Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Munchmausen 04-18-05, 11:01 AM	Here's a thought. Many of the class balance discussions on these boards revolve around either ability to fill the roles in a classic four-person party or one-on-one deathmatches. Occasionally a class is mentioned as being a good "5th man," but there's little discussion about effective classes in solo, pair, or three-person parties. So, I ask what classes people think are effective or ineffective in these situations?
Sinon 04-18-05, 11:38 AM	Small parties: Rogue with as much as possible devoted to U.M.D. and the social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc.) You have to have a rogue; traps are a constant hazard. You can be the primary or the only caster or healer with a couple of nice wands or scrolls. But you're also likely to be the face of the party, and you are going to probably have to talk your way through situations that other, more well-rounded parties could fight through.
Redmoon 04-18-05, 12:19 PM	I disagree. I'm not saying rogues are bad, but for the reasons you're saying a rogue, I think a bard could do slightly better. I feel that a bard would fit in there better than a rogue. They can cast healing spells without wasting a ton of the group's money, and are just as good as rogues in every social situation. I'm not sure how many skill points your bards have, but I know IMC they have 8+int, which makes them just as skilled as rogues. Add to that their requisite high Charisma, they'd make a better face than most rogues. As Sinon said, you're going to have to talk your way through most things that other parties could fight through, and a bard is generally slightly better at that than rogues. That's where Bardic Music really comes in handy. Even a Fascinate could help; with a small party you're going to need every tactical advantage you can get. Fascinate will give you the opportunity to prepare for battle, even if you don't use your Bardic Music for anything else. That said- 1 person party - Bard. You're slightly more prepared than a rogue for just about any situation. 2 person party - Bard, Rogue. Now, you've got the best of both worlds. The bard could focus on interaction with people and spellcasting, and the rogue could focus purely on the physical aspects of playing. He could focus on fighting and sneaking- max out skills that he otherwise couldn't because he'd have to dump skill points into UMD. 3 person party - Bard, Rogue, and Fighter. In every campaign I've ever played, people can do without magic, except for a bit of healing now and then. Magic would definitely make things easier, but most decent players can reason through things without it, even against other spellcasters. However, at this point- the bard would focus on being the party's face, the rogue on sneaking. Max out physical skills, focus on traps, as Sinon pointed out as important, and the fighter would take care of anything that the first two couldn't avoid. A monk could take the place of the fighter, except that they're a little too specialized, where in a small party the fighter would still need to be (fairly) well-rounded.
amethal 04-18-05, 12:27 PM	If you have a 1 person party, I'd go with druid. That way, you actually get a 2 person party, with the animal companion.
Nuntius128 04-18-05, 12:31 PM	Also, for the potential Monk/Rogue/Bard, there's the whole aligned multiclassing, and that one is kinda weird. I'd take Fighter over Monk any day, cuz I likes my +5 Armor, even if its a Mithral Chain Shirt.
Dracspero 04-18-05, 12:35 PM	Well, bards only get 6+ on skills, and they're not going to be able to do much against those traps. I would have to agree that when it comes to soloing (that includes no followers) rogue is the way to go. And if he has to deal with undead, well, he can just run away :P Duoing is a bit more interesting. Rogue AND bard make a nice combination for their stealth, the rogue's trapfinding skills and the bards social skills and healing. In an outdoors setting, Ranger and Druid could mess up a lot of monster's days. For a trio, I'd consider sacrificing subtlety altogether and Go Cleric, Paladin, and Wizard. Notice I'm not including non-PHB standard and prestige classes. You just end up with too many options to make it worth the discussion.
Sinon 04-18-05, 12:58 PM	You're right about the bard in many ways, but the marginally better skills and fighting ability still make the rogue a better choice, for me anyway. Just throwing this out there: Assuming that a fighting class is needed at all, might not a barbarian do a bit better than a core fighter. He is stronger, faster, able to survive combat situations longer on his own (with his rages) and has better skills.
