What do you think of this party? [Archive] - Wizards Community

What do you think of this party? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Drow_Sypathizer
07-20-05, 01:07 PM WHat do you guys think of this group? We're Just starting tonight, i think it needs a little more deversity...

Drow - Ranger
Sunelf - Fighter
Moonelf - Paly
Moonelf - Rogue
Halfelf - Druid
Halfelf - Rogue
Human - Sorc
Human - Ranger
Human - Cleric
GothicDan
07-20-05, 01:13 PM You need a Wizard. *nods*
Darrian
07-20-05, 02:14 PM 1. Convince your DM to play wilderness adventures, lot's of them.

2. At low levels you guys are gonna rock, there is so muscle in your party.

3. I would hate to DM a 9 player party.

4. Anyone ever consider playing a dwarf?

5. after around levelnine your party is gonna be real handicapped with only one arcane caster.

Darrian
GothicDan
07-20-05, 02:23 PM And I am restraining myself from commenting on the Moon Elf paladin, and just hoping that there's a decent backstory behind it.
Drow_Sypathizer
07-20-05, 02:32 PM Yeah, well thge drow is going to go wizard then arcane archer. And yeah the Moonelf paly is an odd combo... i should bring that up with her. Maybe wildelf...
Drow_Sypathizer
07-20-05, 02:35 PM An other thing is the drow (ME) is obviously goign ot be disliked by the rest of the elves and half elves, thou the human ranger and sunelf fighter and i (drow are going to kind of stick together and try to compeate against the other 6
GothicDan
07-20-05, 02:37 PM Wild Elf is perhaps even worse of a possibility for a Paladin than a Moon Elf, as Wild Elves follow almost exclusively Nature deities.

The only possible subrace that I could see being a Paladin is a Sun Elf. And even then, they are far more likely to become Bladesingers or straight Clerics, as Sun Elves are the type that like to focus very heavily on narrow paths, becoming the best they can.

Societally, among the Elves, the Bladesingers fulfill the roles of Paladins, by upholding the ideals of the Tel'Quessir and defending their lands. Any Elven Paladin would be a little strange (if not impossible under 3E's rules), unless he/she was raised in a human settlement.

And why is your Drow and the Sun Elf okay with each other? Do they have a past together as friends or the like? Otherwise, Sun Elves are probably the group that hates Drow the most, in general.
darkelf_ranger
07-20-05, 02:51 PM The drow befrended the sunelf becasue he was raised by sunelves in the high forest. The drow was sent there as a child because of war in the underdark. I guess the DM said there was a huge war between the greydwarfs and the darkelves, and he was found by a family of sunelves. They raised him and that is why he is C-G instead of C-E. And He is also friends with a Human Ranger who is a friend to the Sunelves.
GothicDan
07-20-05, 03:12 PM Well, that's a not-entirely-implausible explanation, at least.
doublesquirrel
07-20-05, 04:49 PM Wow.

That party is large.

And two-thirds elf. That's very dangerous. Before you know it, the humans are going to punch the drow in the face for trying to enslave them, whilst the Paladin tries to make order ... until the rogue comes from behind and snaps his neck. Then the druid will try to raise him, but one of the humans will punch her too (cause that's how humans roll) and cancel her casting. Then the drow will cast darkness and everyone will be squashed under the heel of a titan.

That's just my thoughts.
darkelf_ranger
07-21-05, 12:35 AM i agree...
Insignia)
07-21-05, 04:37 AM First off, wow. Nine characters is just hawt.

The drow befrended the sunelf becasue he was raised by sunelves in the high forest. The drow was sent there as a child because of war in the underdark. I guess the DM said there was a huge war between the greydwarfs and the darkelves, and he was found by a family of sunelves. They raised him and that is why he is C-G instead of C-E. And He is also friends with a Human Ranger who is a friend to the Sunelves. This simply doesn't cut it. Unless you're a pure hack & slash player, you'll want to figure out something a little better than that. So, the paladin, the three elves (and possibly half elves as well) are still an issue for your drow, if only from a roleplaying perspective.

Now, let's split the party into 4 basic elements and see what we've got:

Warriors [4]: Fighter, Paladin, 2 Rangers.
If you have no problem with paladins in your game, this is decent. However, if you can get one of the rangers to play fighter (or any other warrior-type class, such as barbarian), it would be a major boost. You don't really benefit from having two rangers, especially since you also have a druid.

Healers [2]: Cleric, Druid.
Okay. Given that you have nine characters in total, this might be a bit of a stretch. Druid is not exactly your first-class healer, with his strongest point being versatility (which you don't really need in this big of a party), so you're putting a lot of pressure on the cleric here.

