Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Reath 07-02-07, 12:07 PM	When we rerolled new characters we came across a dilema. There are three of us, i control 2 PC's whilst the others each control 1.We have a paladin, sorcerrer, cleric, and rouge. Now our other friend wants to play with us. I could let him use one of my 2 characters, but being new to the game he wouldn't be able to use either to their full potential. So we want to let him create a bard for his own character. Are 5 PC's too much? Your input is greatly appreciated
Zandolit 07-02-07, 12:20 PM	I don't think so. Our gaming group's preference is actually for five-member parties, though we occasionally actually have more than five. The only thing, really, is that as you get more characters, the players need to remember to be even more respectful about taking turns and not hogging the spotlight. A Bard is a good support character, and would be a good addition. I wouldn't see much of an issue adding a Bard to this party.
zelf_gale 07-02-07, 12:34 PM	I find 6 to be the healthy maximum of characters in a party. I have played in a group with 13 players (and two cohorts, 2 animal companions, and 2 familiars) and while I loved all of them dearly, it was decidedly unfun. I highly suggest you work to make sure your combats don't start to slow down. There are many suggestions on how to do this littered across wizards site including: Roll dice for attack rolls and damage rolls at the same time. Have PCs take the delay action in combat when they are unable to start choosing an action within a minute. Make a character sheet for your mount,animal companion,cohort,familiar. Copy the descriptions of your most commonly used spells.
Forfeit 07-02-07, 01:07 PM	I agree: 4 is the best, 5 is ok, 6 is possible, but more than that, its not worth it, because people dont get enough time to play (and the DM has even more responsability). And 5 PC´s is ok. But I wouldnt recomend that you play with more than 1 PC.
Inigo Carmine 07-02-07, 01:18 PM	I personally dislike more than four PCs (especially if 1 or more players is not good* at the game) due to how much it slows down the game. Other people love bigger group numbers though. It boils down to personal preference. Just remember to have the DM scale the difficulty slightly. Instead of: 1 creature CR = party level for a battle have 1 creaure CR = party level + 1 creature CR = Party level - 2 or thereabouts. *Note, by good I don't mean able to min/max, I mean taking less than 5 minutes to figure out your attack bonus every turn.
bloodtalon 07-02-07, 02:38 PM	for my group it si about 5 or 6 is best had 14 before and it took forever for them to even decide where to go half wanted to go left the ther half right stuff like that best way to go about it is just see if it works for you
Toloran 07-02-07, 02:40 PM	I personally believe that 5 players is ideal primarilly since it allows "secondary" classes like bards to play how they want without having to shoehorn themselves into a missing role (like skill monkey or arcane caster usually).
OravennasBrother 07-02-07, 02:51 PM	5 Players is not too much, but two PC's in a group where there are four players can be problematic. It rests on the ability of the PLAYER to distinguish between the two and to realize that everyone at the table needs their fair share of DM attention; just because 1 layer has two characters does not entitle them to twice the play time. That player must ensure they are always ready to act on the run of whichever character comes up and that they do not "double up" on RP time. Probably best to let one character or the other slide into NPC obscurity.
Drag0nUL 07-02-07, 02:57 PM	I for one believe that the ideal number of players is 6. If you play in 4, each players is restricted to fulfilling one of the 4 primary roles (not impossible but very hard to do otherwise). A fifth player adds some liberty to the game while adding to extra players makes the game much more open to 'multi-role' builds. The most stable group I play in, consisting of 6 players, tend to build characters in such a way that any given role is fulfilled by a concentrated effort, rather than a single character (we have no uber tank, healer or blaster, but rather multiple characters that can perform each task, and several others reasonably well) and I think this gives more freedom to character concepts.
danielinthewolvesden 07-02-07, 03:03 PM	I have played with up to 8. 6 or 6 is about right. You should drop one of your PC's, however.
Jewelprotector 07-02-07, 03:13 PM	How good is your DM? By that, I mean does he work to allow everybody's characters a chance to shine? Right now we've got 7 players, with 7 PCs. Although we all have our share of downtime, we all get a chance to do cool stuff, too. I don't honestly know why you'd want to run two PCs at once...the bookkeeping alone is a pain. I'd probably let one "fade away", but there's no inherent problem if you and your DM are both OK with it.
