Well balanced party [Archive] - Wizards Community

Well balanced party [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Konzenittai
10-19-03, 07:24 PM Just a quick question for all the DM"s out there, oh hell why not, and players. Whats your opinion of a "well balanced" party. Just a chance for people to have their say.
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger
10-19-03, 09:18 PM Fighter, divine caster, arcane caster, skill specialist
Mr.Musgrave
10-19-03, 09:41 PM A party is whatever you make of it. So in my opinion, any party can be balanced.
Kalanth
10-19-03, 09:41 PM Bard, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard. Then as they go on, multiclass with PrC's into Bard/Shadowdancer, Ranger/Skylord*, Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge, Wizard/Archmage.

* - PrC from the Book Of Exaulted Deeds
Lhiannon Sidhe
10-20-03, 05:07 AM A Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger), a Spellcaster (Sorcerer or Wizard), a Healer (Druid or Cleric) and a Rogue (Rogue or Bard)
Strife
10-20-03, 10:06 AM Just to be diffrent. All rogues!
(well, multi-classing migh be necessary...)
Mefhiston
10-21-03, 05:55 AM Actualy, I think that two PC fighters (fighter, palladin, ranger, barbarian) is important. Of course, both the Cleric and Druid are desent fighters, but sometimes they just arent enough.

My current party:
Me (DM)

Human Barbarian
Half Elf Bard
Human Wizard
Hafling Rouge

Overall a well balanced party, thought they lack on the close combat department. Even thought the Rouge can swing in a few sneak attacks thats only one in a round (if feinting) or when flanking. The bard aint good for anything exsept minor healing and giving folks a +1 to atttack an damage.

The perfect party (my oppinion)

Fighter (any with full BAB)
Healer (druid or cleric, druids better fighter, cleric better healrer, both work)
Arcane caster (sorcerer or wizard, not bard)
Skills/oppertunitist (rouge ot monk, both good at skills, monk is greate mage hunter)

Ignore spelling errors.
Gadodel
10-21-03, 06:19 AM Originally posted by Konzenittai
Just a quick question for all the DM"s out there, oh hell why not, and players. Whats your opinion of a "well balanced" party. Just a chance for people to have their say.

A "balanced" party is one where all the players get to play a character that fills some sort of niche or proves to be useful to the rest of the characters.
Trydan
10-21-03, 08:45 AM The "classic four" is generally regarded as balanced. This is a reference to earlier version of D&D, where it was Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief. These days, we use the "politically correct" terms: Combat specialist, Arcane caster, Divine caster, Skills expert, where, obviously, several classes can be used to fill some of these roles.

However, I think that this is balanced, because this is to what game designers cater. There are some exceptions. The classic ravenloft springs to mind, which was very much pro-paladin/cleric. Still, if you are looking for balance, the "classic four" is the way to go.

On the other hand, to put a different slant on your question, a balanced party is one where all characters contribute equally in terms of action-time, solving problems, and furthering the party's goals. Any game where one player dominates (or is left out) is unbalanced. In terms of how well the game can be enjoyed, I think that this is more important than a good distribution of classes/skills/spells/etc.
Kalanth
10-21-03, 03:38 PM Why not go for the more interesting combos, as was mentioned earlier, like all rogues. Go with 2 Wizards, 2 Sorcerers, or if you are playing Dragonlance (or using the Core classes from that book) then go with 2 Clerics and 2 Mystics (Like sorcerer, only divine). A party in all aspects, is only as unbalanced as the DM allows them to be.
JellyFishBrains
10-21-03, 04:02 PM These days, we use the "politically correct" terms: Combat specialist, Arcane caster, Divine caster, Skills expert Wow sounds so stupid
Ogre Mage
10-21-03, 05:38 PM Some elements of a well-balanced party are:

1. The party members have abilities which synergize well with one another.
2. The party can survive multiple combat encounters without having to rest.
3. The party has a talker/negotiator.
4. The party has a way to deal with locks and traps.
5. The party has abilities well suited for adventures in the following environments: dungeon, wilderness, city.
7. The party has reconissance capability.
8. The party has access to healing magic.
9. The party has access to arcane magic.
10. The party is proficient in combat both in melee and at range.
MalakiTyrel
10-21-03, 06:07 PM Hmmm, I'd say soldier, noble, scoundrel, and scout....:D

For D&D... combat focused, arcane caster, healer, skill specialist
Ithilorien
10-22-03, 12:03 AM The bard aint good for anything exsept minor healing and giving folks a +1 to atttack an damage.

