Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Harmor 03-19-04, 07:10 AM	We're starting a new campaign and seems like everyone is rolling a fighter. I think we may have 1 cleric and a half-rogue, but really no one is anything but a fighter (including myself). Is it really possible to run a game without the 'party wizard'? Or the 'party cleric'? In our last campaign we survived without a rogue, but it was harsh (nothing like a 100 lb. backpack full of rocks to 'detect traps'). Anyhow, what are your experiences with this type of group? Good/bad/ugly?
pjackson 03-19-04, 07:31 AM	Of course it is possible. The DM needs to match the challenges to the party, just as any good DM does normally.
Roland the Crownbreaker 03-19-04, 08:05 AM	As long as you have healing they should be fine. And beware whole party enhancement spells, in an all warrior group they get much nastier than you first think.
Thermanshs 03-19-04, 08:14 AM	keeping realism off your game it IS possible
SmiloDan 03-19-04, 09:13 AM	Personally, I think the wizard is the least useful of the standard 4 classes. Just as long as you have a healer, you should be fine. It might be worth it to have at least one of the primary fighters to dip into Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, or Ranger so they can use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds. Or Mystic from Dragonlance. Healing is key, especially if you have a bunch of fighters swinging swords at things. Things tend to hit back. We were getting along fine with only a single level of rogue in our party for a long time. Now. we're level 8, and he's going Arcane Trickster...someday. Those levels of fighter really slowed that down.
Arbitrary Aardvark 03-19-04, 12:50 PM	I think that having either a wizard or sorcerer may be vital, depending on the GM. If the GM likes to give you just a handful of monsters to deal with, you can get by with just melee. On the other hand, if he likes swarms, having area attacks is very useful. I was in a campaign where we started off at 7th level. No arcane casters. We kept fighting four times our number of bugbears. There where many times when we nearly bought it, and a fireball would have been golden. As to rogues...I think that it is vital to have a trap specialist in the party. What I would recommend is a rogue/fighter multiclass. Take a level in rogue, and maximize search, disable device, and open locks. From then on, every couple of levels take a level of rogue and maximize those skills again. You will only be slightly behind the pure fighters in terms of raw combat power, but will have some sneak attack ability. (I would also put points into tumble.)
Thermanshs 03-19-04, 04:53 PM	Actually it depends on the game's point of view.If taken by the hack n' slashing perspective,no creative thinking...no imagination but just plain attack and damage rolls then I'm with smilodan...good approach of a wizard's power!(irony again)
Captain Mutilate 03-19-04, 05:53 PM	Originally posted by Harmor We're starting a new campaign and seems like everyone is rolling a fighter. I think we may have 1 cleric and a half-rogue, but really no one is anything but a fighter (including myself). Is it really possible to run a game without the 'party wizard'? Or the 'party cleric'? In our last campaign we survived without a rogue, but it was harsh (nothing like a 100 lb. backpack full of rocks to 'detect traps'). Anyhow, what are your experiences with this type of group? Good/bad/ugly? Edit: you're the PLAYER! my bad Basically, try to get an above average int/wis into your fighter so he can use his head in those sneaky situations.
Vahenir 03-19-04, 08:51 PM	A good DM can work around things like that. The DM has two options: 1) Work around the players, making entire campaigns that are fit for a combat-intensive group. 2) Have some of the players re-roll, as you would if you got really, really bad stats.
beaver1024 03-19-04, 08:54 PM	You must have at least 1 cleric. You don't have to have any arcane spellcasters whatsoever. Depending on the level you're playing they're probably a liability anyway.
Heron_Marked_Blade 03-19-04, 09:25 PM	I say go with it. With no AoE combatants (like a wizard or sorcerer), some of you will probably die soon, despite the best efforts of your single cleric. Then those new people can take stock of why they died and make characters that fill those gaps. Incidentally, you'd better not expect that single cleric to be a healing monkey for the group, spending his experience points to craft you all Cure Potions and doing nothing but running from one character to the next healing in an encounter. It SUCKS to be forced into that role. If everyone wants to play melee types, they'd better be prepared to shell out the gp necessary to buy what they need to survive (i.e. potions of cure serious wounds, barkskin, heroism, etc.), and only depend on the cleric in an emergency situation. Bottom line. (Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.)
Nature-boy 03-19-04, 10:42 PM	If you don't have a Clr, you could push for everyone to take the Fast Healing feat from Masters of the Wild. That way you only have to spend have as much time outside the dungeon resting.
Bort333 03-19-04, 11:26 PM	The DM creates a world. The PC's play a part in the world. The world though, doesn't revolve around them. Though they can play a key part. The enemy NPC's will not go "oh they don't have any wizards, better not do this because the PC's might not able to handle the challenge!" It can work, but higher levels your party is going to have a few problems. Not
Xavori 03-20-04, 12:43 AM	The idea of making a whole campaing that is based in fighter types rocks! that would be the coolest solution :) And about what Bort333 said: the dm shouldnt do that, obiously,but he shouldnt set an encounter that involves an arcane locked door that can only be opened with dispel magic ;) :D note: :88E: (Sorry, its just I need to post this thingy, always...)