Mages [1]: If I mentioned your cleric taking some heat, double this on the sorcerer. Having a lone arcanist with a very limited set of powers (usually of the offensive nature) will hurt you badly.

Support [2]: 2 Rogues.
This is perfect. I just love the two-rogue-sneak-sandwich thing... Some may argue otherwise (and I can understand their reasoning), but I suggest you keep this as it is.

All in all, I'd give you a 7 out of 10. For me, the optimal 9-character-party would look something like this:

-Warriors [3]: Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger
-Healers [2]: 2 Clerics (or anything similar in power/utility)
-Mages [2]: Wizard, Sorcerer
-Support [2]: 2 Rogues (but rogue/bard works just as well)

Bear in mind that this is just the basic outline, disregarding non-PHB classes and PrCs. A lot of choices depend on what sort of game you're playing, so I won't go into details. As for the races, some would like more muscle in there (dwarves, half-orcs, etc.), but your combo is more or less acceptable.

Just my :twocents:
~I
Darrian
07-21-05, 08:35 AM Just a question to Insignia,

From an optimizing standpoint, what is the necessity of the support group in your outline?
My group has used rangers instead of rogues and it has definitely improved party versatility. As long as the ranger spends 4 skillpoints a level on open locks/disable device he is everything the rogue is plus alot of ranged firepower and far better in wilderness encounters.

While we have never played a nine player party. we normally play 6 player at most. Then a six player optimize would be 2 tanks, 2 healers and 2 arcane. Though at low levels it would be fine to play 3 tanks and 1 arcane and just change around ninth level.

It is sad that rogues are so unnecessary, but unless we are playing a city only campaign, rogues just seem to struggle.

Darrian
(I am really not a min/maxer)
tamashastrife
07-21-05, 10:20 AM Okay the Drow ranger is well... sort of lame (too reminescent of Drizzt...). Your story is pretty thin. Since you're planning to go mage/arcane archer anyway, why don't you play a wizard right from the start? As many people mentioned, that lone sorcerer just won't cut it. Also with such a big party, it might be cool to have one of the rogues switch to a Bard. They have some spells to help out the healers/mages, they can sneak around pretty good, they're okay fighters, they're great at dealing with NPCs and they're good at buffing friends with their music.
Insignia)
07-21-05, 12:30 PM From an optimizing standpoint, what is the necessity of the support group in your outline?
My group has used rangers instead of rogues and it has definitely improved party versatility. As long as the ranger spends 4 skillpoints a level on open locks/disable device he is everything the rogue is plus alot of ranged firepower and far better in wilderness encounters.

While we have never played a nine player party. we normally play 6 player at most. Then a six player optimize would be 2 tanks, 2 healers and 2 arcane. Though at low levels it would be fine to play 3 tanks and 1 arcane and just change around ninth level.

It is sad that rogues are so unnecessary, but unless we are playing a city only campaign, rogues just seem to struggle.
Well, as I've stated previously, it all depends on what sort of game you're playing...

Now, that's 5 skill points right there, since you need search too. That leaves you with only 1 skill point per level (not counting intelligence, which in most games won't be too high for a martial character). Open lock is not a must in many cases (knock, crowbar+hammer, etc.), so it can be somewhat bypassed, but there's still a slight drawback. Even then, the ranger can have only half the ranks a rogue can (maximum number of ranks for a cross-class skill is (level+3)/2) and cannot detect any traps magical in nature (ouch). In order to correct this, the ranger must take at least one rogue level (which gives you certain bonuses and certain penalties in the end, but risks huge xp penalties for most races).

Other than that, you'd be surprised at how much damage a dual-rogue strike team can dish out (especially if they min-max those 4 fighter levels in -- for the extra attack, some life, a slight boost to fort saves, weapon specialization, and 2 other feats). There isn't a ranger (or two, for that matter) who can match that, trust me. Not to mention the bard. In a party of this size, his song becomes that much more powerful, and it alone can match and top a ranger's utility in the group.

I agree that, in a smaller party, support must make room for more essential roles, such as that of a fighter. However, I'd rather make it 2 tanks/2 healers/1 mage/1 rogue (and I don't consider ranger to be a tank in any case). A party playing with an experienced DM, in a well rounded campaign, takes a rogue or faces great risk of failiure. Besides, a single well played mage can support a group of six (even if it's with some difficulty).

For this game in particular, there's not a single reason to take a ranger, from an optimizing standpoint. The only thing a ranger brings to the party is track/survival, and both barbarians and druids fill this role quite well (by taking the feat, obviously). However, judging by their unusual class setup, these guys are probably more interested in roleplaying anyway...