This has been covered elsewhere, but just to further educate the masses that if this is all your group's bard can do it is either poorly built, poorly played, or sad, sad combination of the two.

For one thing, bards heal just as well as clerics, have extremely useful illusion, enchantment, and transmutation spells (if used cleverly) and the added power to boost every roll their party makes by "only" +1 at lower levels but up to +4 in later life. THey also have skill selection second only to the rogue, two good saves, and the same BAB as a rogue or cleric.

A very good utility character who can fill any role. Versatility is a power and just because they aren't as good a meatshield as a fighter or as good a blaster as a wizard doesn't mean they're useless.

I'll be in my ideal party starting this summer - a group of my friends.

For more detail:

* A cleric/templar, covering both tank and divine duty.
* A rogue/shadowdancer for sneak attacking and some skill support.
* A sorcerer for being the heavy guns.
* A fighter/duelist for some extra melee.
* And, finally, my own bard/spellsinger for a little bit of everything, but most notably: great social skills, extra healing, party buffing, enchantments, illusions, strong skills, bardic knowledge, and comic relief.
HammerHeart81
11-02-03, 11:28 PM Here's my insight on a perfect well balanced party

Paladin-upfront melee combat, support healing and the talker of the group
fighter/barbarian-staight out melee
cleric-healing
rogue-scouting, traps and locks
wizard-mostly utility magic but does keep offensive spells handy
ranger-scout, wilderness guide and tracker

usually the perfect party in my opinion and with one of the other classes not mentioned make good for extra support in whatever catergory.
Old French Admiral
11-02-03, 11:58 PM While it is quite easy to make parties with six or seven PCs, some of us don't have that luxury. My group has had numerous good parties with only three PCs. My favorite consists of:

Fighter (total melee, damage sink, plot motivator),
Ranger/Horizon Walker (scout, archer, level-headed one),
Cleric (healer, secondary melee, secondary damage sink).

We've had other parties without healing that functioned nicely, such as:

Fighter (reach melee, front-line demolition man),
Evoker (Fireball thrower),
Rogue (party PR man, non-violent problem resolver).
Strife
11-06-03, 04:20 PM An Unsuccseful D&D 3.0 party of three:
Figher
Sorcerer
and a Bard

Why unsuccesful? Because the Sorcerer and Bard got fed up with the fighter getting (almost) all the gory glory.
SmiloDan
11-07-03, 05:29 PM I like the pupu platter approach: 1 from column A, 1 from column B, one from column C and one from column D.

A.
Barbarian
Cleric with War domain
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger

B.
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Paladin

C.
Bard
Cleric with Magic Domain
Sorcerer
Wizard

D.
Bard
Monk
Ranger
Rogue

As you can see, there can be a lot of overlap.

I guess another important aspect is the people skills department:

E.
Bard
Cleric
Monk
Paladin
Rogue
Ranthanas
11-07-03, 07:45 PM To copy out of one of my own posts (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100702)

It depends on the size of the party

1: Bard - Versatility
2: Bard, Druid - again, Versatility
3: Bard, Druid, Rogue or Cleric, Wizard, Ranger(TWF)/Rogue - Covers most bases and hits hard (the first is also very stealthy and almost impossible to surprise, but doesn't have quite as much firepower. I think I prefer the first one).
4: Cleric, Wizard, Fighter/Barb, Ranger(TWF)/Rogue - Fairly standard
5: Cleric, Wizard, Fighter/Barb, Rogue, Bard - Extra buffing from the rogue comes into its own and he's a handy reserve. Extra combat power reduces the need for the ranger multiclass for the rogue
6: Cleric, Sorceror, Fighter/Barb, Druid, Rogue, Bard - Druid's extra versatility and spellist is very useful and definitely removes the need for the Rogue to multiclass as a ranger. The extra spellist from the druid removes some of the wizard's need for flexibility, meaning he can become a sorceror for power.
7: Cleric, Sorceror, Fighter/Barb, Druid, Rogue, Bard, Marshal - Those auras are really going to be very useful with a party this size, and all bases are covered.
8: Cleric, Sorceror, Fighter/Barb, Druid, Rogue, Bard, Marshal, Ranger (Archery) or Monk - Another scout is going to be very handy, as is the extra fighter who can hit things not on the front lines
9+: Near unmanagable for any human DM