Solidcobra 04-18-05, 01:01 PM	1: A druid. 2: Druid and rogue. 3: Druid, wizard and rogue. 4: Druid, cleric, wizard, rogue. 5: Druid, cleric, wizard, rogue, barbarian. And 6: Druid, cleric, wizard, rogue, barbarian, cler/wiz/MT
Tony Vargas 04-18-05, 02:09 PM	there's little discussion about effective classes in solo, pair, or three-person parties. So, I ask what classes people think are effective or ineffective in these situations? The game is really heavily based around the at-least-4-member 'iconic' party. As you start to leave vital roles unfilled, you inevitably run into problems. Also, you have to consider that a smaller party can't handle nearly the ELs of a larger one. For a 3-person party, it's probably least troublesome to drop the arcanist. A Cleric can handle many spellcasting challenges, and a rogue could cover some of the arcanist role via UMD. You could also go with a bard as your primary spellcaster (capable of some healing, party-buffing, and some offensive enchantment type spells), with a Paladin or perhpas Ranger as the primary warrior, also providing some healing. Or, you could go with a war-Cleric in the tanking role, using his spells exclusively for buffing and healing, and keep a combat-casting arcanist. A two-person party is going to have it very tough. The idea of holding a front line with casters 'in the back' just can't work, so the arcanist, or, really, any non-combatant isn't really viable. A Cleric and a Rogue would probably be your best bet. Both will have to be viable in melee combat, so a tough rogue or a level or two of multiclassing with Fighter/Barb/Ranger would be a good idea. Remember that a standard challenge for a party of two should probably have an EL two /lower/ than thier level. Solo adventuring changes everything. A multiclassed character is a good bet, as you can combine a few critical features like casting, healing and trapfinding, into one package. A Monk is also a good choice, as it has excellent saves and the ability to run away very efficiently. Remember that a failed save that would only be inconvienent to a pary, like the party fighter behing held, for instance, is in effect, a TPK for the solo adventurer. It's also critical to remember to dial the challenges way down. A same level CR is a 50/50, life/death, challenge, and EL /four levels/ below the character's own is actually a reasonable challenge. Cohorts can help round out a small party. A cohort or two of a missing role - especially a less combat-intensive one, like healer or trap-finder can restore 'iconic' status to a party. Remember that a cohort is at least 2 levels lower than the PC, so they don't add a whole lot to the EL the party can handle. For the solo PC, facing ELs well below his level, even the Followers from the Leadership feat should be of some use.
steenan 04-18-05, 04:25 PM	If you try to build an "optimal" small party, and don't use multiclassed characters, those may be good: 1: Bard, druid or cleric. Bard, if you play in urban environment with not much combat, cleric if with much combat, druid if in wilderness. 2: Bard with druid or cleric. You can also try wizard or sorcerer with paladin or ranger. 3: Rogue, wizard and cleric. Or fighter (or barbarian, or paladin), bard and druid (or cleric). But, to say the truth, I've never played in such a party. I (and most people I play with) like multiclassing, and we never try to create the best combination of characters - we prefer just making them interesting. For example, I now play in a party consisting of: rogue/wizard, ranger, paladin/cleric and rogue/bard/fighter.
steenan 04-18-05, 04:31 PM	sorry, double post.
nato 04-18-05, 09:19 PM	You have to have a rogue; traps are a constant hazard. Wow, you really think so? Rogue is the must-have? Traps are that big a factor? I feel just the opposite. For years I've felt a thief or rogue was a total waste of a party slot in terms of effectiveness, for any size party. For a small party it would easily be the first to go. For a four person party, I'd eagerly replace it with, well, anything else. Traps just don't seem nearly important enough to me to devote an entire character to countering them. Sneaking has never made sense to me: the rogue is too fragile to send in alone, and it means boring downtime for everyone else. Locks can be bashed. Several other classes can handle the diplomacy work. Anyone else feel the rogue is must-have or a waste? Anyone else that worried about traps? (note: I'm talking about cynical effectiveness, not coolness. Rogues are cool.)
