All groups need balance [Archive] - Wizards Community

All groups need balance [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
seandpconners@aol.com
07-22-03, 12:34 PM How do you balance the group when you start a campaign.Or do you let the group play what ever they want.Ie four wizards.Is there natural character combinations that your group choose.Like two fighters a cleric a wiz and a thief.The reason i ask is to promote a natural problem if you let them choose what they want you get poor group balance that may lead to quick deaths.Or the flip side of this is a balanced group but when someone dies and they cant be raised it leaves little choice in what to play if you want to keep the party shape.
Flak
07-22-03, 12:37 PM They can play whatever they want. If they NEED someone else, I might supply an NPC of that type...generally, though, I don't have a problem with group balance.
Jenny With The Lantern
07-22-03, 01:00 PM Actually, if it's the first time you and your group start playing, I'd suggest the following:
1 or 2 fighter-types (fighter, monk, barbarian or ranger)
1 cleric
1 rogue
1 wizard-type (wizard or sorceror)

If none of your players wants to play a certain type or insist on another class, it's actually quite possible to play that way.

However, you and the players may find certain encounters more difficult then they are listed, but you'll just have to find out what you can and can't do to the party.
Klajorne
07-22-03, 01:02 PM Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com
How do you balance the group when you start a campaign.Or do you let the group play what ever they want.Ie four wizards.Is there natural character combinations that your group choose.Like two fighters a cleric a wiz and a thief.The reason i ask is to promote a natural problem if you let them choose what they want you get poor group balance that may lead to quick deaths.Or the flip side of this is a balanced group but when someone dies and they cant be raised it leaves little choice in what to play if you want to keep the party shape.

It matters if I'm starting a campaign or if I'm just playing. If I'm starting a campaign, I usually sit them down before character creation and let them know what I had in mind. This way I can avoid getting too many centaurs when I'm going to run a pirate heavy game. Or too many magic users if I'm going to run a low-magic game. If I was going to run a stock D&D game (dungeon crawls and such), then I would probably tell them that they are going to want to sit down and balance their party, because the by-the-book game really encourages such.

If I was just playing for fun, or more likely I had a theme, then party balance becomes unimportant. If I wanted to run a wizard-centric game, then chances are the party would have no tank or healer. But at that point, I'm already starting to focus a lot of the game around the players, and I wouldn't be facing them with challenges their classes wouldn't be capable of handling.

So no, most of the time I don't worry about party balancing, because since I've already limited what the party can be, I already know what to balance their characters around.
Dash Branaghan
07-22-03, 01:13 PM When you have experienced players, they will generally formulate a balanced party simply because of the experience.

However, when you have an unbalanced party, it is up to you as a the DM to be a little creative. One of the things you will have to do is create campaigns/adventures that the unbalanced party can deal with, though you may create specific encounters that the party can't handle and must run from (invariably they won't because Players have a difficult time with the "I'm the Hero, butI can die" concept).

The players will soon learn the concept of balance, especially when your walking tank group (all fighter-style characters) get womped by mages, or the party needs healing mid dungeon crawl and has no potions or cleric.
seandpconners@aol.com
07-22-03, 01:44 PM Your thoughts echo my own conclusions. I also believe as a dm i must make the players understand the campaign and let them now right from the of if something is wrong with there group set up after that its up to them.
OrionGemini
07-22-03, 02:02 PM Well, I start with an idea of a campaign world that I want to work in, then I ask the players what type of characters they want to be. Once I know that, I figure out what the game is going to be like, in terms of theme and such. That way, if I have a group of 5 wizards, I can bend the adventure hooks and such in their direction. I don't necessarily add NPCs to make up the difference, though, unless the players make a point of saying "we'd like to get a fighter type to join us."

This isn't to say that I will tailor make an adventure to suit the party's strengths and avoid their weaknesses. If they don't have an ability in the party, they will need to find ways to compensate. For example, I will not create a dungeon devoid of traps and locks simply because the party has no Rogue in the group. (or no Rouge in their makeup bag) My current group does not have a cleric in it, so they tend to make sure they stock up on healing potions and holy water, because they do tend to run into undead quite often.
Flak
07-22-03, 02:09 PM Originally posted by OrionGemini
Well, I start with an idea of a campaign world that I want to work in, then I ask the players what type of characters they want to be. Once I know that, I figure out what the game is going to be like, in terms of theme and such. That way, if I have a group of 5 wizards, I can bend the adventure hooks and such in their direction. I don't necessarily add NPCs to make up the difference, though, unless the players make a point of saying "we'd like to get a fighter type to join us."