Meems 07-02-07, 03:53 PM	My group has six players, plus whoever's DMing. We get along fine, but as a DM I wouldn't want any more than 6 players. I do think that you should maybe consider dropping one of your characters, however. With 4 players, nobody actually needs to double up.
Psychoticpsymon 07-02-07, 03:58 PM	LOL! Without reading anything about the thread and seeing the title, I'm going to say this: 10 pc's are too much. Believe me. (Sometimes, 4 can be too much too!)
Zandolit 07-02-07, 04:14 PM	I think how many PCs is the right number in terms of group dynamic (not talking game balance here) depends more on the individuals involved than just the number alone. I was in one group that started to run dramatically more smoothly when we shifted down from six to five. In that case, though, the player we lost tended to be showboat-y and demand quite a bit of attention from the DM and the other players. In another game (steampunk,) adding a fifth player complicated things, and the group felt tighter with four. In yet another, we played d20 Modern with a character representing each type of hero (Smart, Strong, Fast, etc.) and it went very smoothly with six. It really depends on the people involved. Well, within reason, of course. A group of 20 probably won't work even if they're all cooperative and helpful. I don't think that in an average sized group there's one set number you absolutely must have, or even that would be ideal. I'd tend to think anywhere between 4 and 6 works fine (and maybe even beyond that,) depending on the people playing, how much attention they demand, and how well the characters work together. I think that last part is really important. A solid team of six that really works together and functions as a cohesive group will run more smoothly than four random individuals with their own agendas who don't work well together. More group dynamic than pure numbers.
Reath 07-02-07, 04:21 PM	Well you see i control 2 PC's for a reason. No offense to my fellow players but they arent the brightest of the bunch. ill give you a scenario for example. I was gone so the 2 others played a quick campaign without me. The rouge walked straight up to a trap and opened it, didnt check for traps or nothing. The floor opened up and he fell straight down a 5 foot chute. He landed in a Gelotnious cube, and became paralyzed. The other player then continued to send our barbarian(who knows spider climb) down the chute to fish the rouge out. He had the barbarian stick his hand into the Gelotnious cube, need i say more, he became stuck and now both were stuck. I myself am more of a fighter, so i am the paladin, but no one is smart enough to control the sorcerrer as well as i could so i control it. I have no problem controling 2 characters, i have done it before.
RainerNader 07-02-07, 04:25 PM	Well you see i control 2 PC's for a reason. No offense to my fellow players but they arent the brightest of the bunch. ill give you a scenario for example. I was gone so the 2 others played a quick campaign without me. Well, isn't that a factor of you not being there than needing two PCs? All you need to is say, "hey rogue, don't touch that handle before you check for traps!" or "don't go down there yet!"
aotrscommander 07-02-07, 06:30 PM	I find 6 to be the optimal number of characters in a group; you can fill all the roles and have some spare room for other things. When I read 3.0 first I was utterly mystified as to why they'd only used foru PCs as the base for balancing, because it seemed so totally akien to me! I frequently end up running two (and occasionally more) characters at once (one of our players now spends most of his time in Russia, so I've taken over his characters), dropping them into primary and secondary roles. It's no more hassle - frequently less, actually - that running some of the combats I do as DM. So I volenteer as a matter of course to run other characters when people are away and so on.
solbergb 07-02-07, 06:36 PM	You might be interested to know that back in the olden days of 1st edition, 6 person parties were normal. I suspect one reason they moved to a 4 person party is that it is hard for groups of 7 adults to do much of anything schedulewise, whereas it's generally possible to get a bridge table (4 people) or poker party (~5 people) together. In 3.5, encounters are tiered to a 4 person party, so if you go to 6 people you can take a page from the RPGA book and assume the party is one level higher than its actual average level. I've seen that rule of thumb used often enough that it pretty much works. 5 person party falls in the middle. You will be much more resilient than a four person party if somebody drops (less chance a key role is gone) and of course you have an extra action pool and hitpoint pool to draw from. Actions are precious. 5 is better than 4. 5 works fine, but if one isn't weaker than the party (as is the case with animal companions, paladin mount and cohorts in general) the DM will likely have to slightly increase the challenges to keep the party on its toes.