Lexarius 04-18-05, 09:27 PM	A rogue that can sneak well doesn't need to worry about being fragile. On the other hand, a bard that focused on sneaking could use Greater Invisibility and Dimension Door to aid him. A rogue could buy scrolls of these, but that can get expensive. I think trapfinding is perhaps not necessary in most campaigns, but certainly a bonus. Traps at low levels can be fairly harsh on occasion. Odd as it sounds, I might pick for a two person party a Paladin and a Warlock. For a third, either a Druid, Cleric, or Wizard. Possibly in that order.
Keenath 04-18-05, 10:11 PM	Bards are wonderful in either a small party -- by focusing on spreading their abilities around, using the spellcasting and skills to adequately cover two or more roles (such as arcanist/trapsmith or face/backline-fighter). Equally, they're great in a large party, where everyone benefits from multi-target buffs and area-effect bardic music, and they can fill the skill-heavy 'face' role without stripping the party of an important member (as such a role could in a 4-person party). Alternatively, they can use skills and magic to be the 'technical' side of the rogue class, and free up the party rogue to play face. Basically, bards fit in really well in anything EXCEPT the standard 4-man group!
Sinon 04-19-05, 10:02 AM	The frequency and danger of traps is one of those things that really depend on the DM. Some love traps; some love puzzles; some love undead; some love aberrations. If you were a small playing-group, and went without a rogue, it would be a pretty cruel DM to put in a DC 30 trap every ten feet, but even one can cut a small party down. The smaller the group, the more important sneaking is going to be though. When there are just two or three of you, knowledge, tactics, surprise, all are going to become more valuable than they would be in a larger, stronger group.
Tony Vargas 04-19-05, 07:15 PM	Anyone else feel the rogue is must-have or a waste? Anyone else that worried about traps? A rogue is about as close to a must-have as it gets, second only to a workable source of healing (and magic items can be a workable source of healing if the DM is lenient). Trapfinding is a big part of it, since traps can be pretty unforgiving, especially with a small party or in a solo adventure. If everyone in the party has excellent REF and FORT saves (for instance, if it's a Monk in a solo game), you might be able to get away with just braving any traps, otherwise, a trapfinder is good to have. Rogues also make good scouts and can be very effective in short combats through surprise and flanking, and a lot of other skills, from Gather Information and Bluff to Apraise to Open Locks also come in handy. You could get by without a rogue, if you know the DM is going to adjust challenges like traps accordingly, or if the background of the adventures just doesn't suggest a lot of traps (like hunting dangerous, non-tool-using monsters in the wilderness, or a formal military campaign or whatever). In a small party, you can also get by with just a level of rogue, and some apropraite skills.
Thymantinyr Crimsonblade 04-19-05, 07:45 PM	For me a good 3 person party would be 1. Ranger Rangers are a decent combat class not great but decent they have a wide selection of skills they get an animal companion and also spells at Lvl 4 2. Cleric/Paladin You need a medic in the party and someone who can stand up and fight if needed plus if your going to faceing undead or evil outsiders divine aura is a good thing 3. Sorcerer IMO you need arcane magic in a party and tho the Sorcerer is not as powerful as a wizard they are more versatile as they do not need to memorize spells and they have high Cha wich make it easier for them to be party spokes person as I have to go to work now I will come back later a go more in depth as to why I like this 3 character combo
Sybill 04-19-05, 11:17 PM	For a small party, weird as it might sound, I would put in a paladin. They're not as good as clerics, but they can fill the role of both fighter and cleric. That leaves the other slot/s open for other types of characters, i.e. rogue/caster. I think that in small parties, a fighter/meat shield type character is important.
