-written game; any GM who purposefully sends an encounter after the party they are mechanically incapable of handling (ex: Allip vs. a casterless, magic-weaponless party) is failing to be a proper GM. It's no fun to run into a brick wall (and then the brick wall fall on you). The point of these games is to have fun. Plain and simple. Now that doesn't mean a party with a clear weakness in its composition should never have that weakness targeted. Just that such targeting should be carefully measured and adjusted to be challenging but not impossible.

However, in pre-written games, a closer holding to a classic 4 man is usually preferred. Mainly, because the majority of pre-written adventures assume a classic 4-man in their planning because that's the easiest way to write them. That doesn't mean a GM couldn't adjust what a pre-written adventure send at the party of course. I'd always suggest adjusting pre-written adventures for your party.

I don't send in the Allip in either pre-written or non pre-written. I get frustrated that I can't use it at the appropriate CR, thus limiting what I, the DM, can do, and arguably coddling my players who have made a stupid decision based on the world the characters are living in. I don't like pulling punches, it's not realistic or satisfying (in my opinion) for the world to bend to cover your weaknesses.
For another matter, throw an Allip at a level 3 no-caster party who hasn't been lucky enough to stumble upon a magic weapon yet. TPK, every single time. For that one enemy alone, I personally find a caster to be a necessity.

[...]Sometimes my players want to team up on an idea, go in as one uniform force, and every time it ends badly, or at the very least, causes me frustration trying not to drop a TPK from an appropriate CR encounter.

I admit that this may not be an ideal way to play. I have a vision of my worlds as hard, not necessarily fair but equally-unfair places where the ecology doesn't care who or what you are, what happens happens. I want my players to be ready for that. It's a fault in my expectation, really, and my players don't accommodate, so I do for them.

[Uncle Pine]

"Lopsided parties" are generally only an issue when the players fail to recognise that different party compositions will generally call for different approaches to standard issues, sometime requiring this to happen. In these cases, "no" can be the party's best friend when dealing with party hooks: the usual inability for all-rogue parties to deal with undead and ooze critters will hardly present itself because in these scenario a smart party will think thrice before accepting a quest in the crypt outside town. As for the allip, this will for example require shopping for a hefty amount of holy water (as well as getting lucky with Will saves, but that isn't something extra an all-rogue party has to deal with). Of course if players aren't smart and self-conscious enough to capitalize on their odd party composition they will die, but that can happen in a normal game as well.

As anecdotal evidence, I once had the pleasure to DM a 1v1 game (aka an adventure with only one player) for an awakened badger monk and I was extremely surprised by the way he handled difficult encounters with flying, larger, and/or spellcasting opponent.

[Allanimal]

I play in a party consisting of a mounted combat fighter, Knight, Ninja, ranged ranger/scout and spirit shaman. The lack of arcane caster is sometimes noticeable, but we have been quite successful working with it so far. Having a DM that can adjust to the party helps - we have rarely been in a situation where the lack of arcane casting meant we were in a dead end. Now we are just about to hit 8th level, and things might get worse higher up. We’ll have to see. At any rate, we are playing the characters we want to play and having fun doing it. :)

[Eldariel]

I don't send in the Allip in either pre-written or non pre-written. I get frustrated that I can't use it at the appropriate CR, thus limiting what I, the DM, can do, and arguably coddling my players who have made a stupid decision based on the world the characters are living in. I don't like pulling punches, it's not realistic or satisfying (in my opinion) for the world to bend to cover your weaknesses.

I admit that this may not be an ideal way to play. I have a vision of my worlds as hard, not necessarily fair but equally-unfair places where the ecology doesn't care who or what you are, what happens happens. I want my players to be ready for that. It's a fault in my expectation, really, and my players don't accommodate, so I do for them.

Eh, even in a no-caster party, Rogues can UMD the 25gp (not even pocket change on level 3) Scroll of Magic Weapon and anyone can use the 50gp Oil of Magic Weapon. Even on level 1, a fully no-caster party should be able to do something since if they're aware they have no other means to fight incorporeals and those might haunt the place they intend to raid, they should try and find something. And it's not like every encounter should be fought; if they can put over 5' of obstacles between themselves and the Allip, it can't follow, and in all eventualities they can try to sneak past it (it has no special senses) or run from it. I run sandbox games where the party faces what they find and it's the party's responsibility to figure out what they can or can't fight and beat. Sometimes they die due to sheer bad luck (who though going through a hidden door in their inn room would lead to a Lich's laboratory, but it did and they delved a tad too fearlessly eventually augmenting said Lich's army of the dead in a follow-up scenario, where he tries to take over a guild in the Sigil). Thus, a party might very well run into something they have no chance to fight so they'll need to figure out a way to beat it without fighting or just go elsewhere.