danielinthewolvesden 07-02-07, 07:52 PM	Well you see i control 2 PC's for a reason. No offense to my fellow players but they arent the brightest of the bunch.. I have no problem controling 2 characters, i have done it before. Does not matter. The game is supposed to be fun and taking more than your share of the spotlight (esp as you will be doing almost all the damage which is the real fun part) lessens the fun for others. Be fair to the others and play only one PC. Oh and use the spellcheck, OK? So we can read your posts better, eh?
Mr_Crepsley 07-04-07, 01:55 PM	Perhaps I can clarify, as I am the DM of this group. It is his own fault for habing to control two characters because he wants the best of both worlds. He is pretty much the best at playing an acrane spellcaster, and wanted to anyway. He also wanted to play a paladin, because nobody else wanted to play the 'melee powerhouse' the two other characters being a Cleric and a Rogue/Assassin. So he pretty much has the best of both worlds without playing a gestalt character, however the other players are fine with this so I allow it.
danielinthewolvesden 07-04-07, 04:27 PM	So he pretty much has the best of both worlds without playing a gestalt character, however the other players are fine with this so I allow it. They are new, and don't know better. You are reducing their fun, so STOP IT.
Mr_Crepsley 07-04-07, 04:38 PM	No, they are not new. We have all been playing for about a year, not counting the bard. We all started playing at the same time, with each-other. I do not see how I am taking away from their fun. They do not have a problem with it because I am allowing them all to play the exact characters that they want to. The rogue/assassin always plays that type of character, but by choice. I suggested he try a new type of character, but he didn't want to, so I did not push it. The Cleric does not care what type of character he plays as. As for the Bard, he couldn't be happier. He has great stats and loves his character. The OP plays two characters because he enjoys melee characters, but recognizes the need for an arcane spell-caster.
CCS 07-04-07, 08:16 PM	I don't see anything wrong with 5+ characters. Others can ( & may yet) write you pages upon pages trying to prove how the rules are balanced for only 4 etc, but if you're comfortable with 5+, who cares. The only real issue here might be that you're running 2 characters vrs their 1.
CryoSilver 07-04-07, 08:19 PM	3-5 is a good range.
Dontgothere 07-04-07, 08:22 PM	No. I once had 10 PCs in one of the games I was running. Let me see if I can find that other thread where I was talking about this...as soon as I get it I will post the link here.
Dontgothere 07-04-07, 08:24 PM	Here ya go: Click Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=877958)
Karish 07-04-07, 08:25 PM	The most I go with is 8: 1. Melee Heavy Fighter 2. Melee Quick Fighter 3. Ranged Fighter 4. Stealth/Security Expert 5. Blaster Mage 6. Tactical Mage (Non-damage spells, useful in and out of combat) 7. Healer/Buffer 8. Public Relations/Charisma Master In most situations you're able to fill these all with 4-6 characters. But if you all want to pick one and use it, 8 is the most I can see being useful.
Kaius_Markades 07-04-07, 11:56 PM	Come on people, the question here isn't "Is playing two characters bad" (Which I don't think it is in this case) It's "Is this too many people for a party?" (Which again, I don't think so.)
GrondGala 07-04-07, 11:57 PM	Getting a first-timer to play a bard? Ick. DM: Your turn Noob. Noob: Woot, ok, what do you think I should do guys? Player1: Sing. You should sing. Noob: Ok, I err.. Sing! Player1: Cool, I hit the thing really hard, power attacking for more because of Noob's song. Take... 40 damage. Noob: What, that's my turn? Player2: Shush. I smite stuff too. Take 34 damage. Player3: I unleash elemental fury, dealing massive amounts of fiery damage to all in a 20' blast radius! TASTE IN MY POWER! DM: Your turn Noob. Noob: Whatcha reckon guys? Player1: Keep singing. Noob: *sigh* Note : I have no idea how to play a Bard. This may or may not have shaded my opinion. I am aware that they are capable of wondrous things. Just thinking a fighter / barb / rogue might be an easier, better choice for a new player.