nato 04-19-05, 11:38 PM	A rogue is about as close to a must-have as it gets, second only to a workable source of healing. I'm just stunned to hear this kind of thinking, espcially from one of the guys whose posts I look out for. Maybe rogues are so much better than thieves that I just haven't adjusted my thinking yet. I first thought of not having a rogue in the party with computer RPGS, which are mostly just dungeon crawl combat-fests. I realized what a non-contributor they were and that I got much more out of someone else. I was very very happy with this party improvement. CRPGs are a far cry from real RPGs, but I still had that feeling about rogues in mind. For a while the mood in D&D was fairly anti-dungeon, that they were silly and unrealistic. Traps fell right in with that, with jokes like the orc getting killed by his lethal trap as he gets his newspaper in the morning. I guess I kind of feel that unless you are in some trap-specific ancient tomb o' death set-up, there just aren't going to be lots of traps; they are mostly relics from the 10-foot-room-with-an-orc days. So I guess like Sinon said its very campaign dependent. But ... just no way I'm searching every darn 10 feet of the corridor and every door as I go for traps. If finding traps worked like spot I could see it, but with search its time prohibitive. A party just can't move at crawling speed if the opposition is at all intelligent and reactive. To me an entire party slot devoted to "trap finding" is just not worth it. A large party could afford to devote a slot to such a highly specialized function, but not a small one. Thats just how I see it. The one thing I could never survive with cutting out is the cleric, like Tony Vargas mentions. To me the healing is the real must have; the game slows to a crawl without it because healing naturally takes so very long. My 1 person party would definitely be a cleric, and the 2 and 3 person parties would definitely need at least one cleric. For me, the clerics the must have, followed closely by front-line type of guys who can block monsters and take blows. You can't have soft skinned guys like mages and archers without hard targets in front of them. The fact that the cleric can fill this role with his excellent armor and decent hit points makes him even more valuable and efficient. I might go something like this for smaller parties: 1 person party: Cleric 2 person party: Cleric and either a Fighter or a Paladin 3 person party: Cleric, Fighter or Paladin, Wizard
Pinky's brain 04-19-05, 11:50 PM	It all depends what you are playing ... if you are playing a pre-made adventures which assume an iconic party with a rogue there are probably going to be lots of situations which are hazardous without a rogue. If not then not. Since anything apart from heal not that effective in combat I dont see why you really need a cleric though. Anything that can use a wand of CL can provide out of combat healing.
Ogre Mage 04-20-05, 12:27 AM	Solo: impossible to say. In a solo setting, the DM will have to highly tailor the adventure to suit the character, whatever the class may be. Given that, almost anything could work. Duo: Cleric and Rogue. Possibly an odd pairing from a RP standpoint, but the two classes cover for one another's weaknesses. Rogue provides the skills and stealth, cleric provides the healing and spells. Both classes have some fighting ability and with UMD, the rogue can be a backup healer in case the cleric goes down. Both classes have a high degree of versatility and can bend to be an effective duo. In a campaign which lacks traps (unlikely) the bard is a better choice than the rogue. Trio: Cleric, Druid and Rogue. Why pick another divine caster (druid) over a fighter or wizard type? Because once wildshape comes into play, the druid fills the fighter's role nearly as well while providing full progression spellcasting, wilderness knowledge and decent skill points to boot. The druid should focus on wildshape to effectively fill the fighter's role. This trio is particularly effective in the FR, where the cleric can be a cleric of Mystra and front as an ersatz arcane caster. To me an entire party slot devoted to "trap finding" is just not worth it. A large party could afford to devote a slot to such a highly specialized function, but not a small one. Thats just how I see it. Perhaps, but a trapfinder-less party in WoTC's Adventure Path Series or CotSQ is unlikely to survive.
