Worried, 3 man group. - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Worried, 3 man group.

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
disciple_of_juiblex
Jan 04, 2010 17:06:24 Hello all.

Im posting becuse two peaple in our group are dropping out for a bit. So now our group is going down to 3 players/1 dm. This is the smallest group of fourth edition that we have done, and before we had 6 peaple and it stabilized around 5 peaple.

One person is playing an unoptimized wizard. They have their heart set on it for awhile and that is 100% the option they are going to do. They are bringing in another player, who will be somewhat new and might go meele striker. it was mentioned that he had played a warlord for a short time but liked going into meele himself. He might or might not be built well.

I build optomized characters and use a large amount of tactics. I was planning on going Ranged weapon Artificer but with the sudden withdrawl of the other person i was thinking on using my back-up character, an Assult Swordmage.

However we have been warned by the new dm (She has played with the group since its inception almost a year ago but has never dmed before) that dragons will play a LARGE part of the story and antagonists.

So should i stick with the Artificer or go Swordmage. Before it was showed with a group of 6 two leaders where nessessary for tough encounters, and facing dragons, even weakend, worries me. two frail ranged characters in a three man party or a 3 man without a leader both make me worried how we could handle tough encounters.
#2
ian.thomson
Jan 04, 2010 19:01:31
I'd recommend some sort of healing type, Artificer comes closest. I've played in a 2-man group consisting of a paladin (me) and a wizard, and we did pretty well. I'd run out shouting divine challenges and saving the heals for me; the wizard would blow up stuff.
#3
PrimeSonic
Jan 04, 2010 19:16:33 General rules on how to adjust encounters when a role is missing:

No Controller > Less Minions

No Defender > Less Soldiers

No Strikers > Less Brutes

No Leader > Less Artillery/Lurkers

The group will probably need to rebalance themselves, probably taking a multiclass feat or something to make up for a lost role in the party.

In my experience, 3 players is just fine and completely doable. Thanks to role bleed, each player can effectively cover two roles.

My last 3 man group was like this:

Paladin: Leader/Defender
Barbarian: Striker/Defender
Druid: Controller/Striker

With just us three, we managed to handle some pretty tough encounters. I'd say give the players a chance to rearrange their powers and a feat or two so they can get the new, reduced group to work well together.
#4
ordrus
Jan 04, 2010 21:33:42 While I've only DMed a couple sessions with less than 4 people. For the most part they worked well as long as they can keep their damage output up.

One thing I'd suggest is using companion characters. There's a section in the DMG 2 about it. It's basically like making a new pc but they get a very limited amount of powers and little else. It helps fill in a role or two for a lacking party.

Other than that I'm not too sure what else you can do.
#5
cerestus
Jan 05, 2010 9:10:17 Three people should work just fine if the DM adjusts for it. I'd probably make sure you have a defender if you are looking to pick up some of the optimization slack. A fighter with deft hurler would be perfect.

If you really want to be a swordmage and you really believe that there will be lots of flying enemies, I might consider an ensnaring one. Of the three swordmage builds, I'd be least likely to try assault here.
#6
brassbaboon
Jan 05, 2010 22:42:03 We use a rogue to balance out our party, the rogue is rolled up using monster manual rules, so he's real easy to play. We rotate playing him so every session one player is playing two characters. But as I said, he's real easy to play. He has a few at will powers and like two encounter and one daily powers, that's all. He doesn't excel, but he fills the gap very well.
#7
Neutronium_Dragon
Jan 06, 2010 0:19:05 It would help if you knew what the 'melee striker' was to be since there are so many variations on that and they bring different things to the table. It isn't even necessary to play a striker to have a powerful melee presence - many defenders do too (like the MC Hammer fighter).

You probably won't go wrong playing a melee character of your own, though this is more to do with the observation that a party is generally best off if there are as many or more melee characters than ranged ones (and the wizard is the latter).

Beyond that, the DM will need to adjust things to accommodate the low number of PCs, as some others have suggested. (I'd add the observation that the lack of a leader PC can also make many controller enemies a problem.)
#8
roningarou
Jan 06, 2010 4:09:20 Three players is more than doable in 4th Edition. My current party consists of three PC's: Changeling Swordmage, Revenant Sorcerer and a Razorclaw Shifter Seeker. The trick is to know what kind of encounters are hard for your group composition, and which are not.