IMHO, nothing forces you to coddle your players. Regardless of the party make-up and player skill, they'll live and die by their characters and their decisions. The world isn't a fair place; they'll reap what they sow. There's a reason nobody plays Skyrim with player-based enemy levels either. That ruins the whole point of a free world and the feeling of becoming a bigger deal/getting stronger as you get levels is all but lost if you just do the same stuff with bigger numbers (though casters at least get qualitative changes to what they can do and how they can influence the world with levels too).


That said, an Allip on level 3 is a tough customer, casters or none. It has temporary HP, miss chance from incorporeality, the ability to act from inside walls, a fair number of HP and a party-wide disable to boot. Unless you have a Cleric with Sun-domain, even Turn Undead is hardly a solution since incorporeals running the most direct way away probably run through walls meaning they are pretty much impossible to kill and will not die and once the duration runs out, they'll be back. Command Undead works to a degree, but Allips have a couple of nasty tricks up against that (intelligence and the tortured mind-effect). And even if you beat one, its hits cause very-expensive-to-cure Wis Drain. Generally, on level 3, you'll simply want to avoid Allips period, unless you have precisely that Sun-domain Cleric with some Turn Undead optimization under his belt (and even he, on this level, gets only one roll at it and success is far from guarantee).


In a non-pre-written game; any GM who purposefully sends an encounter after the party they are mechanically incapable of handling (ex: Allip vs. a casterless, magic-weaponless party) is failing to be a proper GM. It's no fun to run into a brick wall (and then the brick wall fall on you). The point of these games is to have fun. Plain and simple. Now that doesn't mean a party with a clear weakness in its composition should never have that weakness targeted. Just that such targeting should be carefully measured and adjusted to be challenging but not impossible.

However, in pre-written games, a closer holding to a classic 4 man is usually preferred. Mainly, because the majority of pre-written adventures assume a classic 4-man in their planning because that's the easiest way to write them. That doesn't mean a GM couldn't adjust what a pre-written adventure send at the party of course. I'd always suggest adjusting pre-written adventures for your party.

Eh, I find a tier 3 party works much better than the classic 4-man, where two characters can run through the adventure without breaking a sweat and two can watch from the sidelines. I've tried both in premades and I vastly preferred the former if only because the modules are actually challenging that way and everyone in the party has an approximately equal amount of opportunities to contribute. Of course, not everyone minds being able to contribute, so everything does depend on the group. But I find premades generally a worse fit for the classic 4-man than custom games.

[AmeVulpes]

Eh, even in a no-caster party, Rogues can UMD the 25gp (not even pocket change on level 3) Scroll of Magic Weapon and anyone can use the 50gp Oil of Magic Weapon. Even on level 1, a fully no-caster party should be able to do something since if they're aware they have no other means to fight incorporeals and those might haunt the place they intend to raid, they should try and find something. And it's not like every encounter should be fought; if they can put over 5' of obstacles between themselves and the Allip, it can't follow, and in all eventualities they can try to sneak past it (it has no special senses) or run from it. I run sandbox games where the party faces what they find and it's the party's responsibility to figure out what they can or can't fight and beat.

I do agree that a Rogue or somesuch could do exactly that, and same on the oil. My players often neglect to purchase precautions for incorporeal enemies, despite being bitten in the ass repeatedly at all levels by it. They despise consumables.

As for the Allip not being able to follow, I don't think I comprehend. They have a fly speed, and unless there's something that states they can't, due to, say, incorporeality, they have the same run speed as the general party. Cherry on top, no CON means no limit to running endurance afaik. This is one of the reasons I try to coax my players toward buying a horse.

I also do much of the stated style of play, partly because my players are amazingly competent at derailing modules and escaping from plot hooks. Still, I work in laboriously-crafted modules of my own, and those made by others, though I can never expect them to go as planned.

[Eldariel]

I do agree that a Rogue or somesuch could do exactly that, and same on the oil. My players often neglect to purchase precautions for incorporeal enemies, despite being bitten in the ass repeatedly at all levels by it. They despise consumables.

Yeah, that's just a common newbie mistake though. Many players would rather get their permanent items ASAP and thus stay forever under the curve power-wise, because there's never the end-point where you would ultimately end up stronger if you didn't buy the consumables.


As for the Allip not being able to follow, I don't think I comprehend. They have a fly speed, and unless there's something that states they can't, due to, say, incorporeality, they have the same run speed as the general party. Cherry on top, no CON means no limit to running endurance afaik. This is one of the reasons I try to coax my players toward buying a horse.