This isn't to say that I will tailor make an adventure to suit the party's strengths and avoid their weaknesses. If they don't have an ability in the party, they will need to find ways to compensate. For example, I will not create a dungeon devoid of traps and locks simply because the party has no Rogue in the group. (or no Rouge in their makeup bag) My current group does not have a cleric in it, so they tend to make sure they stock up on healing potions and holy water, because they do tend to run into undead quite often. That is the way to go, and your thought on adding NPCs only if they say they want them is actually pretty right...the NEED I kept talking about comes from my players...they always think they NEED a thief, a cleric, and a fighter. If they are missing one, they keep saying they NEED one, so I tend to supply one...but only for awhile...I tried giving them healing potions, and that was a temporary solution, but they wanted a cleric before venturing into [insert whatever danger here].
inci
07-22-03, 03:18 PM I usually let them play what they want. As long as we dont have Player-vs-Player situation (due to alignment, lame players, whatever) all is fine with me as DM.
You just need to adept your campaign. A party with 4 wizards will definately go for other things than a party with 4 rogues or 4 pure Fighters.
Sure, those fighters might get owned by a mage or a monster one day, but they'd prolly run away anyway when they see no chance or approach the situation in another way than the usual 'balanced' party
You dont need a Cleric or Paladin to heal you, there is a skill for it. Sure, its getting a bit slower and more careful - but is that bad ? i doubt it. (i actually enjoyed those Dragonlance campaigns without Clerics :) )
Salla
07-22-03, 04:43 PM Ah, yes ... the classic combination of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue (aka the Four Basic Monster Food Groups). :)

A lot of it depends on whether or not your group's been together for a while, and know each other's styles. We tend to get together and decide who wants to play what, so we get some variety, instead of just 'let's just make stuff up and see what we get'. Sometimes we do the 'let's just play what we want', and just on the virtue of styles, we wind up with at least some variety (we usually don't get a fighter when we do that, I've noticed ...).
DrakathTheRatling
07-22-03, 06:29 PM I don't have a problem with the party being unbalanced because of classes. I think all spellcaster/all fighters would be interesting, just as long as the players don't think I'm going to compensate for their choices completely.
Lord_Soto
07-22-03, 06:47 PM Most of the time, I let the players play whatever they want. I don't put restrictions such as needing at least one of each class or race. However, if they do without, they may have a harder time with some adventures. I'm finding more and more that my parties tend to include one bard, as they like to have some legend lore/information gathering type skills, especially when they hit dead ends.

In the past, I have designed campaigns to run with mostly wizards, or mostly thieves, but they are usually peppered with one or two other classes, as I don't require players to play certain classes.

I usually restrict a few priesthoods to prevent conflicts of interest w/ my BBEG or BGHG (Big Good Helper Guys), such as, no followers of Bane, Cyric, or Talona. Strangely, my players don't mind.
seandpconners@aol.com
07-22-03, 11:31 PM An experienced group will give good party balance because they know it will help there survival chances. Go one session without a core class and as ive said before someone has to try and fill in and to put it simply there not as good or it wastes resourses.Also having npcs is ok but do you also give them a full share of the xp.
Wizard
07-22-03, 11:36 PM I think that in the long run (say 9th-20th level or so) a party of all wizards is pretty darn unstoppable, now that we have Command Undead and such for sor\wiz.

But I'm sort of biased---check out my name.
imayb1
07-23-03, 04:11 PM I typically lay out the campaign plan: I will start a new [good/evil] campaign in a primarily [forest-/city-/sea-] based setting.

From there, players will take what they want to play. If they wind up without a cleric, they must compensate by knowing where friendly temples are and where to buy the services of herbalists.