Note: Rogue/Ranger indicates a multiclass. If not using the Marshal, add a Ranger or Monk at 7 and a second primary arcane caster at 8.

The discussion on the Char Opt board did end up getting silly and into the possibility of an all-cleric party.

The bard aint good for anything exsept minor healing and giving folks a +1 to atttack an damage.

To agree with Ithilorien, either he's badly made, badly played or both. I'm not getting into a row about this on this board- if you want to discuss it, join the argument on Classes board (or start another one- the current thread's getting a little long :) )
Strife
11-08-03, 08:26 AM Isn't that more along the lines of "the optimal party" than "a balanced party"? :cool:
Lord of the Ninth
11-08-03, 03:41 PM The party's balanced when every one is the same ECL, 6-3 in number (I've done two but it's not as fun). And not everyone is using the same character concept. I think it would be great to run a party of all one class, but you'd want to make them have very different styles:

Barbarians: of different races that use different weapons. *

Bards: very different spell-lists and combat styles. Each sort of focusing on a specific role of the traditional party (crappy, but when they all start singing in harmony they can be unholy badasses)

Clerics: different (but not conflicting) deities, very different domains. Some would focus primarily on buffing themsleves and laying the smack down, others would mostly cast spells (healing, summoning and smiting), while other would take the trickery domain (or somehting) and act like ogues or rangers or whatever.

Druids: You have the buffer druids and the smiting druids*

Fighters: very different weapons and styles. Like a Tank, a mobility fighter and an archer (Dragon 310 will help).

Monks: OA is a must (Several Dragon magazines are also very helpful), each should have a different martial arts style, so you have people who use all of those special abilities like Stunning Fist, pain touch etc. Then you have people with weapons, and the your standard monk and the obligitory Drunken Master or Ninja.

Paladins: One works on maximizing his healing ability and diplomacy, and others focus primarily on combat*

Rangers: clearly a ranged and melee ranger is called for, and probably an Urban ranger too*

Rogues: you have your people person, your assassin, your trapspinger, and perhaps a multiclassed thug.

sorcerer: with their limited spell list you can make several sorcerers who have almost nothing in common. So you have you guy who takes only kill/blast spells and a few defensive spells. Then you have the sorc with mostly defense with a little assault and mobility. Then you have the scout (invisiblity, certain buff spels etc.). And maybe a summoner (so you don't need to enter melee)

Wizard: each with a different specialization and banned school so they can do anything. Plus if you get a chronomancer with some buff spells they can be just as good (if not better) than any warrior. But also as sorcerer.

*Generally a bad class for an entire party, at least without a lot of multiclassing and or PrCs.

The party in my campaign has a druid, ranger (urban), Soul Reaver (necromancer varient) and will be getting an antipaladin soon (essentially a paladin, but LE). And even when it was just the druid and the necro they were doing just fine ('cept the they were a touch weak in melee, but the druid's wolf solved most of that, and now they have a ranger).
thegentlemanclonetrooper
12-04-03, 10:14 PM Since 4 players is the average group size here is my perfect 4 member party.

Fighter or Barbarian

Wizard

Cleric with the healing domain

Monk(Chop socky is a lot more fun than tiptoeing around to stab in the back)

A perfect 5 member party is:

Fighter

Barbarian

Wizard

Cleric

Monk

My group I am going to start playing with is three players I recommended this compisition. Fighter or Barbarian,Monk or Rouge and Cleric.

GCT
The One and Only...
12-05-03, 08:11 AM Well, I like the idea of a...