It depends on the environment of course, but as long as you can run far enough that there's someone slower than you for the Allip to chase, it'll probably leave you alone. I don't think it really cares about what it attacks, and indeed, some might be more interested in staying in their haunts than chasing people across the countryside. Depends on the individual Allip, of course.

[Crake]

As I said in the referenced thread, it's not so much about classes as it is about fulfilling roles. You may fulfil those roles in ways that might not at first resemble what you would think to be that role, like a summoner summoning creatures for a frontline, but generally speaking if you can cover all of the important roles, you should be good to participate in any adventure to a reasonable degree.

If, on the other hand, you lack a skill monkey, and you start getting into skill intensive areas, or you lack a party face, and start getting into roleplay intensive areas, or you simply come across something with an enormous hp pool and lack any sort of consistent damage dealing, you're gonna have a bad time. To me a lopsided party isn't "nothing but wizards", a lopsided party is "nothing but skill monkeys" or "nothing but raw damage dealers". Whether you achieve this by having a warblade, a ranger, a warmage and a favoured soul who's picked nothing but self buffs and damaging spells, or because everyone went wizard and picked only damaging spells, the issue isn't the classes, it's the roles filled.

The reason t1 is so powerful is because how adaptive it can be in terms of changing out it's roles to fill any hole that the party may have at a given time.

[AmeVulpes]

As I said in the referenced thread, it's not so much about classes as it is about fulfilling roles. You may fulfil those roles in ways that might not at first resemble what you would think to be that role, like a summoner summoning creatures for a frontline, but generally speaking if you can cover all of the important roles, you should be good to participate in any adventure to a reasonable degree.

I'd like to clarify that I do agree with you. If the party can cover its needs, it's good. A lopsided party is one that absolutely dominates a field, and finds themselves crippled outside that comfort zone or when faced with a particular type of problem (such as one of my no-spellcaster parties and the Allip). When I posted in referenced thread, I called out my ideal party by role first, and class second for just that reason.

[HouseRules]

A lopsided party is a party where at least 1 character is 4 ECL below the APL. Otherwise, a mixed level party is not lopsided, but just uneven.

Overwhelming: 1 Monster CR = APL + 5, 2 Monsters CR = APL + 3, 3 Monsters CR = APL + 2, 4 Monsters CR = APL + 1, etc.
Epic Battle: 1 Monster CR = APL + 4, 2 Monsters CR = APL + 2, 3 Monsters CR = APL +1, 4 Monsters CR = APL, etc.
Very Difficult: 1 Monster CR = APL + 3, 2 Monsters CR = APL + 1, 3 Monsters CR = APL, 4 Monsters CR = APL - 1, etc.
Difficult if Handled Properly: 1 Monster CR = APL + 2, 2 Monsters CR = APL, 3 Monsters CR = APL - 1, 4 Monsters CR = APL - 2, etc.
Difficult: 1 Monster CR = APL + 1, 2 Monsters CR = APL - 1, 3 Monsters CR = APL - 2, 4 Monsters CR = APL - 3, etc.
Challenging: 1 Monster CR = APL, 2 Monster CR = APL -2 , 3 Monsters CR = APL - 3, 4 Monsters CR = APL - 4, etc.
Easy if Handled Properly: 1 Monster CR = APL - 1, 2 Monsters CR = APL - 3, 3 Monsters CR = APL - 4, 4 Monsters CR = APL - 5, etc.
Easy: 1 Monster CR = APL - 2, 2 Monsters CR = APL - 4, 3 Monsters CR = APL -5, 4 Monsters CR = APL - 6, etc.

[AmeVulpes]

A lopsided party is a party where at least 1 character is 4 ECL below the APL. Otherwise, a mixed level party is not lopsided, but just uneven.

This thread is about party composition, and though level disparities are certainly sometimes a problem, I don't believe this is terribly relevant.

We do use the word "level" a lot, though.

... or are you making a point that no composition is lopsided?

[HouseRules]

Lopsided Composition is different from Lopsided ECL. Lopsided Composition means that the party lacks some aspect the game expects of them.

Divine Magic
Arcane Magic
Combat
Skill Monkey

So there are only "four" main roles, and some alternate roles such as

Party Face, Diplomacy
Psionic instead of Arcane Magic

We all know that any Magical ability has limited use in simulating the other roles.
Remember the Cleric's Find Trap spells exist before the Thief Archetype.
Remember the Wizard's Knock spells exists before the Thief Archetype.
Thus, the Thief's Archetype should be about what other classes before them could do, but what they could do that is new:
Climb Shear Walls
Hide in Plain Sight


Edit: Magic Items could place a character limited into another role, but not entirely into another role without going too expensive.