If no one chooses roles appropriate to the setting, (ie- four wizards in the forest without any wilderness skills) they may have real trouble. *shrug* It's the GM's job to deal with it-- and a good part of the fun for both sides of the screen!
Erus
07-23-03, 04:16 PM I once ran a campaign of 6 thieves of different specialties... and it was a blast... they were very sneaky and used a lot of tactics as healing and magic backup were hard to come by. This was of course with very experienced players so that may have weighed into their success...

Any unbalanced classes can be augmented by NPCs, Hirelings, Magic items, etc...

I would find a 'forced balancing' a bit rough to take as a player.

Erus.
skrayper2003
07-23-03, 04:40 PM About the only additions I might add would be cleric (for healing) or some kind of fighter (in case no one is around that can fight).

Never bother adding a rogue, seriously. An NPC rogue in the party just means you're trying to disable your own traps. Of course, if you do add traps, you could see if the party wants to hire an NPC rogue. The other option is to simply omit traps altogether.

Other than that, NPC's really shouldn't fill skill gaps or power gaps (like a lack of arcane casters, for example), unless you know you'll need something like that later for a plot idea.
seandpconners@aol.com
07-24-03, 03:42 AM I get the feeling that some of you use npcs to compensate for the players not useing good sense to balance the party.

As i said before i make sure they cover the bases and if i think the initial group has a majour weakness i let them what it is.
Quirk
07-24-03, 03:48 AM Balance shmalance!
Why should it be up to the DM to change the world just because one group of adventurers doesn't have x class or y spell. I don't like my DM catering to me, it gives me the feel that the solutions I come up with for a problem are truly unique. Let them play what they like, otherwise, they won't enjoy the character as much as they should.
seandpconners@aol.com
07-24-03, 03:54 AM Originally posted by Quirk
Balance shmalance!
Why should it be up to the DM to change the world just because one group of adventurers doesn't have x class or y spell. I don't like my DM catering to me, it gives me the feel that the solutions I come up with for a problem are truly unique. Let them play what they like, otherwise, they won't enjoy the character as much as they should.

They may not have any time to enjoy anything if the group balance is wrong.Your answer lacks something oh thats right common sense. Ok guys what do you want to play a monk a bard a commoner oh great until its all over in seconds. Listen you tell the players they are unbalanced to help them out not hinder them. A good group of players will listen and still everyone will be happy with the character they play.
Quirk
07-24-03, 04:09 AM Uhh, are you implying that the core classes are unbalanced? Playing with an "unbalanced" group creates beautiful teamwork, ideas, roleplay, and more. I'm not saying the DM should tailor his encounters to kill the PCs, in fact, I'm a fan that every PC should "win the day" at least once an adventure, but I really dislike having NPCs in my party, because it feels too much like a crutch.
Kaminton
07-24-03, 09:26 PM The party I DM has a weakness when it comes to the rogue side of things. The party's evolved as characters come in and leave or die... For a while they were really heavy on melee, but without any arcane or rogue support. Then they picked up a rogue for a while, but still didn't have any arcane support. Then they lost the rogue (got eaten by a remorhaz, nasty creature - tried to outrun it on a glacier) and picked up a geomancer (who got eaten by a maurezhi - hmm, do I detect a pattern here?)

Anyway, the current composition of my PC's party is:
1 cleric of Kord (sole survivor of the original group)
1 ranger (archer)
1 devoted defender/warmaster (melee)
1 fighter
1 sorceror/guildmage

So far they've managed to do ok without a rogue because the ranger has a high charisma and has been dumping points into cross-class social skills (of course, his move silently and hide are only decent thanks to boots and cloak of elvenkind, and he can't spot or listen as well as he should be able to), and my adventures aren't trap-heavy (not many dungeons where a trap makes sense).

I'm lucky - 1 of my players has gotten so used to playing clerics he actually likes it now, and another one prefers to play either cleric or paladin - so healing isn't an issue. The arcane support was an issue, but nothing a raging barbarian can't fix in most cases :P
seandpconners@aol.com
07-25-03, 12:30 PM Well done to all those who replied to this thread.
seandpconners@aol.com
07-27-03, 05:07 PM I bumped this back to the top because a few people contacted me.so here it is again.
Shoegaze99
07-27-03, 06:50 PM Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com
I bumped this back to the top because a few people contacted me.
Yeah, this and every other thread you started. In one ten-minute stretch you bumped them all.