Cheers
~I

Edit:Since you're planning to go mage/arcane archer anyway, why don't you play a wizard right from the start? Because he gets more skills, more HP, and better saves this way? Not to mention how fragile wizards are at low levels...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Drow_Sypathizer 07-20-05, 01:07 PM	WHat do you guys think of this group? We're Just starting tonight, i think it needs a little more deversity... Drow - Ranger Sunelf - Fighter Moonelf - Paly Moonelf - Rogue Halfelf - Druid Halfelf - Rogue Human - Sorc Human - Ranger Human - Cleric
GothicDan 07-20-05, 01:13 PM	You need a Wizard. nods
Darrian 07-20-05, 02:14 PM	1. Convince your DM to play wilderness adventures, lot's of them. 2. At low levels you guys are gonna rock, there is so muscle in your party. 3. I would hate to DM a 9 player party. 4. Anyone ever consider playing a dwarf? 5. after around levelnine your party is gonna be real handicapped with only one arcane caster. Darrian
GothicDan 07-20-05, 02:23 PM	And I am restraining myself from commenting on the Moon Elf paladin, and just hoping that there's a decent backstory behind it.
Drow_Sypathizer 07-20-05, 02:32 PM	Yeah, well thge drow is going to go wizard then arcane archer. And yeah the Moonelf paly is an odd combo... i should bring that up with her. Maybe wildelf...
Drow_Sypathizer 07-20-05, 02:35 PM	An other thing is the drow (ME) is obviously goign ot be disliked by the rest of the elves and half elves, thou the human ranger and sunelf fighter and i (drow are going to kind of stick together and try to compeate against the other 6
GothicDan 07-20-05, 02:37 PM	Wild Elf is perhaps even worse of a possibility for a Paladin than a Moon Elf, as Wild Elves follow almost exclusively Nature deities. The only possible subrace that I could see being a Paladin is a Sun Elf. And even then, they are far more likely to become Bladesingers or straight Clerics, as Sun Elves are the type that like to focus very heavily on narrow paths, becoming the best they can. Societally, among the Elves, the Bladesingers fulfill the roles of Paladins, by upholding the ideals of the Tel'Quessir and defending their lands. Any Elven Paladin would be a little strange (if not impossible under 3E's rules), unless he/she was raised in a human settlement. And why is your Drow and the Sun Elf okay with each other? Do they have a past together as friends or the like? Otherwise, Sun Elves are probably the group that hates Drow the most, in general.
darkelf_ranger 07-20-05, 02:51 PM	The drow befrended the sunelf becasue he was raised by sunelves in the high forest. The drow was sent there as a child because of war in the underdark. I guess the DM said there was a huge war between the greydwarfs and the darkelves, and he was found by a family of sunelves. They raised him and that is why he is C-G instead of C-E. And He is also friends with a Human Ranger who is a friend to the Sunelves.
GothicDan 07-20-05, 03:12 PM	Well, that's a not-entirely-implausible explanation, at least.
doublesquirrel 07-20-05, 04:49 PM	Wow. That party is large. And two-thirds elf. That's very dangerous. Before you know it, the humans are going to punch the drow in the face for trying to enslave them, whilst the Paladin tries to make order ... until the rogue comes from behind and snaps his neck. Then the druid will try to raise him, but one of the humans will punch her too (cause that's how humans roll) and cancel her casting. Then the drow will cast darkness and everyone will be squashed under the heel of a titan. That's just my thoughts.
darkelf_ranger 07-21-05, 12:35 AM	i agree...
Insignia) 07-21-05, 04:37 AM	First off, wow. Nine characters is just hawt. The drow befrended the sunelf becasue he was raised by sunelves in the high forest. The drow was sent there as a child because of war in the underdark. I guess the DM said there was a huge war between the greydwarfs and the darkelves, and he was found by a family of sunelves. They raised him and that is why he is C-G instead of C-E. And He is also friends with a Human Ranger who is a friend to the Sunelves. This simply doesn't cut it. Unless you're a pure hack & slash player, you'll want to figure out something a little better than that. So, the paladin, the three elves (and possibly half elves as well) are still an issue for your drow, if only from a roleplaying perspective. Now, let's split the party into 4 basic elements and see what we've got: Warriors [4]: Fighter, Paladin, 2 Rangers. If you have no problem with paladins in your game, this is decent. However, if you can get one of the rangers to play fighter (or any other warrior-type class, such as barbarian), it would be a major boost. You don't really benefit from having two rangers, especially since you also have a druid. Healers [2]: Cleric, Druid. Okay. Given that you have nine characters in total, this might be a bit of a stretch. Druid is not exactly your first-class healer, with his strongest point being versatility (which you don't really need in this big of a party), so you're putting a lot of pressure on the cleric here. Mages [1]: If I mentioned your cleric taking some heat, double this on the sorcerer. Having a lone arcanist with a very limited set of powers (usually of the offensive nature) will hurt you badly. Support [2]: 2 Rogues. This is perfect. I