Votan 04-20-05, 01:22 AM	For me, the clerics the must have, followed closely by front-line type of guys who can block monsters and take blows. You can't have soft skinned guys like mages and archers without hard targets in front of them. The fact that the cleric can fill this role with his excellent armor and decent hit points makes him even more valuable and efficient. I might go something like this for smaller parties: 1 person party: Cleric 2 person party: Cleric and either a Fighter or a Paladin 3 person party: Cleric, Fighter or Paladin, Wizard For the one person party, I would argue for a Druid over a cleric. The greater number of skill points (and the addition of spot and listen as class skills -- going nicely with a high wisdom) make the character elss vulnerable to surprise. There is a period between 2nd level (when decent armor becomes available) and 5th level (when wildshape becomes available) that the druid will be somewhat worse at melee. However, for the rest of the progression, wildshape can do wonders about evading things like traps (the sparrow flies past the spiked pit, never realizing her danger). This becomes more certain if books like Complete Divine are allowed with the improved Druid spells. The PHB list is darn narrow and weakens alot at higher levels. Add in the CD and enough good new spells appear to make the list reasonably robust.
James Wildspell 04-20-05, 01:45 AM	I have to vote for some sort of healer in any size party. A Cleric fits that and several other roles too well to not be included. Unless the focus of the campaign is clearly geared toward the wilderness, in which case a Druid may be adequate. That being said, I am assuming a party that starts at 1st level. If the starting point is higher levels, a Paladin might be able to cover the needed healing. I like the dynamic of Cleric+Rogue for a 2-person group for most styles of play. And Druid+Ranger for Wilderness adventuring may be a cliche of sorts, but it is hard to think of a better combination. Bards are good, and very cool to have around, but really shine brightest in either that 5th-person slot or in intensive role-playing campaigns. Arcanes, of any sort, are great to have around, but I find that unless they concentrate on what they are there for they can be a potential liability. Multi-classing and Racial HD can Nerf an Arcanes power severely. So if you want an Arcane caster in a small party, keep that in mind. Barbarians and Fighters, especially in smaller parties, need to shuck off the one-dimensional "meat-shield" role. Fighters, especially, can benefit from multi-classing more than any other class. At mid-levels, I think a Fighter7/Cleric3 is more valuable to a party than a straight Fighter10. Especially if he doesn't hobble himself with nerfed ability scores. Both Paladins and Monks can fill multiple roles, but there are so many campaign-specific consderations involved , it is difficult to comment upon them.
Votan 04-20-05, 11:03 AM	Barbarians and Fighters, especially in smaller parties, need to shuck off the one-dimensional "meat-shield" role. Fighters, especially, can benefit from multi-classing more than any other class. At mid-levels, I think a Fighter7/Cleric3 is more valuable to a party than a straight Fighter10. Especially if he doesn't hobble himself with nerfed ability scores. Fighter/rogue is also nice now that the able learner feat from Races of Destiny exists. A human has +1 skill point/level, an INT of 13 (for combat expertise) gives at least 4 skill points per level which can be used to handle traps for a minimal loss of BAB (Fighter X/Rogue 4 loses 1 BAB and there is no XP penalty as humans). Combat expertise opens up all sorts of great battlefield control optiosn with a spiked chain. :) Obviously, the downside is that it is much better to start as the rogue which makes 1st level interesting . . .