Have some consideration for others who have questions, comments and concerns they'd like to be noticed, please.
seandpconners@aol.com
07-27-03, 09:00 PM Its seems for no reason that you and i have a problem.
Im not sure why and i cant understand why you feel this way.
I would like to say for my part if i have upset you in anyway im sorry.

Happy role-playing and kind regards sean.
imayb1
07-28-03, 12:58 AM Sean, you imply that balance is not only necessary, but mandatory. I disagree. If players have no rogue, for example, then they must take their chances smashing a chest rather than picking the lock. If that means the contents of the chest break, too, then so be it.

I recently ran my group through a foreign-city adventure. One player commented that he felt "set up to fail". The truth was that the group used wits and got out of a bad situation. It wasn't a 100% win/gain situation; nor was it meant to be. The characters (players that showed...) didn't have the right skill sets to make the situation easy.

Part of the challenge of playing the game is to overcome obstacles. If you hand everything to them on a silver platter, then what's the point? What did they actually learn? How to best wheedle good magic items from the GM? :sad: That's not why I play the game.
seandpconners@aol.com
07-28-03, 09:26 AM Originally posted by imayb1
Sean, you imply that balance is not only necessary, but mandatory. I disagree. If players have no rogue, for example, then they must take their chances smashing a chest rather than picking the lock. If that means the contents of the chest break, too, then so be it.

I recently ran my group through a foreign-city adventure. One player commented that he felt "set up to fail". The truth was that the group used wits and got out of a bad situation. It wasn't a 100% win/gain situation; nor was it meant to be. The characters (players that showed...) didn't have the right skill sets to make the situation easy.

Part of the challenge of playing the game is to overcome obstacles. If you hand everything to them on a silver platter, then what's the point? What did they actually learn? How to best wheedle good magic items from the GM? :sad: That's not why I play the game.

If you dont think balance is important i will explain further.
If a group has no thief i would say there chances of a dungeon bash success are greatly reduced.Also i dont change what ive already written and if i did then that would be tailoring the game and handing it to them on a silver platter as you say.
Think of a group without a fighter what chance in a fighting situation or a group with no cleric.

Of coarse for short bursts you can get around anything.
What i have seen many times over is imbalance will ultimately destroy a group or a campaign.