Psychic Warrior
Cleric
Rogue
Wizard

...mainly because I prefer the Psychic Warrior as a combat specialist, but have no problems with the other classic classes.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Konzenittai 10-19-03, 07:24 PM	Just a quick question for all the DM"s out there, oh hell why not, and players. Whats your opinion of a "well balanced" party. Just a chance for people to have their say.
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger 10-19-03, 09:18 PM	Fighter, divine caster, arcane caster, skill specialist
Mr.Musgrave 10-19-03, 09:41 PM	A party is whatever you make of it. So in my opinion, any party can be balanced.
Kalanth 10-19-03, 09:41 PM	Bard, Ranger, Cleric, Wizard. Then as they go on, multiclass with PrC's into Bard/Shadowdancer, Ranger/Skylord, Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge, Wizard/Archmage. - PrC from the Book Of Exaulted Deeds
Lhiannon Sidhe 10-20-03, 05:07 AM	A Warrior (Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger), a Spellcaster (Sorcerer or Wizard), a Healer (Druid or Cleric) and a Rogue (Rogue or Bard)
Strife 10-20-03, 10:06 AM	Just to be diffrent. All rogues! (well, multi-classing migh be necessary...)
Mefhiston 10-21-03, 05:55 AM	Actualy, I think that two PC fighters (fighter, palladin, ranger, barbarian) is important. Of course, both the Cleric and Druid are desent fighters, but sometimes they just arent enough. My current party: Me (DM) Human Barbarian Half Elf Bard Human Wizard Hafling Rouge Overall a well balanced party, thought they lack on the close combat department. Even thought the Rouge can swing in a few sneak attacks thats only one in a round (if feinting) or when flanking. The bard aint good for anything exsept minor healing and giving folks a +1 to atttack an damage. The perfect party (my oppinion) Fighter (any with full BAB) Healer (druid or cleric, druids better fighter, cleric better healrer, both work) Arcane caster (sorcerer or wizard, not bard) Skills/oppertunitist (rouge ot monk, both good at skills, monk is greate mage hunter) Ignore spelling errors.
Gadodel 10-21-03, 06:19 AM	Originally posted by Konzenittai Just a quick question for all the DM"s out there, oh hell why not, and players. Whats your opinion of a "well balanced" party. Just a chance for people to have their say. A "balanced" party is one where all the players get to play a character that fills some sort of niche or proves to be useful to the rest of the characters.
Trydan 10-21-03, 08:45 AM	The "classic four" is generally regarded as balanced. This is a reference to earlier version of D&D, where it was Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Thief. These days, we use the "politically correct" terms: Combat specialist, Arcane caster, Divine caster, Skills expert, where, obviously, several classes can be used to fill some of these roles. However, I think that this is balanced, because this is to what game designers cater. There are some exceptions. The classic ravenloft springs to mind, which was very much pro-paladin/cleric. Still, if you are looking for balance, the "classic four" is the way to go. On the other hand, to put a different slant on your question, a balanced party is one where all characters contribute equally in terms of action-time, solving problems, and furthering the party's goals. Any game where one player dominates (or is left out) is unbalanced. In terms of how well the game can be enjoyed, I think that this is more important than a good distribution of classes/skills/spells/etc.
Kalanth 10-21-03, 03:38 PM	Why not go for the more interesting combos, as was mentioned earlier, like all rogues. Go with 2 Wizards, 2 Sorcerers, or if you are playing Dragonlance (or using the Core classes from that book) then go with 2 Clerics and 2 Mystics (Like sorcerer, only divine). A party in all aspects, is only as unbalanced as the DM allows them to be.
JellyFishBrains 10-21-03, 04:02 PM	These days, we use the "politically correct" terms: Combat specialist, Arcane caster, Divine caster, Skills expert Wow sounds so stupid
Ogre Mage 10-21-03, 05:38 PM	Some elements of a well-balanced party are: 1. The party members have abilities which synergize well with one another. 2. The party can survive multiple combat encounters without having to rest. 3. The party has a talker/negotiator. 4. The party has a way to deal with locks and traps. 5. The party has abilities well suited for adventures in the following environments: dungeon, wilderness, city. 7. The party has reconissance capability. 8. The party has access to healing magic. 9. The party has access to arcane magic. 10. The party is proficient in combat both in melee and at range.