Lily_Knight 03-20-04, 06:10 AM	Originally posted by Xavori The idea of making a whole campaing that is based in fighter types rocks! that would be the coolest solution :) Some DM's are as immovable as a mounatin, so be cautious. I had one that punished us because we where a magic rich group (two wizards and a bard). Pick up a copy of Complete Warrior. It sounds as if your group may need several ways to distingush the different fighter characters. Nothing is worse then having a two fighters both with power attack style feats.
Thermanshs 03-20-04, 08:48 AM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade I say go with it. With no AoE combatants (like a wizard or sorcerer), some of you will probably die soon, despite the best efforts of your single cleric. Then those new people can take stock of why they died and make characters that fill those gaps. Incidentally, you'd better not expect that single cleric to be a healing monkey for the group, spending his experience points to craft you all Cure Potions and doing nothing but running from one character to the next healing in an encounter. It SUCKS to be forced into that role. If everyone wants to play melee types, they'd better be prepared to shell out the gp necessary to buy what they need to survive (i.e. potions of cure serious wounds, barkskin, heroism, etc.), and only depend on the cleric in an emergency situation. Bottom line. (Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.) :bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow: I can build a wizard to blast your whole party in 1 round.Being the same level as they are.Cure light wounds seems to be the best slayer's kit...not enough though...:sad:
MageofMyth 03-20-04, 11:22 AM	I wish that my group had this problem. I just started a new campaign and they all refused to play fighters. With 3 players I have one cleric, of Lathander, one rogue, and one bard, who has no skills but knowledge skills. They are level 12.
Tehril 03-21-04, 01:40 PM	*chuckle* What to do? The only thing you CAN do!!! Chop till you drop! Hack like it's never going out of style! You have a unique perspective of being a bunch of battle tanks... you can recieve and dish melee damage like few other parties. Some encounters will be made VERY easy because of this...while others will become VERY difficult. Pick your battles, plan ahead and play a smart, tactical game.
tiggrhoo 03-22-04, 06:54 AM	Originally posted by Harmor Anyhow, what are your experiences with this type of group? Good/bad/ugly? I was once part of a game that included nothing but fighters. Actually, there were some rogue levels in there for sneak attack, but everyone was really playing fighters. There was no lock picking or trap finding, just... fighting. Everybody loved it. :devil: Of course, we fought mainly things like giants.
Orcish Fury 03-22-04, 11:18 AM	Make sure you all take different feat paths for versatility's sake. You'll need an archer or two, a power attacker, a whirlwind attackers, a reach fighter, and maybe a mounted fighter. If you're all melee, you'll be unprepared for many events that you'll come across.
quaiven 03-22-04, 11:26 AM	Once you hit 6th level have everyone take Leadership, and then find yourselves some Clerics, Rogues, and Arcane Spellcasters for Cohorts/Followers.
eggplantm 03-22-04, 12:16 PM	You said you had three fighters and a cleric? You should be just fine. The cleric can see to the healing needs of the fighters and deal with most problems you encounter to give the fighters an edge. However. Watch out if you do not have a party cleric or someone to fill the role of healer because without this person you must rely on things like potions and I can tell you from personal experience that it makes things very tough. I recently played with a group consisting of a fighter, swashbuckler and a samurai. We did OK for a bit but at level four we ran into a fair challenge and because of some bad roles a few of us dropped and since the only thing to do to save them was drag them away and put a potion in them (which was not possible since we were fighting multiple foes) the encounter resulted in a TPK. So, can you have a party without an arcane caster? Yes! Can you have a party without a healer? I'll say yes but it makes things much slower and more difficult. I don't think a rogue is incredibly important to the party. At least not in some games. Most of my adventures occur outside so traps are not very common.
the_heart 03-23-04, 09:28 AM	you can get by without an arcane caster as long as you have at least one ranged specialist, and everybody has ranged backups. sounds obvious, but i had a party of all fighters, none even carried a backup dagger!!! they actually seemed to enjoy getting chewed up by flyby attacks/archer ambushes. cleric is good, but if he's rather not primarily heal you can always invest in a wand of CLW and ask him to use it on you.
Thermanshs 03-23-04, 09:45 AM	Have you understood yet that a party without a caster can't survive on caster-encounters or should I post a sample foe?
Steelwill 03-24-04, 05:29 AM	Not much touching on the fact that the players might get bored since everyone is filling the same role in the party, it is certainly possible as long as there is plenty of healing. You mentioned there might be 1 cleric, well I would definietly make sure the cleric's player is ready to exclusively heal, because that's going to be where almost all of his magic goes, at least until he is able to brew a LOT of healing potions, and scribe scrolls. Potions are however recommended in the advent of the Cleric's untimely demise in battle, since no one else would be able to read his scrolls. If you end up losing the cleric, for whatever reason, be ready with treasure being heavy on healing potions, rings of regeneration, and the like. Past that, it should work out ok. Just seems like a tragic loss of variety on the roleplay side though. My 2 cents, hope it helps.