James Wildspell 04-21-05, 12:31 AM	Fighter/rogue is also nice now that the able learner feat from Races of Destiny exists. A human has +1 skill point/level, an INT of 13 (for combat expertise) gives at least 4 skill points per level which can be used to handle traps for a minimal loss of BAB (Fighter X/Rogue 4 loses 1 BAB and there is no XP penalty as humans). Combat expertise opens up all sorts of great battlefield control optiosn with a spiked chain. :) Obviously, the downside is that it is much better to start as the rogue which makes 1st level interesting . . . Good point; a Rogue4/Fighter6 and a Cleric10 would make a good pair, and should be able to cover the physical weakness of an Arcane of choice10, for a trio. My preference, for a 5th PC, would still be for the combat-medic tank. But I prefer to Tank unless I can get real sneaky/wizardly/natural. :cool:
Kickbutt_nancy 04-21-05, 12:36 PM	Clerics are the most useful class in the game. a cleric with the right domains can be good at combat, survival, social interaction or spellcasting the only thing they can't do is Rogue stuff and thier always good at healing (unless they dont want to be) 1 person party: Cleric 2 person party: Cleric and Cleric/Rogue 3 person party: Cleric, Cleric and Cleric/Rogue
Tony Vargas 04-21-05, 01:13 PM	I'm just stunned to hear this kind of thinking, espcially from one of the guys whose posts I look out for. Maybe rogues are so much better than thieves that I just haven't adjusted my thinking yet.Heh. Experiences /do/ vary. And, yes, rogues are a lot better than thieves used to be. For a while the mood in D&D was fairly anti-dungeon, that they were silly and unrealistic. Traps fell right in with that, with jokes like the orc getting killed by his lethal trap as he gets his newspaper in the morning. I got the impression that 3E had a definite 'back to the dungeon' thread to it, though, and a lot of the published adventures feature some serious traps. But ... just no way I'm searching every darn 10 feet of the corridor and every door as I go for traps. If finding traps worked like spot I could see it, but with search its time prohibitive. A party just can't move at crawling speed if the opposition is at all intelligent and reactive.That's true, it can be painful to play through things like that. As a DM, I'm even inclined to treat trapfinding more like spot, and roll it only when needed. As a player, though, I find it's not that hard to figure out when to search and when not to. When you're dealing with an area with 'reactive' inhabitants, for instance, there aren't going to be a lot of traps just sitting in the middle of the corridor, because they'd catch too many of thier own people that way. To me an entire party slot devoted to "trap finding" is just not worth it.True. However, the rogue is (or can be, depending on how you go), a scout, face, information gatherer, magic-item user, and mobile/situational high-damage combatant. His most unique ability is trapfinding, but it's hardly his only contribution. The one thing I could never survive with cutting out is the cleric, like Tony Vargas mentions. To me the healing is the real must have; the game slows to a crawl without it because healing naturally takes so very long. Some basic magic items make healing pretty easy, though. A simple Wand of CLW can be used by a Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard or even Rogue with UMD. That's a lot of choices besides cleric for healing. If you really wanted to de-emphasize the healing role, you could take the Lesser Vigour spell for Complete Divine, put it in a continuous, unlimitted, use-activated item, and forget about between-combat healing almost completely. My 1 person party would definitely be a cleric, and the 2 and 3 person parties would definitely need at least one cleric.I agree with the two or three person parties - especially the two, Cleric & Rogue is easily the best choice. But for the 1-person, the Cleric has too many blindspots. Not just trapfinding, but stealth, mobility, touch AC, and REF saves. Really, a solo adventurer can't afford a poor save at all - anything other than a mulitclass or a monk is going to have his carreer ended far too early by a failed save. The monk is almost ideal. He has stealth and scouting skills, so can avoid encounters he can't handle, he's very mobile, has all good saves, decent combat (decent compared to apropriate challenges, which, remember, should be EL 4 below his level), and can even heal himself and get by when deprived of equipment. For me, the clerics the must have, followed closely by front-line type of guys who can block monsters and take blows. That's critical for iconic and larger parties. But, I think with smaller parties, everyone has to be able to handle melee to some extent, because you just can't form a 'front line' very often - that's why I'd ditch the arcanist first.