MalakiTyrel 10-21-03, 06:07 PM	Hmmm, I'd say soldier, noble, scoundrel, and scout....:D For D&D... combat focused, arcane caster, healer, skill specialist
Ithilorien 10-22-03, 12:03 AM	The bard aint good for anything exsept minor healing and giving folks a +1 to atttack an damage. This has been covered elsewhere, but just to further educate the masses that if this is all your group's bard can do it is either poorly built, poorly played, or sad, sad combination of the two. For one thing, bards heal just as well as clerics, have extremely useful illusion, enchantment, and transmutation spells (if used cleverly) and the added power to boost every roll their party makes by "only" +1 at lower levels but up to +4 in later life. THey also have skill selection second only to the rogue, two good saves, and the same BAB as a rogue or cleric. A very good utility character who can fill any role. Versatility is a power and just because they aren't as good a meatshield as a fighter or as good a blaster as a wizard doesn't mean they're useless. I'll be in my ideal party starting this summer - a group of my friends. For more detail: * A cleric/templar, covering both tank and divine duty. * A rogue/shadowdancer for sneak attacking and some skill support. * A sorcerer for being the heavy guns. * A fighter/duelist for some extra melee. * And, finally, my own bard/spellsinger for a little bit of everything, but most notably: great social skills, extra healing, party buffing, enchantments, illusions, strong skills, bardic knowledge, and comic relief.
HammerHeart81 11-02-03, 11:28 PM	Here's my insight on a perfect well balanced party Paladin-upfront melee combat, support healing and the talker of the group fighter/barbarian-staight out melee cleric-healing rogue-scouting, traps and locks wizard-mostly utility magic but does keep offensive spells handy ranger-scout, wilderness guide and tracker usually the perfect party in my opinion and with one of the other classes not mentioned make good for extra support in whatever catergory.
Old French Admiral 11-02-03, 11:58 PM	While it is quite easy to make parties with six or seven PCs, some of us don't have that luxury. My group has had numerous good parties with only three PCs. My favorite consists of: Fighter (total melee, damage sink, plot motivator), Ranger/Horizon Walker (scout, archer, level-headed one), Cleric (healer, secondary melee, secondary damage sink). We've had other parties without healing that functioned nicely, such as: Fighter (reach melee, front-line demolition man), Evoker (Fireball thrower), Rogue (party PR man, non-violent problem resolver).
Strife 11-06-03, 04:20 PM	An Unsuccseful D&D 3.0 party of three: Figher Sorcerer and a Bard Why unsuccesful? Because the Sorcerer and Bard got fed up with the fighter getting (almost) all the gory glory.
SmiloDan 11-07-03, 05:29 PM	I like the pupu platter approach: 1 from column A, 1 from column B, one from column C and one from column D. A. Barbarian Cleric with War domain Fighter Monk Paladin Ranger B. Bard Cleric Druid Paladin C. Bard Cleric with Magic Domain Sorcerer Wizard D. Bard Monk Ranger Rogue As you can see, there can be a lot of overlap. I guess another important aspect is the people skills department: E. Bard Cleric Monk Paladin Rogue
Ranthanas 11-07-03, 07:45 PM	To copy out of one of my own posts (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100702) It depends on the size of the party 1: Bard - Versatility 2: Bard, Druid - again, Versatility 3: Bard, Druid, Rogue or Cleric, Wizard, Ranger(TWF)/Rogue - Covers most bases and hits hard (the first is also very stealthy and almost impossible to surprise, but doesn't have quite as much firepower. I think I prefer the first one). 4: Cleric, Wizard, Fighter/Barb, Ranger(TWF)/Rogue - Fairly standard 5: Cleric, Wizard, Fighter/Barb, Rogue, Bard - Extra buffing from the rogue comes into its own and he's a handy reserve. Extra combat power reduces the need for the ranger multiclass for the rogue 6: Cleric, Sorceror, Fighter/Barb, Druid, Rogue, Bard - Druid's extra versatility and spellist is very useful and definitely removes the need for the Rogue to multiclass as a ranger. The extra spellist from the druid removes some of the wizard's need for flexibility, meaning he can become a sorceror for power. 