Roog 07-05-07, 12:21 AM	When we rerolled new characters we came across a dilema. There are three of us, i control 2 PC's whilst the others each control 1.We have a paladin, sorcerrer, cleric, and rouge. Now our other friend wants to play with us. I could let him use one of my 2 characters, but being new to the game he wouldn't be able to use either to their full potential. So we want to let him create a bard for his own character. Are 5 PC's too much? Any player controlling more than one PC can be awkward. Questions: Is he likely to join the group for the long term? How do the other players feel about you using 2 PCs? Are the players really deficient, or are they just having fun with their incompetence? Well you see i control 2 PC's for a reason. No offense to my fellow players but they arent the brightest of the bunch. ... but no one is smart enough to control the sorcerrer as well as i could so i control it. I have no problem controling 2 characters, i have done it before. Simplest solution: 1: Talk to him about what he wants to play. 2: If it is a Fighter type or Magic user, then temporarily retire your corresponding character. 3: Help him design an effective character and then give him some advice on how to play it effectively. 4: Play for a while, giving him a chance to learn things for himself and the other players a chance to play with less backup from you. #edit After reading Mr_Crepsley's last post, I think the only thing I have to say is: @Reath you sound like you needs to relax a bit. Some groups just don't tend to play highly competent parties. Maybe "no one is smart enough to control the sorcerrer as well" (as you), but hey, thats life.
Zandolit 07-05-07, 01:10 AM	Whether or not playing a Bard is fun depends on your play style. They're never going to be the heavy damage dealers, but they can be really fun if you get into the flavour and personality. I don't think whether or not a Bard is a good choice is a new/old player thing, but more a matter of whether any given person thinks it would be fun. I see no reason to discourage a new player from that class if he or she thinks it sounds cool.
GrondGala 07-05-07, 01:18 AM	I agree 100% Zandolit.
Suzaku455 07-05-07, 11:16 AM	I enjoyed playing bard the one session I tried in a one shot campaign, but then again I could've been hogging the spot light. Nevertheless I think 5 is the best because it allows someone to be absent for whatever reason and still be balanced.
Khazan 07-05-07, 09:20 PM	Our current group has 7 and sometimes 8 players...sometimes i wish the group was a bit smaller, since people tend to lose focus sometimes, and the possibility for OOC chatter and distraction gets pretty high. But everyone arranges their schedules nearly every week in order to play, and that kind of enthusiasm is kind of cool, when you think about it, especially since we're all over the age of 30 now and have those nagging, "grown-up" responsibilities. ;) But, yeh, I would agree that 6 seems to be the best maximum number of characters.
Phrennzy 07-06-07, 10:39 AM	While I am of the opinion that each player should have only 1 PC, if the group is going well, having one guy play 2 PCs is no big deal. (Although his reasons for doing so made me laugh) 5 PCs is fine. If the DM thinks the party is rolling over encounters, toss another monster in with the next group. Its pretty easy to adjust to fit the group. A bard for a new player is an odd choice - I would think a fighter would be easier just to get the mechanics down.
Drag0nUL 07-06-07, 11:08 AM	I for one hate playing bards. They just are not my type. Actually I hate bards so much that in my D&D group most people think I'd rather kill myself than play a bard (not entirely true; I endured 2 full levels of bard (5-7) for a bard/swordsage/sublime chord/JPM). However, I have seen people playing great (both effective and flavorful) bards. I just can't/won't do it. I must agree that playing a bard is a suboptimal choice for a beginner. Bard is a support class and, well, in order to support somebody you have to have at least a basic understanding of what that particular character can/can't do well (you cast bull's strength on the fighter and fox's cunning on the wizard, not the other way around :) ).