Osiris Memnoch 04-21-05, 01:16 PM	With a small party ( 1 or 2 ) ANY COMBINATION of classes will work because the DM is going to write the adventure to the characters specific abilities. If you make a Fighter for a solo adventure and the whole thing is nothing but bluff checks, and wizard duels then your DM is a huge a$$hole. As for the usefulness of a rogue, there's little he can do that a wizard with lots of scrolls can't. Sneak past the guards? Invisability and/or Fly and/or teleport. Need to talk your way out of something? Charm or Dominate Person. Want to know if traps are down the hallway? Unseen Servant walks a few yards in front. Picka lock? Knock. A magical trap you say? Dispel. Someone has to be spied on or you need to scout something out? Can you say Scry? Someone need killing? Screw sneak attack man! Wizards kill more people than cancer! That said, no party should ever EVER be without a wizard. A fighter comes next but even that can be done without if you use Tensor's Transformation.
Rastem 04-21-05, 01:29 PM	I'm assuming this question involves starting out as a low-number party. At higher levels these choices may change. 1-person party is definitely a druid, not a rogue. Not only does a druid come out-of-the-box with an additional fighter, he can cast both defensive and offensive spells. A 1st level druid and animal companion (wolf) can take down any other 1st level class without a problem. With traps you just Summon Nature's Ally and send them in first. Interaction is a bit of a problem, but that leans as much on your personal charisma and guile than it does on dice rolls, so if you were to sacrifice one thing, it would be that. 2-person party sees the druid team up with a ranger. The ranger provides added beef that aids in dungeon crawls, etc, while the ranger's increased skill points aid in interaction-based encounters (not just character interaction, but puzzle-solving, etc.). These two parties make a lot of sense when you consider the typical nuclear party as being a rogue, fighter, cleric, and mage. The druid is a cross between a cleric and a mage with his more offensive spells and reduced armor abilities while keeping with healing and support. The ranger is a fighter-rogue with increased situational damage (favored enemy) and a large skill set, while being a much more powerful combatant than a rogue with his fighter BAB. The ranger's saves are even a combination of a fighter and a rogue. Just my 2cp
d00m_b4b00n 04-21-05, 01:45 PM	A druid becomes a druid through their connection with nature and love of the natural world. They do not send bunnies hopping into trap filled corridors, in fact they are the sort of people who throw themselves into traps to save animals. Plus that bunny is not going to help you much when you come across a trapped treasure chest or door... In the case of solo adventures it is often the characters fexibility that is the factor most relevant to the player's enjoyment. There's only so much you can do with a barbarian or a paladin. For this reason I would recomend Rogues, Sorcs, Wizards, Bards, Clerics and charismatic Monks. I would also recomend the player controlling more than one PC.
Tony Vargas 04-21-05, 01:53 PM	Oh, another thing that can come up with smaller parties: choosing your challenges. A standard iconic party is expected to go through standard iconic challenges that call for each member's expertise. A smaller party, or even a solo multiclass character can do the same, but, a smaller party could also be more selective. For instance, if you eschew the iconic fighter and cleric in thier heavy armor, a small party could be very stealthy. The Ranger, Rogue, Monk and Bard can all sneak quite well, for instance. A Bard could serve as the party healer and arcanist, the rogue his traditional role, and a Ranger or Monk as a combatant. Such a party could be very good at gathering information and negotiating, so could choose thier battles more carefully, and could sneak past many challenges that an iconic party might have to take head-on.
Votan 04-21-05, 02:33 PM	A druid becomes a druid through their connection with nature and love of the natural world. They do not send bunnies hopping into trap filled corridors, in fact they are the sort of people who throw themselves into traps to save animals. Plus that bunny is not going to help you much when you come across a trapped treasure chest or door... Nature contains a lot of things that are cruel and predatory. Druids can be NE and, based on PHB flavor text, even prey on each other. A druid that uses animals as things (think spider or certain types of wasp) is perfectly viable given the core rules. Nasty, I admit but hey -- these things can be built.
Manyfist 04-21-05, 04:57 PM	My party w/o the DM's Char. we have 3, Barbarian(me), Ranger, and the Warlock. So far we manage to defeat several ECL: 2+ Worgs, w/ little help from the Bard(DM). My Barbarian has a Worg for a mount and now can go screaming across the open plains with they Worg. :P