just love the two-rogue-sneak-sandwich thing... Some may argue otherwise (and I can understand their reasoning), but I suggest you keep this as it is. All in all, I'd give you a 7 out of 10. For me, the optimal 9-character-party would look something like this: -Warriors [3]: Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger -Healers [2]: 2 Clerics (or anything similar in power/utility) -Mages [2]: Wizard, Sorcerer -Support [2]: 2 Rogues (but rogue/bard works just as well) Bear in mind that this is just the basic outline, disregarding non-PHB classes and PrCs. A lot of choices depend on what sort of game you're playing, so I won't go into details. As for the races, some would like more muscle in there (dwarves, half-orcs, etc.), but your combo is more or less acceptable. Just my :twocents: ~I
Darrian 07-21-05, 08:35 AM	Just a question to Insignia, From an optimizing standpoint, what is the necessity of the support group in your outline? My group has used rangers instead of rogues and it has definitely improved party versatility. As long as the ranger spends 4 skillpoints a level on open locks/disable device he is everything the rogue is plus alot of ranged firepower and far better in wilderness encounters. While we have never played a nine player party. we normally play 6 player at most. Then a six player optimize would be 2 tanks, 2 healers and 2 arcane. Though at low levels it would be fine to play 3 tanks and 1 arcane and just change around ninth level. It is sad that rogues are so unnecessary, but unless we are playing a city only campaign, rogues just seem to struggle. Darrian (I am really not a min/maxer)
tamashastrife 07-21-05, 10:20 AM	Okay the Drow ranger is well... sort of lame (too reminescent of Drizzt...). Your story is pretty thin. Since you're planning to go mage/arcane archer anyway, why don't you play a wizard right from the start? As many people mentioned, that lone sorcerer just won't cut it. Also with such a big party, it might be cool to have one of the rogues switch to a Bard. They have some spells to help out the healers/mages, they can sneak around pretty good, they're okay fighters, they're great at dealing with NPCs and they're good at buffing friends with their music.
Insignia) 07-21-05, 12:30 PM	From an optimizing standpoint, what is the necessity of the support group in your outline? My group has used rangers instead of rogues and it has definitely improved party versatility. As long as the ranger spends 4 skillpoints a level on open locks/disable device he is everything the rogue is plus alot of ranged firepower and far better in wilderness encounters. While we have never played a nine player party. we normally play 6 player at most. Then a six player optimize would be 2 tanks, 2 healers and 2 arcane. Though at low levels it would be fine to play 3 tanks and 1 arcane and just change around ninth level. It is sad that rogues are so unnecessary, but unless we are playing a city only campaign, rogues just seem to struggle. Well, as I've stated previously, it all depends on what sort of game you're playing... Now, that's 5 skill points right there, since you need search too. That leaves you with only 1 skill point per level (not counting intelligence, which in most games won't be too high for a martial character). Open lock is not a must in many cases (knock, crowbar+hammer, etc.), so it can be somewhat bypassed, but there's still a slight drawback. Even then, the ranger can have only half the ranks a rogue can (maximum number of ranks for a cross-class skill is (level+3)/2) and cannot detect any traps magical in nature (ouch). In order to correct this, the ranger must take at least one rogue level (which gives you certain bonuses and certain penalties in the end, but risks huge xp penalties for most races). Other than that, you'd be surprised at how much damage a dual-rogue strike team can dish out (especially if they min-max those 4 fighter levels in -- for the extra attack, some life, a slight boost to fort saves, weapon specialization, and 2 other feats). There isn't a ranger (or two, for that matter) who can match that, trust me. Not to mention the bard. In a party of this size, his song becomes that much more powerful, and it alone can match and top a ranger's utility in the group. I agree that, in a smaller party, support must make room for more essential roles, such as that of a fighter. However, I'd rather make it 2 tanks/2 healers/1 mage/1 rogue (and I don't consider ranger to be a tank in any case). A party playing with an experienced DM, in a well rounded campaign, takes a rogue or faces great risk of failiure. Besides, a single well played mage can support a group of six (even if it's with some difficulty). For this game in particular, there's not a single reason to take a ranger, from an optimizing standpoint. The only thing a ranger brings to the party is track/survival, and both barbarians and druids fill this role quite well (by taking the feat, obviously). However, judging by their unusual class setup, these guys are probably more interested in roleplaying anyway... Cheers ~I Edit:Since you're planning to go mage/arcane archer anyway, why don't you play a wizard right from the start? Because he gets more skills, more HP, and better saves this way? Not to mention how fragile wizards are at low levels...