Zandolit 07-06-07, 02:01 PM	In my experience, playing a Bard is hardly rocket science. I mean, sure, it's a bit more complicated than Fighter to set up initially, but I don't think it's so prohibitive or counterintuitive that a reasonably intelligent beginner couldn't figure it out after reading over the rules. Most of the spell stuff is a combination of reading and common sense. If a player isn't capable of those things they should avoid a Bard... but in that case they're probably playing the wrong game anyway. Playing something like a Fighter may involve less reading, but no less common sense. Of course, I may be biased because I played a (divine) spell caster as my first character. It was a bit of reading and had a learning curve, but I didn't find it difficult beyond my mental powers, and the character was pretty effective. I think we need to give new players a bit of credit, at least till they prove they don't deserve it. ;)
solbergb 07-06-07, 03:38 PM	actually a bard is probably the easiest character to run if the player can stand some boredom because the first two actions of every combat are pretty much the same #1 haste the party #2 inspire courage with #3 being either cast a debuff or inspire greatness on somebody hurt (before level 7, #1 is inspire courage, #2 is cast a debuff) By the time the bard gets to do anything else, the fight is mostly over, and he can do whatever he likes
esteigs 07-23-07, 04:15 PM	Currently i'm in a group with 9. it gets a bit crowded/hectic/slow, but it still works. kinda.
danielinthewolvesden 07-23-07, 10:44 PM	While I am of the opinion that each player should have only 1 PC, if the group is going well, having one guy play 2 PCs is no big deal. (Although his reasons for doing so made me laugh) A bard for a new player is an odd choice - I would think a fighter would be easier just to get the mechanics down. Yes, let the new guy run the fighter, and if our OP needs must run two PC. let one of THEM be the support PC.
GunsNRoses 07-24-07, 12:32 AM	well, i usually play with 3 or 4 people, cause its all we can get in my town but once, at camp, i DMed for 12 people all but 4 were utter noobs it was crazy, until half of them left after my somewhat graphic and brutal discriptions of our surrounding we were playing a horror campaign :D
steven3x 07-24-07, 08:18 AM	Not only is 4-5 characters ideal, rather than a problem, but having that 5th character being a versatile specialty class like the Bard makes it all the better. Plus your party is effectively 1 Strength-based, 1 Wisdom-based, 1-Dexterity-based, 1 Intelligence-based (I prefer the Mage/Wizard to the Sorcerer... just because I be olde skool... lol), and 1 Charisma-based! You have a phenomenally well balanced campaign there! :pint: I have to agree with previous posters about one player playing two characters as not being such a great idea, unless all players are (in a particularly small group). The work around for that would be for the DM to have some fun playing a party PC.
TheDungeonKeeper 07-24-07, 09:59 AM	When we rerolled new characters we came across a dilema. There are three of us, i control 2 PC's whilst the others each control 1.We have a paladin, sorcerrer, cleric, and rouge. Now our other friend wants to play with us. I could let him use one of my 2 characters, but being new to the game he wouldn't be able to use either to their full potential. So we want to let him create a bard for his own character. Are 5 PC's too much? Your input is greatly appreciated ANSWER: I think that 2 pcs for one player can get very annoying and ruins a lot of the dungeons and dragons experience unless your playing by yourself. It is even worse if other people are playing and they only get one character. That gives you too much of an advantage in any respect, makes it very difficult for you to play your characters. But to answer your question, if a player has two characters, all players should have two characters, and no, if you have 5 players, 5 pcs arent too much. But it is up to the DM. You should really consider switching off between your characters or getting rid of one. It is almost always more fun to make your own character than use an already played one,.