7: Cleric, Sorceror, Fighter/Barb, Druid, Rogue, Bard, Marshal - Those auras are really going to be very useful with a party this size, and all bases are covered. 8: Cleric, Sorceror, Fighter/Barb, Druid, Rogue, Bard, Marshal, Ranger (Archery) or Monk - Another scout is going to be very handy, as is the extra fighter who can hit things not on the front lines 9+: Near unmanagable for any human DM Note: Rogue/Ranger indicates a multiclass. If not using the Marshal, add a Ranger or Monk at 7 and a second primary arcane caster at 8. The discussion on the Char Opt board did end up getting silly and into the possibility of an all-cleric party. The bard aint good for anything exsept minor healing and giving folks a +1 to atttack an damage. To agree with Ithilorien, either he's badly made, badly played or both. I'm not getting into a row about this on this board- if you want to discuss it, join the argument on Classes board (or start another one- the current thread's getting a little long :) )
Strife 11-08-03, 08:26 AM	Isn't that more along the lines of "the optimal party" than "a balanced party"? :cool:
Lord of the Ninth 11-08-03, 03:41 PM	The party's balanced when every one is the same ECL, 6-3 in number (I've done two but it's not as fun). And not everyone is using the same character concept. I think it would be great to run a party of all one class, but you'd want to make them have very different styles: Barbarians: of different races that use different weapons. * Bards: very different spell-lists and combat styles. Each sort of focusing on a specific role of the traditional party (crappy, but when they all start singing in harmony they can be unholy badasses) Clerics: different (but not conflicting) deities, very different domains. Some would focus primarily on buffing themsleves and laying the smack down, others would mostly cast spells (healing, summoning and smiting), while other would take the trickery domain (or somehting) and act like ogues or rangers or whatever. Druids: You have the buffer druids and the smiting druids* Fighters: very different weapons and styles. Like a Tank, a mobility fighter and an archer (Dragon 310 will help). Monks: OA is a must (Several Dragon magazines are also very helpful), each should have a different martial arts style, so you have people who use all of those special abilities like Stunning Fist, pain touch etc. Then you have people with weapons, and the your standard monk and the obligitory Drunken Master or Ninja. Paladins: One works on maximizing his healing ability and diplomacy, and others focus primarily on combat* Rangers: clearly a ranged and melee ranger is called for, and probably an Urban ranger too* Rogues: you have your people person, your assassin, your trapspinger, and perhaps a multiclassed thug. sorcerer: with their limited spell list you can make several sorcerers who have almost nothing in common. So you have you guy who takes only kill/blast spells and a few defensive spells. Then you have the sorc with mostly defense with a little assault and mobility. Then you have the scout (invisiblity, certain buff spels etc.). And maybe a summoner (so you don't need to enter melee) Wizard: each with a different specialization and banned school so they can do anything. Plus if you get a chronomancer with some buff spells they can be just as good (if not better) than any warrior. But also as sorcerer. *Generally a bad class for an entire party, at least without a lot of multiclassing and or PrCs. The party in my campaign has a druid, ranger (urban), Soul Reaver (necromancer varient) and will be getting an antipaladin soon (essentially a paladin, but LE). And even when it was just the druid and the necro they were doing just fine ('cept the they were a touch weak in melee, but the druid's wolf solved most of that, and now they have a ranger).
thegentlemanclonetrooper 12-04-03, 10:14 PM	Since 4 players is the average group size here is my perfect 4 member party. Fighter or Barbarian Wizard Cleric with the healing domain Monk(Chop socky is a lot more fun than tiptoeing around to stab in the back) A perfect 5 member party is: Fighter Barbarian Wizard Cleric Monk My group I am going to start playing with is three players I recommended this compisition. Fighter or Barbarian,Monk or Rouge and Cleric. GCT
The One and Only... 12-05-03, 08:11 AM	Well, I like the idea of a... Psychic Warrior Cleric Rogue Wizard ...mainly because I prefer the Psychic Warrior as a combat specialist, but have no problems with the other classic classes.