Thermanshs 03-24-04, 07:06 AM	Why do you all people think that healiong is the one and only way surviving a battle? What about a rogue's deadly sneak ambush?Who would be wise enough to put ranks on his spot/listen so as the rogue couldn't sneak on them? What about focusing an enemy's efforts on killing this poor cleric-healing servant? What about fighting outsiders many of whom depend on magic attacks only? What about about fighting a druid with entangle prepared?It would effectively immobilize most of them... And this is only a taste of what a random encounter may contain...
Steelwill 03-25-04, 01:31 AM	Originally posted by Thermanshs Why do you all people think that healiong is the one and only way surviving a battle? What about a rogue's deadly sneak ambush?Who would be wise enough to put ranks on his spot/listen so as the rogue couldn't sneak on them? What about focusing an enemy's efforts on killing this poor cleric-healing servant? What about fighting outsiders many of whom depend on magic attacks only? What about about fighting a druid with entangle prepared?It would effectively immobilize most of them... And this is only a taste of what a random encounter may contain... In response, I believe healing comes up, because without considering EVERY possiblility of potential encounters a fighter heavy group can come upon, one thing IS certain. Over the course of any number of encounters, no matter what they are, fighters will take damage, and will eventually get worn down before any amount of natural healing can save them. Healing is a necessity they literally CANNOT live without. Most any other circumstance could be ingenously dealt with, depending on the co-creative abilities of the player's and the DM. But no matter how it happens, HP loss overtime, is pretty much an inevitability, and one a group of mosltly fighters will eventually have to deal with.
Slivvy Gaidin 03-25-04, 07:01 AM	I'm thinking about running an all fighter game sometime soon. Get a nice 13th warrior feel happening, where dieing matters, and surviving the night is an epic event in itself. I think though that I will have to give the players some way of recovering from wounds more quickly. Give them all the fast healing feat, provide them with plenty of potions, or perhaps look at some alchemical healing aids.
dantedarkstar 03-25-04, 10:39 AM	ANY party is fine, as long as it's fun. I was playing in a party that consisted of Fighter, Paladin, Monk and me: Sorcerer. Everyone geared towards meele (except sorcerer, that is). NO HEALING SPELLS ! Paladin's healing was feeble, since he was Fighter/Paladin multiclass, and 2 levels behind, because of being drow (don't ask).. Somehow we did fine. We didn't need healing that much. The thing is - if you have cleric which devotes himself to healing, then you have one less combat machine out there. We went through all because we killed everything so fast and efficiently, that it couldn't kill us. And with items like potions and wands, we could always cure ourselves after, when we had time. But then again... we had pretty easy adventures. And we had munched party... we plowed through CR higher by 2 than our average party level without a blink. Sigh... Anyway, healing character is not a necessity, and actually degrading cleric to healing it a WASTE. Buy wands of CLW, and heal with that. The BUFFS is what cleric really can give in a fighter-heavy party.
Thermanshs 03-25-04, 01:37 PM	Originally posted by Steelwill In response, I believe healing comes up, because without considering EVERY possiblility of potential encounters That's why I talked about nerfing reality,if you want pure giant encounters go on,but it definitely won't be a real world. Most any other circumstance could be ingenously dealt with, depending on the co-creative abilities of the player's and the DM. Hmmm...let's see...all these classes you have overlooked and the threat they can prove to your party:A bard can charm,suggest,dominate them and healing can't help you much.A streetwise rogue can steal their pads without them even noticing,a silver tongue cleric of Erythnull can guide them by their will towards their own sacrifice,a single ranger hidden in the trees can "play"with their senses,a flying mirror imaged sorcerer can burn their backpacks and scatter everything that's within them(including their potions) killing them afterwards expending magic missle slots only...bla...bla... But no matter how it happens, HP loss overtime, is pretty much an inevitability, and one a group of mosltly fighters will eventually have to deal with. All these huge irrepairable gaps(healing being only a 5% of that) this party has, will lead it to its goal's failure if not to its deathIf you love fighters and hack n' slashing that's good but in a REAL world it won't help you much.To be specific I can bring you encounters much higher than their average level resulting your party not even having a scratch,the question howeveris...is this real?How much will this monotonous gameplay be fun?
Steelwill 03-25-04, 11:43 PM	Thermanshs: We seem to be making separate points. The original poster was asking if a fighter heavy group was feasable NOT is a fighter only group optimal. I do not think a fighter heavy group is optimal, but I do think it is feasable. I believe I stated as much, with regard to the loss of roleplay options, in my original post on this thread. That stated, my advice for what would really help a fighter heavy group, was and is the addition of healing, and I listed my reasons. Most counterpoints and other responses were talking about adding various different classes into the fighter heavy group. I only ever mentioned a Cleric, because the original Poster indicated he might already have a Cleric in this fighter heavy group. I do not discount all of the many ways you have indicated the usefulness of other classes and abilities, I never did or was, yet you argued AS IF I was when you quoted my post. If given the conditions listed by the Original Poster, you still disagree that healing is a necessity for them, great, we can agree to disagree, but please don't argue against me on positions I never took. Thanks.
Thermanshs 03-26-04, 01:34 PM	My apologies if I misunderstood you then...;)