Phaseroth 07-24-07, 10:59 PM	My regular party currently features 7 PCs: 2 fighters, barbarian, druid, wizard, rogue, and bard. The combination of our DM and this group of players makes that too many PCs, in my opinion. Why? 1) I believe the size of the party, especially with three melee specialists, encourages overconfidence, and overconfidence leads to unsound tactical thinking (aka stupidity). 2) The size of the party leads to a watered-down XP pool, which leads to slower leveling, which leads to the effective party level rapidly falling behind the encounter levels (*see note below). 3) The size of the party means that each PC receives a smaller share of treasure, which leads to under-equipped characters (*see note below) *The note below: This is why I said the DM is part of the problem. Our DM uses published adventures because he doesn't have time to create his own. The published adventures are tailored to parties of four, and the DM doesn't adjust the encounter levels/XP or the treasure to compensate for the larger party. Also, he apparently purchases adventures, well in advance, based on the character levels it's designed for, meaning that he'll follow up an adventure "for characters of 4th to 8th level" with an adventure "for characters of 9th to 12th level". So, if we've somehow managed to survive and finish the 4th-8th level adventure, he'll jump right into the 9th-12th level adventure regardless of whether we're ready for EL 9 encounters or not (we probably finished the previous adventure with a mix of 5th, 6th, & 7th-level characters, due to a combination of low XP and character deaths leading to level loss). Also, every group of opponents, even those who have never seen the PCs before, seem to have advance knowledge of the party composition and capabilities and uses tactics custom-tailored to defeat our particular party (which is another way of saying that the DM is metagaming). Sure, the DM is liberal with having the clerics in grateful towns hand out free raise dead spells, but that still means level loss. And once he's killed you a couple times, you're way behind. (But I'll admit I'm whining a bit because he killed my wizard who was less than 500 XP away from 9th level - the XP from that encounter would have boosted my wiz to 9th if he had survived. Instead, my wiz got busted all the way back to 24,500 XP, halfway between 7th and 8th level.) How did my (human) wizard die? See point #1 above. The fighters and barbarian had gone charging across the field of battle to engage the advancing enemies (instead of letting the casters soften the enemy up with artillery first), and the druid was in the air in the form of a giant eagle. All of them were more than 100 feet away from me, leaving me with only the whisper gnome rogue to defend me when the green dragon landed right behind me, blasted me with acid, and then coup de graced me.
starfire311 07-24-07, 11:19 PM	5 PCs is fine. If the DM thinks the party is rolling over encounters, toss another monster in with the next group. Its pretty easy to adjust to fit the group. While I am of the opinion that each player should have only 1 PC, if the group is going well, having one guy play 2 PCs is no big deal. (Although his reasons for doing so made me laugh) A bard for a new player is an odd choice - I would think a fighter would be easier just to get the mechanics down. lol, same here, his reason is basically, I get to play 2 because I am better and I thus, I am more important than my stupid friends. and 1 more thing No, they are not new. We have all been playing for about a year, not counting the bard. We all started playing at the same time, with each-other you are all new, if you have only been playing a year you are actually quite new to the game, and most-likly still have quite a bit to learn, I doubt having a player in a new group, play 2 characters is a great idea... but as long as you are all having fun go for it. I just gerneally find it quite awkward as a player when I am forced to RP with myself, and it gets confusing if something would happen that would force my charactres to conflict morally. man I am on a rolll... one last thing, you dont need to have a wizard or a melee power house in every group, it may take some more creative playing to get around, but doing without one or even both is quite possible, and offers some fun and interesting challenges.
danielinthewolvesden 07-25-07, 01:50 AM	My regular party currently features 7 PCs: 2 fighters, barbarian, druid, wizard, rogue, and bard. The combination of our DM and this group of players makes that too many PCs, in my opinion. Why? I think you should take this interesting rant and post it as a separate thread. :tiphat: Invite your DM to join in. It will be fun.:evillaugh
Phaseroth 07-25-07, 06:43 PM	I think you should take this interesting rant and post it as a separate thread. :tiphat: Invite your DM to join in. It will be fun.:evillaugh Consider it done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=893425). But I'm not inviting my DM ;)
Rederik 07-26-07, 11:04 AM	I know the orignal poster's question is whether 5 PC's are too much and the consnesus is "no". But the I will jump on the playing 2 PC bandwagon. As a DM, I hate roleplaying with my self (ie, showing a conversation between 2 NPC's) To OP: Now that your party has four players, why play 2 characters? Pick your favorite, let the other one slide back and really get into the one character. Also, like others have said, you're playing the Paladin (tank, damage dealer) and the arcane spellcaster (cool magic-y blow stuff up). You really are eating up alot of the spotlight. I am not judging the you. Just concentrate on one character and have fun with it.