[Darth Ultron]

As I said in the referenced thread, it's not so much about classes as it is about fulfilling roles. You may fulfil those roles in ways that might not at first resemble what you would think to be that role, like a summoner summoning creatures for a frontline, but generally speaking if you can cover all of the important roles, you should be good to participate in any adventure to a reasonable degree.

If, on the other hand, you lack a skill monkey, and you start getting into skill intensive areas, or you lack a party face, and start getting into roleplay intensive areas, or you simply come across something with an enormous hp pool and lack any sort of consistent damage dealing, you're gonna have a bad time.

Not true. This is a bit down the line of the thinking that things can ''only" be done "one way".

Example: All dwarf fighter party, with no 'face man'. The story gets to the point where the dwarves need to talk to an elf noble at an exclusive event, in the next couple hours as they are on a clock.

Now the ''one way" says that the "ONLY" way to do this is to have a face man character get the group into the event. So with no ''face dwarf character" it's Game Over.

But in a more Open game, the players can try anything. Like how about : the dwarf fighters simply attack the event and take all the guests hostage. Then at axe head point, talk to the elf noble. Then the dwarves fight there way out.

So look the dwarf fighters still got into the social event and talked to the elf noble with no ''face dwarf''. Amazing, no? And even if you say ''oh now the dwarves are in trouble"...well, so what? Character actions in game play could and should have consequences.

[Zaq]

As I said in the referenced thread, it's not so much about classes as it is about fulfilling roles. You may fulfil those roles in ways that might not at first resemble what you would think to be that role, like a summoner summoning creatures for a frontline, but generally speaking if you can cover all of the important roles, you should be good to participate in any adventure to a reasonable degree.

If, on the other hand, you lack a skill monkey, and you start getting into skill intensive areas, or you lack a party face, and start getting into roleplay intensive areas, or you simply come across something with an enormous hp pool and lack any sort of consistent damage dealing, you're gonna have a bad time. To me a lopsided party isn't "nothing but wizards", a lopsided party is "nothing but skill monkeys" or "nothing but raw damage dealers". Whether you achieve this by having a warblade, a ranger, a warmage and a favoured soul who's picked nothing but self buffs and damaging spells, or because everyone went wizard and picked only damaging spells, the issue isn't the classes, it's the roles filled.

The reason t1 is so powerful is because how adaptive it can be in terms of changing out it's roles to fill any hole that the party may have at a given time.

I agree. What matters isn’t the class so much as the abilities and the tricks. As long as the party has tricks that let them deal with (including, if necessary, simply running the hell away from) their challenges, it’s less important where said tricks come from. Maybe they come from using class features in intended ways. Maybe they come from using class features in unintended or even suboptimal ways. Maybe they come from items, from racial features, from hired or conjured (or convinced) help, from creative roleplaying and clever lateral thinking, or from something else entirely.

The key is, of course, that not all classes come equally pre-loaded with tricks. As we always say, effectiveness comes from player, then build, then class—in exactly that order of importance. Anyone can build/prep to have some tricks that aren’t necessarily obvious for their class. But if the player isn’t expecting to need to bring a bunch of tricks to the field, that’s going to be more obvious in a “lopsided” party than in a “balanced” party.

So yeah. A “balanced” party helps insulate against the effects of players maybe not optimizing to the hilt or maybe not bringing their absolute best A-game to the table, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient for having a fun experience against a wide array of challenges. It helps, but it’s not a prereq, and it’s not enough on its own. Conversely, a “lopsided” party has to work a little harder and prepare a little better, but they aren’t doomed from the start as long as they know what they’re doing.

[Crake]

Not true. This is a bit down the line of the thinking that things can ''only" be done "one way".

Example: All dwarf fighter party, with no 'face man'. The story gets to the point where the dwarves need to talk to an elf noble at an exclusive event, in the next couple hours as they are on a clock.

Now the ''one way" says that the "ONLY" way to do this is to have a face man character get the group into the event. So with no ''face dwarf character" it's Game Over.

But in a more Open game, the players can try anything. Like how about : the dwarf fighters simply attack the event and take all the guests hostage. Then at axe head point, talk to the elf noble. Then the dwarves fight there way out.

So look the dwarf fighters still got into the social event and talked to the elf noble with no ''face dwarf''. Amazing, no? And even if you say ''oh now the dwarves are in trouble"...well, so what? Character actions in game play could and should have consequences.

And what if the guards at the event are out of the dwarves' league?