Thanks for your reply.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
seandpconners@aol.com 07-22-03, 12:34 PM	How do you balance the group when you start a campaign.Or do you let the group play what ever they want.Ie four wizards.Is there natural character combinations that your group choose.Like two fighters a cleric a wiz and a thief.The reason i ask is to promote a natural problem if you let them choose what they want you get poor group balance that may lead to quick deaths.Or the flip side of this is a balanced group but when someone dies and they cant be raised it leaves little choice in what to play if you want to keep the party shape.
Flak 07-22-03, 12:37 PM	They can play whatever they want. If they NEED someone else, I might supply an NPC of that type...generally, though, I don't have a problem with group balance.
Jenny With The Lantern 07-22-03, 01:00 PM	Actually, if it's the first time you and your group start playing, I'd suggest the following: 1 or 2 fighter-types (fighter, monk, barbarian or ranger) 1 cleric 1 rogue 1 wizard-type (wizard or sorceror) If none of your players wants to play a certain type or insist on another class, it's actually quite possible to play that way. However, you and the players may find certain encounters more difficult then they are listed, but you'll just have to find out what you can and can't do to the party.
Klajorne 07-22-03, 01:02 PM	Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com How do you balance the group when you start a campaign.Or do you let the group play what ever they want.Ie four wizards.Is there natural character combinations that your group choose.Like two fighters a cleric a wiz and a thief.The reason i ask is to promote a natural problem if you let them choose what they want you get poor group balance that may lead to quick deaths.Or the flip side of this is a balanced group but when someone dies and they cant be raised it leaves little choice in what to play if you want to keep the party shape. It matters if I'm starting a campaign or if I'm just playing. If I'm starting a campaign, I usually sit them down before character creation and let them know what I had in mind. This way I can avoid getting too many centaurs when I'm going to run a pirate heavy game. Or too many magic users if I'm going to run a low-magic game. If I was going to run a stock D&D game (dungeon crawls and such), then I would probably tell them that they are going to want to sit down and balance their party, because the by-the-book game really encourages such. If I was just playing for fun, or more likely I had a theme, then party balance becomes unimportant. If I wanted to run a wizard-centric game, then chances are the party would have no tank or healer. But at that point, I'm already starting to focus a lot of the game around the players, and I wouldn't be facing them with challenges their classes wouldn't be capable of handling. So no, most of the time I don't worry about party balancing, because since I've already limited what the party can be, I already know what to balance their characters around.
Dash Branaghan 07-22-03, 01:13 PM	When you have experienced players, they will generally formulate a balanced party simply because of the experience. However, when you have an unbalanced party, it is up to you as a the DM to be a little creative. One of the things you will have to do is create campaigns/adventures that the unbalanced party can deal with, though you may create specific encounters that the party can't handle and must run from (invariably they won't because Players have a difficult time with the "I'm the Hero, butI can die" concept). The players will soon learn the concept of balance, especially when your walking tank group (all fighter-style characters) get womped by mages, or the party needs healing mid dungeon crawl and has no potions or cleric.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-22-03, 01:44 PM	Your thoughts echo my own conclusions. I also believe as a dm i must make the players understand the campaign and let them now right from the of if something is wrong with there group set up after that its up to them.
OrionGemini 07-22-03, 02:02 PM	Well, I start with an idea of a campaign world that I want to work in, then I ask the players what type of characters they want to be. Once I know that, I figure out what the game is going to be like, in terms of theme and such. That way, if I have a group of 5 wizards, I can bend the adventure hooks and such in their direction. I don't necessarily add NPCs to make up the difference, though, unless the players make a point of saying "we'd like to get a fighter type to join us." This isn't to say that I will tailor make an adventure to suit the party's strengths and avoid their weaknesses. If they don't have an ability in the party, they will need to find ways to compensate. For example, I will not create a dungeon devoid of traps and locks simply because the party has no Rogue in the group. (or no Rouge in their makeup bag) My current group does not have a cleric in it, so they tend to make sure they stock up on healing potions and holy water, because they do tend to run into undead quite often.
Flak 07-22-03, 02:09 PM	Originally posted by OrionGemini Well, I start with an idea of a campaign world that I want to work in, then I ask the players what type of characters they want to be. Once I know that, I figure out what the game is going to be like, in terms of theme and such. That way, if I have a group of 5 wizards, I can bend the adventure hooks and such in their direction. I don't necessarily add NPCs to make up the difference, though, unless the players make a point of saying "we'd like to get a fighter type to join us." This isn't to say that I will tailor make an adventure to suit the party's strengths and avoid their weaknesses. If they don't have an ability in the party, they will need to find ways to compensate. For example, I will not create a dungeon devoid of traps and locks simply because the party has no Rogue in the group. (or no Rouge in their makeup bag) My current group does not have a cleric in it, so they tend to make sure they stock up on healing potions and holy water, because they do tend to run into undead quite often. That is the way to go, and your thought on adding NPCs only if they say they want them is actually pretty right...the NEED I kept talking about comes from my players...they always think they NEED a thief, a cleric, and a fighter. If they are missing one, they keep saying they NEED one, so I tend to supply one...but only for awhile...I tried giving them healing potions, and that was a temporary solution, but they wanted a cleric before venturing into [insert whatever danger here].
