[3.5] Anticipating a short lived party

[EnnPeeCee]

Well, I've been setting up an online game with some of my friends that I'll be DMing. I just found out that at this moment, the party consists of a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Commoner, all level 2. Unless I find other people to join this group, I don't see them lasting very long. Which is kind of disappointing to me since I was hoping to set up a high power campaign.

Anyway, is this party going to have any chance of surviving? I don't intend on throwing piles of wizards on them, but I'm not even sure I can expect them to even survive against ONE.

[Claudius Maximus]

Why is there a commoner in the party? Is that player set on being useless in combat? Because whatever he would want to do with a commoner, some other class can do better.

[Knaight]

Get the guy playing a commoner to switch to something else, and balance accordingly. 3 players is more than enough for a group, heck 2 players and a GM is enough.

Note that D&D does very poorly online unless you have a Virtual Table Top, such as what Maptools and Open RPG do. Then you want Skype or some other voice chat software. Even then it will be pretty slow.

[Keld Denar]

Dude is playing a Commoner? Dear god..I hope he at least has the sense to abuse the Chicken Infested flaw!

Anyway...have their employer hand out like, a Belt of Healing for each of them for starting equipment. That way they are good for more than just a single encounter or so per day. That won't "break" anything, even though they'll be ahead of WBL.

Since they are only 3 (technically 2.5), you'll also have to scale your ELs down just a hair. The normal CR/EL system is balanced around 4 middle-decent PCs, and you've got 2 middle-decent PCs and someone with levels in an NPC class...Encounters that involve much more than a couple of Warrior class humanoids are probably gonna destroy them, so yea...look out for that. You should be able to gauge after the first encounter what you can throw at them.

[sofawall]

Well, I've been setting up an online game with some of my friends that I'll be DMing. I just found out that at this moment, the party consists of a Fighter, a Rogue, and a Commoner, all level 2. Unless I find other people to join this group, I don't see them lasting very long. Which is kind of disappointing to me since I was hoping to set up a high power campaign.

Anyway, is this party going to have any chance of surviving? I don't intend on throwing piles of wizards on them, but I'm not even sure I can expect them to even survive against ONE.

If it's a play-by-post, I'd be glad to inject some oomph. If it's voicechat or Instant message based, sorry, but I tried that once. Too many conflicting plans.

[EnnPeeCee]

Why is there a commoner in the party? Is that player set on being useless in combat? Because whatever he would want to do with a commoner, some other class can do better.

He seems to have this grand idea of making a commoner useful. Idk. I'll see if I can get him to change his mind.

Get the guy playing a commoner to switch to something else, and balance accordingly. 3 players is more than enough for a group, heck 2 players and a GM is enough.

Note that D&D does very poorly online unless you have a Virtual Table Top, such as what Maptools and Open RPG do. Then you want Skype or some other voice chat software. Even then it will be pretty slow.

We're going to be playing post-by-post over Myth Weavers, so I know it'll be slow. Normally we play together at a table, but with school starting, we're all off at different schools, but still wanted to play during the year. Thus, I'm setting this up.


Edit:

Dude is playing a Commoner? Dear god..I hope he at least has the sense to abuse the Chicken Infested flaw!

Anyway...have their employer hand out like, a Belt of Healing for each of them for starting equipment. That way they are good for more than just a single encounter or so per day. That won't "break" anything, even though they'll be ahead of WBL.

Since they are only 3 (technically 2.5), you'll also have to scale your ELs down just a hair. The normal CR/EL system is balanced around 4 middle-decent PCs, and you've got 2 middle-decent PCs and someone with levels in an NPC class...Encounters that involve much more than a couple of Warrior class humanoids are probably gonna destroy them, so yea...look out for that. You should be able to gauge after the first encounter what you can throw at them.

Hmm, I could also write in a healbot cleric npc to follow them around. That might be a bit more work though...
Yeah, ample healing items would be a better idea.

[Tiktakkat]

Hmm, I could also write in a healbot cleric npc to follow them around. That might be a bit more work though...
Yeah, ample healing items would be a better idea.

That is what I have always done in similar situations.
Just go through the treasure in whatever adventure you are using, and convert somewhere around 20% or so to potions of cure light and the like.

[Tyndmyr]

Skip the NPC, IMO. Just use appropriate encounter levels, keeping in mind that an EPC 2 fight will be quite challenging for a party of three. Melee types are not particularly weak at low levels, though yes, the commoner is.

More healing potion loot than standard is pretty justifiable, too. I see healing potions as loot in precons much more frequently than most other potions, and it's one with utility for pretty much anybody in most situations, so them being popular is quite understandable.

[UserClone]

Meh, I'd say give them a healer. That way, it can be a healing belt, instead of overshadowing their abilities.

[Starbuck_II]

Make enemies 1/2 life and spellcaster they fight have 1/2 spells still unused (lowers CR by 1 for them).

[Indon]

Sufficient quantities and powers of magical items can solve almost any problem in D&D - including, perhaps, yours.

[Hyudra]

Give them a healing belt or an eternal wand of vigor and they should be set for the lower levels. Healing potions are awkward, inefficient and promote the wrong kind of thinking.

Rather than have a cleric NPC, have you considered an actual player? If you're online, it wouldn't be ridiculous to find another person online who was interested in joining in.

[Sanity]

Give them a watered down version of leadership? Mooks can be fun. Especially if you've the time over a PbP game to sort out their actions.

[sofawall]

If it's a play-by-post, I'd be glad to inject some oomph.

We're going to be playing post-by-post over Myth Weavers,

Rather than have a cleric NPC, have you considered an actual player? If you're online, it wouldn't be ridiculous to find another person online who was interested in joining in.

Obligatory white text.

[taltamir]

there seems to be two notions here:
1. Prove you can make a commoner "useful" (while also using extremely underpowered classes for other people)
2. Gimp all enemies to nothing and hand out magic items like candy to make the party survive

Those seem to contradict... anything can be useful with enough magic items on it and sufficiently gimped enemies, but did you PROVE anything?
Ask then what are they trying to prove here? and if they really want to use "gold cheats" (tons of non level appropriate items) and "god mode" (gimped enemies) cheats. If they say no, then suggest they play better classes. A cleric and wizard and a druid maybe.

They can always TRY to go with those classes and die horribly. Or you can always have them cheat if they really WANT that.
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boa...8&topic=1002.0

As a DM, if they intend to play without you cheating for them, you want them as close as possible to each other on those ranks.
You can also play a low power world, where you say that tier 1 and 2 classes don't exist, period. That means enemies you select are from tiers 3 and lower. Their classes make more sense then.

The key issue is, do they understand what they are doing, if they don't mind cheating or walking into a TPK, then fine, roll with it. For kicks and giggles you can replay the same mission later with better classes and see how they do then.