But the fact is, even if they did it that way, the "face" would still need to talk to the noble, either threatening him with intimidate, talking with diplomacy, or whatever. I mean, your example is a bit vague, since we have no idea why the dwarves need to talk to the elf, but the idea wasn't that "without every role covered it's game over" it was more that "without every role covered you're gonna have a hard time".

[Lans]

I do agree that a Rogue or somesuch could do exactly that, and same on the oil. My players often neglect to purchase precautions for incorporeal enemies, despite being bitten in the ass repeatedly at all levels by it. They despise consumables.

As for the Allip not being able to follow, I don't think I comprehend. They have a fly speed, and unless there's something that states they can't, due to, say, incorporeality, they have the same run speed as the general party. Cherry on top, no CON means no limit to running endurance afaik. This is one of the reasons I try to coax my players toward buying a horse.



I think undead autofail the endurance check whenever that comes up

[Crake]

I think undead autofail the endurance check whenever that comes up

Quite the opposite, they actually don't have to roll it at all. Think about it: The penalty for failing an endurance check is... Fatigue and nonlethal damage. Both of which undead are immune to.

[MeimuHakurei]

Quite the opposite, they actually don't have to roll it at all. Think about it: The penalty for failing an endurance check is... Fatigue and nonlethal damage. Both of which undead are immune to.

Undead can never take the run action at all.

[Crake]

Undead can never take the run action at all.

Citation needed?

Edit:


Constitution: Any living creature has at least 1 point of Constitution. A creature with no Constitution has no body or no metabolism. It is immune to any effect that requires a Fortitude save unless the effect works on objects or is harmless. The creature is also immune to ability damage, ability drain, and energy drain, and automatically fails Constitution checks. A creature with no Constitution cannot tire and thus can run indefinitely without tiring (unless the creature’s description says it cannot run).

[MeimuHakurei]

My bad, I thought it was intrinsic to Con-less creatures.

Anyways, I want to bring up that optimizing and coordinating a group made up of 4-5 of the same class requires a completely different optimization mindset to account for the group composition - a Wizard focused on buffing martials is profoundly limited in a group with no martials, for instance. So for many players used to putting a given character into a certain role, usually its archetypical one, it is very hard to make them fit a group that has no other classes in it.

[AmeVulpes]

Undead can never take the run action at all.


Citation needed?


Single Actions Only (Ex): Zombies have poor reflexes and can perform only a single move action or attack action each round. A zombie can move up to its speed and attack in the same round, but only if it attempts a charge.

Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares; can’t run)

Zombie specific, but it's given me the same impression many times.

----------------------------

Anyways, I want to bring up that optimizing and coordinating a group made up of 4-5 of the same class requires a completely different optimization mindset to account for the group composition - a Wizard focused on buffing martials is profoundly limited in a group with no martials, for instance. So for many players used to putting a given character into a certain role, usually its archetypical one, it is very hard to make them fit a group that has no other classes in it.

Agreed, and this is more or less my problem. It's hard, it takes different considerations, and those often (in my experience) aren't met.

[liquidformat]

From my experience the biggest factor to the lopsided party being effective or not is level beyond that is player coordination in character building.

I have played in a number of all wizard games the most dysfunctional of them was a party that started at level 1 with 5 wizards, they were completely useless. I have also played in a few where we were higher levels and they became more functional as our starting levels got closer to 10.

Beyond that playing in pbp games even with group setups that seem functional (divine, arcane, combat, skill monkey) I have had plenty where they didn't work well because of character builds not functioning well together. I had one where I was a melee rogue and with player attrition we were left with myself, an arcane caster, and I am not sure what but seemed to be psionic with minor healing abilities but pretty much useless and we were all at level 3. The whole thing was a bit of a train wreck since I was forced into being the meat shield, the dm gave me a sword that forced me into a rage state every time I was injured. After one of our encounters where I was almost killed afterwards I decided to rest since I had almost no hp and fatigued (useless psionic couldn't heal me for some reason) and the other two decided they would go on by themselves and leave me to rest and got themselves killed tripping a trap in the next room. And to be honest they should have expected it we were in a tower filled with traps pretty much everywhere and neither had any ability what so ever to find them much less disarm them beyond walking straight into them.

[Darth Ultron]

And what if the guards at the event are out of the dwarves' league?

Well, then the players need to go to Plan C. Maybe plan C is the dwarves 'sneak' in by the servants entrance as delivery guys.

The real problem is the DMs and players that say ''the ONLY way to get into the event IS to have a ''face man" character do it. EVERYTHING else the players might think of or try AUTO fails every time.

A good game will have...oh, at least three or four ways to do ''anything". Sure, some are hard and some are easy depending on many factors...but none should be impossible to happen ''just because".