inci 07-22-03, 03:18 PM	I usually let them play what they want. As long as we dont have Player-vs-Player situation (due to alignment, lame players, whatever) all is fine with me as DM. You just need to adept your campaign. A party with 4 wizards will definately go for other things than a party with 4 rogues or 4 pure Fighters. Sure, those fighters might get owned by a mage or a monster one day, but they'd prolly run away anyway when they see no chance or approach the situation in another way than the usual 'balanced' party You dont need a Cleric or Paladin to heal you, there is a skill for it. Sure, its getting a bit slower and more careful - but is that bad ? i doubt it. (i actually enjoyed those Dragonlance campaigns without Clerics :) )
Salla 07-22-03, 04:43 PM	Ah, yes ... the classic combination of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue (aka the Four Basic Monster Food Groups). :) A lot of it depends on whether or not your group's been together for a while, and know each other's styles. We tend to get together and decide who wants to play what, so we get some variety, instead of just 'let's just make stuff up and see what we get'. Sometimes we do the 'let's just play what we want', and just on the virtue of styles, we wind up with at least some variety (we usually don't get a fighter when we do that, I've noticed ...).
DrakathTheRatling 07-22-03, 06:29 PM	I don't have a problem with the party being unbalanced because of classes. I think all spellcaster/all fighters would be interesting, just as long as the players don't think I'm going to compensate for their choices completely.
Lord_Soto 07-22-03, 06:47 PM	Most of the time, I let the players play whatever they want. I don't put restrictions such as needing at least one of each class or race. However, if they do without, they may have a harder time with some adventures. I'm finding more and more that my parties tend to include one bard, as they like to have some legend lore/information gathering type skills, especially when they hit dead ends. In the past, I have designed campaigns to run with mostly wizards, or mostly thieves, but they are usually peppered with one or two other classes, as I don't require players to play certain classes. I usually restrict a few priesthoods to prevent conflicts of interest w/ my BBEG or BGHG (Big Good Helper Guys), such as, no followers of Bane, Cyric, or Talona. Strangely, my players don't mind.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-22-03, 11:31 PM	An experienced group will give good party balance because they know it will help there survival chances. Go one session without a core class and as ive said before someone has to try and fill in and to put it simply there not as good or it wastes resourses.Also having npcs is ok but do you also give them a full share of the xp.
Wizard 07-22-03, 11:36 PM	I think that in the long run (say 9th-20th level or so) a party of all wizards is pretty darn unstoppable, now that we have Command Undead and such for sor\wiz. But I'm sort of biased---check out my name.
imayb1 07-23-03, 04:11 PM	I typically lay out the campaign plan: I will start a new [good/evil] campaign in a primarily [forest-/city-/sea-] based setting. From there, players will take what they want to play. If they wind up without a cleric, they must compensate by knowing where friendly temples are and where to buy the services of herbalists. If no one chooses roles appropriate to the setting, (ie- four wizards in the forest without any wilderness skills) they may have real trouble. shrug It's the GM's job to deal with it-- and a good part of the fun for both sides of the screen!
Erus 07-23-03, 04:16 PM	I once ran a campaign of 6 thieves of different specialties... and it was a blast... they were very sneaky and used a lot of tactics as healing and magic backup were hard to come by. This was of course with very experienced players so that may have weighed into their success... Any unbalanced classes can be augmented by NPCs, Hirelings, Magic items, etc... I would find a 'forced balancing' a bit rough to take as a player. Erus.
skrayper2003 07-23-03, 04:40 PM	About the only additions I might add would be cleric (for healing) or some kind of fighter (in case no one is around that can fight). Never bother adding a rogue, seriously. An NPC rogue in the party just means you're trying to disable your own traps. Of course, if you do add traps, you could see if the party wants to hire an NPC rogue. The other option is to simply omit traps altogether. Other than that, NPC's really shouldn't fill skill gaps or power gaps (like a lack of arcane casters, for example), unless you know you'll need something like that later for a plot idea.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-24-03, 03:42 AM	I get the feeling that some of you use npcs to compensate for the players not useing good sense to balance the party. As i said before i make sure they cover the bases and if i think the initial group has a majour weakness i let them what it is.
Quirk 07-24-03, 03:48 AM	Balance shmalance! Why should it be up to the DM to change the world just because one group of adventurers doesn't have x class or y spell. I don't like my DM catering to me, it gives me the feel that the solutions I come up with for a problem are truly unique. Let them play what they like, otherwise, they won't enjoy the character as much as they should.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-24-03, 03:54 AM	Originally posted by Quirk Balance shmalance! Why should it be up to the DM to change the world just because one group of adventurers doesn't have x class or y spell. I don't like my DM catering to me, it gives me the feel that the solutions I come up with for a problem are truly unique. Let them play what they like, otherwise, they won't enjoy the character as much as they should. They may not have any time to enjoy anything if the group balance is wrong.Your answer lacks something oh thats right common sense. Ok guys what do you want to play a monk a bard a commoner oh great until its all over in seconds. Listen you tell the players they are unbalanced to help them out not hinder them. A good group of players will listen and still everyone will be happy with the character they play.
Quirk 07-24-03, 04:09 AM	Uhh, are you implying that the core classes are unbalanced? Playing with an "unbalanced" group creates beautiful teamwork, ideas, roleplay, and more. I'm not saying the DM should tailor his encounters to kill the PCs, in fact, I'm a fan that every PC should "win the day" at least once an adventure, but I really dislike having NPCs in my party, because it feels too much like a crutch.
Kaminton 07-24-03, 09:26 PM	The party I DM has a weakness when it comes to the rogue side of things. The party's evolved as characters come in and leave or die... For a while they were really heavy on melee, but without any arcane or rogue support. Then they picked up a rogue for a while, but still didn't have any arcane support. Then they lost the rogue (got eaten by a remorhaz, nasty creature - tried to outrun it on a glacier) and picked up a geomancer (who got eaten by a maurezhi - hmm, do I detect a pattern here?) Anyway, the current composition of my PC's party is: 1 cleric of Kord (sole survivor of the original group) 1 ranger (archer) 1 devoted defender/warmaster (melee) 1 fighter 1 sorceror/guildmage So far they've managed to do ok without a rogue because the ranger has a high charisma and has been dumping points into cross-class social skills (of course, his move silently and hide are only decent thanks to boots and cloak of elvenkind, and he can't spot or listen as well as he should be able to), and my adventures aren't trap-heavy (not many dungeons where a trap makes sense). I'm lucky - 1 of my players has gotten so used to playing clerics he actually likes it now, and another one prefers to play either cleric or paladin - so healing isn't an issue. The arcane support was an issue, but nothing a raging barbarian can't fix in most cases :P
seandpconners@aol.com 07-25-03, 12:30 PM	Well done to all those who replied to this thread.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-27-03, 05:07 PM	I bumped this back to the top because a few people contacted me.so here it is again.
Shoegaze99 07-27-03, 06:50 PM	Originally posted by seandpconners@aol.com I bumped this back to the top because a few people contacted me. Yeah, this and every other thread you started. In one ten-minute stretch you bumped them all. Have some consideration for others who have questions, comments and concerns they'd like to be noticed, please.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-27-03, 09:00 PM	Its seems for no reason that you and i have a problem. Im not sure why and i cant understand why you feel this way. I would like to say for my part if i have upset you in anyway im sorry. Happy role-playing and kind regards sean.
imayb1 07-28-03, 12:58 AM	Sean, you imply that balance is not only necessary, but mandatory. I disagree. If players have no rogue, for example, then they must take their chances smashing a chest rather than picking the lock. If that means the contents of the chest break, too, then so be it. I recently ran my group through a foreign-city adventure. One player commented that he felt "set up to fail". The truth was that the group used wits and got out of a bad situation. It wasn't a 100% win/gain situation; nor was it meant to be. The characters (players that showed...) didn't have the right skill sets to make the situation easy. Part of the challenge of playing the game is to overcome obstacles. If you hand everything to them on a silver platter, then what's the point? What did they actually learn? How to best wheedle good magic items from the GM? :sad: That's not why I play the game.
seandpconners@aol.com 07-28-03, 09:26 AM	Originally posted by imayb1 Sean, you imply that balance is not only necessary, but mandatory. I disagree. If players have no rogue, for example, then they must take their chances smashing a chest rather than picking the lock. If that means the contents of the chest break, too, then so be it. I recently ran my group through a foreign-city adventure. One player commented that he felt "set up to fail". The truth was that the group used wits and got out of a bad situation. It wasn't a 100% win/gain situation; nor was it meant to be. The characters (players that showed...) didn't have the right skill sets to make the situation easy. Part of the challenge of playing the game is to overcome obstacles. If you hand everything to them on a silver platter, then what's the point? What did they actually learn? How to best wheedle good magic items from the GM? :sad: That's not why I play the game. If you dont think balance is important i will explain further. If a group has no thief i would say there chances of a dungeon bash success are greatly reduced.Also i dont change what ive already written and if i did then that would be tailoring the game and handing it to them on a silver platter as you say. Think of a group without a fighter what chance in a fighting situation or a group with no cleric. Of coarse for short bursts you can get around anything. What i have seen many times over is imbalance will ultimately destroy a group or a campaign. Thanks for your reply.