And really, if the game does get backed into a railroaded corner where the DM is saying ''you players must do things in the game only the one single exact way I specify and say"....well, you might want to get another DM.





But the fact is, even if they did it that way, the "face" would still need to talk to the noble, either threatening him with intimidate, talking with diplomacy, or whatever. I mean, your example is a bit vague, since we have no idea why the dwarves need to talk to the elf, but the idea wasn't that "without every role covered it's game over" it was more that "without every role covered you're gonna have a hard time".

Right each thing the players do is just one hurdle, and then they move on to the next one and the next one and the next one.

But what is a ''hard time" anyway.

Ok, so the group has a face guy...so they take a minute to roll a dice and get into the event and talk to the guy. It's a fun minute of game play...watching one player roll a dice.

So the ''hard time" is ALL the players engaged in an activity to get into the event and talk to the guy, using whatever skills, abilities, items and wacky ideas they might have. This whole game play might take a half hour...or a whole hour.

But, so what?

[Crake]

Right each thing the players do is just one hurdle, and then they move on to the next one and the next one and the next one.

But what is a ''hard time" anyway.

Ok, so the group has a face guy...so they take a minute to roll a dice and get into the event and talk to the guy. It's a fun minute of game play...watching one player roll a dice.

So the ''hard time" is ALL the players engaged in an activity to get into the event and talk to the guy, using whatever skills, abilities, items and wacky ideas they might have. This whole game play might take a half hour...or a whole hour.

But, so what?

If that's what social interaction boils down to at their table, I feel bad for them.

And all the players can still participate alongside the party face: It's called assisting, and helps out both in roleplaying and mechanically.

[Darth Ultron]

If that's what social interaction boils down to at their table, I feel bad for them.

And all the players can still participate alongside the party face: It's called assisting, and helps out both in roleplaying and mechanically.

Well, when talking about a ''lopsided party" we are only talking about boring numbers and mechanics, right? That is the only way a party can be lopsided.

After all, take a more Role Playing Group:

Roy, has a character...and does deep hard core immersive role playing making the character come alive like a real person...oh, and sure, occasionally uses dice for some mechanical things.

Billy has a Super Character that can make three full round action attacks and do 1000d1000 damage....and, er, not much else.

Well you can't really compare the to, right?

[Sleven]

I think people only worry about party roles because they want everyone to feel unique and uniqueness is typically erroneously equated with fun. I'll admit to accommodating this approach to play whenever I join groups these days, simply out of courtesy to others, but I've never felt it necessary.

It's anecdotal, of course, but playing in a party with two rogues (as one of the rogues) was some of the most fun I've ever had playing D&D. We roleplayed competitive companions both trying to one-up/"out-rogue" one another and ended up synergizing quite well. Never had any trouble with crit or sneak immune enemies, incorporeal creatures, etc. WBL is there for a reason, and you can always run and/or hide.

[Quertus]

And all the players can still participate alongside the party face: It's called assisting, and helps out both in roleplaying and mechanically.

So, I guess I'll say that that's rarely been my experience.

Usually, the face (or occasionally a very small set of players) participate in conversations, while everyone else just twiddles their thumbs. And that's best case scenario. Worst case scenario, "bluff, bluff, bluff, bluff the stupid ogre", and idiots prove that 4e skill challenges actually make sense, by showing that their failure causes the party to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. As a rule, only your best players should engage in Face time, never your idiots. "Assisting" does not help. :smallannoyed:

And, yes, I say this from both sides of the competence fence. :smalleek:

[skunk3]

I think that lopsided parties can be a major issue. Right now I am playing in a (gestalt) game and one player hardcore min/maxed their character and the rest of us merely optimized to a sufficient level. What this means in game is that this one PC is capable of basically handling every single encounter himself with ease due to a huge amount of spells per day, untouchable AC, ridiculously high saves, boatloads of skill points, tons of immunities, etc... not to mention the character is a gish of course and is going around thunder lancing stuff and doing more damage per round than even the melee-centric characters in the party. Being in a party with one PC that is obviously way more powerful than the rest is kinda like having Michael Jordan play on your high school basketball team. Sure, you're winning the game, but it's his show and your presence there is superfluous. I wouldn't say that the power of this particular PC is 'ruining' the game for me, but it definitely is kinda irksome because combat encounters feel wayyyyy too easy so far. For anything to challenge this PC it would have to be strong enough to utterly wreck the rest of the party... so as the game goes on it's just going to be a big spotlight on this one guy and the rest of us are going to be extras.

[Telonius]

I think the main thing is that people don't want to be seen as doing the exact same thing as other players in combat.

I'm playing in a group right now that has a (very blasty) Wizard, a (slightly less blasty) Sorcerer/Dracolexi, a Bard/Warblade, a Cleric/Warlock/Rogue/Eldritch Disciple (me), and a playtest of a homebrew Paladin fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554806-Reworked-Paladin) (plus a level of Monk). Heavy on arcane and melee; light on healing and sneakiness. (My character is kind of pulling triple duty as a face, healer, and secondary sneak).

So far everybody seems to be having fun with it. The Bardblade and the Paladin play differently enough that each really has a unique feel, and my own Frankenstein's monster of a build is definitely weird with the eldritch blasts and wacky effects like at-will Shatter. The biggest issue that has come up is with the Sorcerer's spell selection. Since the Wizard's player is playing her as your typical blasty pyromaniac, the Sorcerer's player doesn't just want to be saying, "Yeah, what she did - I do that too" in combat. We're high enough level now that Baleful Polymorph is a thing, and the Sorcerer had a load of fun when a mid-level boss failed its save and got turned into a newt; so I'm hopeful that we can get the Sorcerer's toolset to be a bit different than the Wizard's.

[xyamius]

Lopsided parties.... no such thing.... wait depends can they make a search or spot check nah they can just use diplomacy on that hidden passage or bluff(lol). had a few parties like that. Players : we rolled spot why didn't we see them. Me: cause all of you have crap in it and rolled like hot garbage. SUPRISE ROUND!! mwa hahahaha!!!

I had a problem where a few of my pc's where creating pc's that did certain one trick ideas and they thought it was a great until they found out it was one and done. I.e. barbarian charger with full attack after he pounces. A druid in the party that liked to do melee combat but had a horrible a/c but great melee damage. I had to halt another one of my players mid creation due to they had no idea about any of the casting system and had a prior history of skimming and not wanting to learn new things.

So after a few pc deaths I decided to ask them what they where wanting to play. Not what class but what do they see the pc doing.

Some players you have to ask them this since they think a class which is in the known for it would be best to play but 3.5 says don't expect what you know to be true if all you know is the basics.

What I built for them made everyone questionable at start and they where going ??? this looks nothing like what I was thinking but hey my prior builds died. Then combat started and it went from ??? to wow my pc does what I wanted it to instead of thud dead.

One step as a DM is you have to sometimes step in and go listen here I am getting sick and tired of having to find a way to bring x "cool idea" pc into the game due to another one of you died. So let me help build your pc and don't complain if it seems like it's more me building than you. (don't just build them something you want to.)

example: player wanted to be able to wade into melee fast and smash everything. DMM Cleric with spells running problem fixed. now the party has a multi tool also. Player wants to play a caster but has no clue about system and is known to be lazy as hell. warblade/master thrower/bloodstorm blade so they now throw a crap ton of knives every round and have to keep track of a few things like a spell caster to get them adjusted to it like a walking nuke later. win/win (seriously dude was doing well over 200pts by level 12 with a full attack.)

For pulling punches hell no don't do that. I love looking at the players going well you have no way to deal with a caster or anything non ranged at start are you all sure this is the party you want to run. (dm plots to torture the players)

DMing is having fun, occasional teaching/arguing and feasting on the players torment. Because hey if they want to keep hitting their head on that brick wall and not listening you might as well stick your mug out to collect their tears to drink.

[Firechanter]

*bump*

My mileage with "lopsided" parties varies.

iirc I haven't seen a single Rogue at any table I played at for about 4 or 5 years now. Simply because nobody has been interested in the role. In our current game we have a Bard with some basic lock/traphandling skills and that's good enough. Couple years ago we played Red Hand of Doom and there was like _one_ trap that we had to eat.

A very bad experience with lopsided parties was at a different table with basically no coordination between the players. At one point around level 4-5 most players swapped out their character for one reason or other, and so it turns out we now only had Ranged characters. Next combat taught us the lesson "If nobody is Melee, everybody is Melee". The game died off shortly thereafter for other reasons, anyway.

Now our current game has had a very effective and multi-faceted party, but now that we're currently between chapters, out of the blue everyone except me (playing a Paladin) has expressed interest in swapping characters. So I asked what they'd be interested in and basically everyone said "maybe Ranger". xD
So, frankly, I hope it doesn't come to that. :p We'd lose about 90% of our magical utility and 100% of our crowd control. It might be cushioned a little bit branching out into Slayer and Hunter with fitting archetypes, but basically I'm worried the party will take a huge downgrade.

[ngilop]

So, if I read the OP correctly a lopsided party is one where its not fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard

I mean for me as long as the party can handle most situations (they might have to work for some) I don't feel the 4 roles need to be exactly those 4 or the meat-shield heal-bot, blaster, trap-monkey?

But a group needs a guy that can take a hit witout dying, some guy that can reliable scout and deal with a skills, a way to negate status effects (of which death is one), and a way to deal damage in a alrge area and put some battlefield control.


Had a full caster party on rise of the runelords (we stopped right after the stone giant mokmurian or whatever it is spelt) and we did good, Flame oracle was our area damage and status removal, I was our damage sponge with summons and battlefield control with my spells, our witch was our secondary status removal, debuffer, skill guy, and minor damage, while our druid/inquisitor was our single target damage and secondary skill guy.

It was ROUGH to say the least till we got 4th level spells, then it became what I would consider decent.

[Phillyg]

So, if I read the OP correctly a lopsided party is one where its not fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard....

Had a full caster party....

It was ROUGH to say the least till we got 4th level spells, then it became what I would consider decent.

If you start your campaigns at level 1, your players will quickly learn the truth.

[Eldariel]

If you start your campaigns at level 1, your players will quickly learn the truth.

Which is...? That Wizard is the best level 1 class in 3.5 by a metric ton?

[ngilop]

Which is...? That Wizard is the best level 1 class in 3.5 by a metric ton?

Sorry.. DRUIDS are the most powerful class at level 1.

they gets spells

better attack

more HP

and a companion which is literally (npc warrior cohort the class feature)

[DwarvenWarCorgi]

Sorry.. DRUIDS are the most powerful class at level 1.

they gets spells

better attack

more HP

and a companion which is literally (npc warrior cohort the class feature)

You forgot armor.

[Eldariel]

Sorry.. DRUIDS are the most powerful class at level 1.

they gets spells

better attack

more HP

and a companion which is literally (npc warrior cohort the class feature)

They don't get immediate action "Nope", as many "Lol" spells or the ability to effortlessly take something like a 3d6 at will AOE damage ability though. And Wizard can get the same companion on level 1 too. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#sorcererWizard) Also, their attack is exactly the same. HP...compared to not being even targetable is pretty marginal. Especially if you have a HP sponge already. Then it's all about your output. Or Wizards can just sell their spellbook and buy a billion guard dogs or whatever if they feel so inclined; they're the richest level 1 class on this side of the Aristocrat.

What you're saying is true on midlevels of optimisation but Wizards are pretty ridiculous if you pull out most of the stops and optimise for level 1 exclusively.

[Anthrowhale]

Perhaps one way to judge the adaptability of a character class is by the feasibility of a party which is all that character class against standard adventures?

By that measure, perhaps Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, & Ranger are not viable?

While Bard, Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard are?

Essentially, UMD + skills or spells is "good enough".

[Efrate]

Let's see lopsided parties. With reasonable system mastery what have I had.

All rogues. Almost no one saw it coming. Those that did ate a zillion d6 in sneak attack. Acfs and weapon crystals keep your sneak relevant, and you have enough skills to handle anything else. If nothing can see you unless they have lifesight or mindsight and you bypass or quickly and strategicly destroy those few enemies, you get the party no one knows existed doing a lot of good work.

All wizards, mostly blastly but with utility spread around. This was easy. Very easy after about level 2/3. 4x the spells for every wizard, and enough knowledge and spell selection to have everything at least double covered. 4x the clairaudience/clairvoyance and taking your time gets past a lot of obstacles.

All cleric was fun. No one can die, and dmm is good for everyone, and some can gish, some can bfc, some can play wizard, and you get at least 8 domains to cover any gaps. Plus any given day every one can switch it up.

I want to do 4 binders because it's my favorite class but no group yet has been willing to bite that bullet.

[Dimers]

I want to do 4 binders because it's my favorite class but no group yet has been willing to bite that bullet.

I'd play that! Start up a recruitment thread? :smallsmile:

[Elkad]

I don't send in the Allip in either pre-written or non pre-written. I get frustrated that I can't use it at the appropriate CR, thus limiting what I, the DM, can do, and arguably coddling my players who have made a stupid decision based on the world the characters are living in. I don't like pulling punches, it's not realistic or satisfying (in my opinion) for the world to bend to cover your weaknesses.

I don't cover them by not using the monster. But I'll at least drop a obviously magic Club +1 a couple rooms prior and make them all take turns with "I pick up the club as my move action, swing it as my standard, and then drop it at Joe's feet as a free action". And if they can't think to do that (or the dice just go poorly), then they have to mount a rescue mission for the unconscious character they left behind when they ran away. Which re-challenges them. Allips are great for that, because they don't actually kill. You just lose a party member or three temporarily, then you go to town and sell your platemail to buy a vat of holy water or similar, and then sell everything else to pay for the Restorations.