As PrimeSonic stated above, leaving out certain kinds of monsters when a certain Role is lacking is one thing to do. You might think Minions can't harm a party, but a group of PC's that does not have any Controller-like abilities can easily be swarmed and flanked by a hand full of of these little creeps. Same goes for the other monster types.

Furthermore, don't be afraid to play to the party's weaknesses and strengths. You want to give a party with some very high Damage-per-round a fight to show off? Throw in some low HP, low Defenses monsters that can be nuked away pretty easily. On the contrary, see your heroes' hit points wither away like classical vampires in sunlight when they face a pretty perfect monster composition backed up by some healers, when they themselves did not bother to bring a Leader.

A practical example is my own party. The Swordmage is a Defender, but has some Striker-like features and with his Greenflame at-will he is pretty good in cleaning up Minions. Same goes for the Sorcerer: his Chaos Bolt is the bane of everything with a single hit point. The Seeker is a natural Controller, and makes sure that nothing swamps the party. Thus, I know that Minions are not a single problem for them. However, everything with some good Defenses and enough HP to get close to a PC is feared by them, and in some fights I abuse that just to show that the PC's are no immortals (not yet, they've just reached 4th level).

Should you notice that your party just doesn't deliver anything in any situation, consider brassbaboon's tip: give 'em a sidekick. Some might frown upon this idea, but if it contributes to the fun you're having, why not? ;)
#9
disciple_of_juiblex
Jan 06, 2010 10:31:00 hmm, thanks for the responses all.

We are taking a week off so hopefully we can get another member, the dm wants to run with atleast 4 characters if possible. If thats not possible i will try to duggest getting a melee sideckick to round out the party.
#10
erleni
Jan 06, 2010 17:20:47 I've been playing quite a while in a 3-characters group and we work fine. The group is very unbalanced (barbarian, assassin and hybrid shaman/druid) but we managed to survive so far.
The main difficulty we encountered so far are monsters who can disable one (or more) of your party members with stun/dominate/whatever. Losing one party member can be devastating so try to optimize a little your ways to make saving throws against these kind of effects. A single succubus can be devastating for a 3-character party (one kissed and possibly one dominated...).
#11
vestax
Jan 06, 2010 22:25:40 I would suggest a paladin since you are missing the role of defender / leader. You can build a paladin who is WIS / CHA based so he will have a large number of lay on hands per day and still be able to carry out his role as primary defender pretty well.
#12
deliverance
Jan 07, 2010 6:41:09 I'm running a 3 man group, and so far it has worked fine. The group consists of a Dwarf Fighter, Human Wizard and Human Rogue. Just adjust the encounter appropriately and you will be fine.
#13
absimiliard
Jan 08, 2010 15:08:53 I've run 2-5 player sessions in my current campaign.

I find 2 is a little low, but it's do-able. It tends to be a bit restrictive in what I can throw at them though, and that makes encounter-building a bit tough. On the other hand the fights go REALLY quickly and two people can RP through a lot of story pretty quick too.

Three players works pretty darn well. It's just enough more that fights can be more interesting tactically. Yet it's still a small enough group that you get a lot done, and fight go pretty fast as well.

Four to five players is my preferred group. Lot's of flexibility in encounter-building. And while fights aren't any faster they're tolerable. RP moves along reasonably well with 4-5 also.

6+ players is inferior to everything else. I'd far rather run, or play in, a game with two players only than in a 6+ group. You have too much flexibility in encounter design and can get tempted to throw bigger monsters at the party than you should, and combats last F*%^!&**!!! FOREVER. Seriously not good in this edition.

That said, if your DM isn't willing to modify encounters, like if they're new-ish and running out of a stock module, three is probably too few. Four does okay in that circumstance if they work together and are reasonably well built. But three's just too few. I would dread Keep on the Shadowfell with just three players and a "I don't modify the module" DM, in fact I think I wouldn't play it at all.

My $.02.

-abs
#14
Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi
Jan 21, 2010 17:55:17

I'd recommend some sort of healing type, Artificer comes closest. I've played in a 2-man group consisting of a paladin (me) and a wizard, and we did pretty well. I'd run out shouting divine challenges and saving the heals for me; the wizard would blow up stuff.

I'd recommend artifcer, summoning build. A few of the constructs you summon have a marking mechanic, and another deals extra damage against marked enemies. Handy, and it lets you slightly cover for the missing defender. If you have enough free feats, take defensive minions, arcane initiate, and careful summoner. Your summoned creatures will have +3 to all defenses, allowing them to stick around longer for defending/absorbing hits. And toughness is a must in such a build, as it helps you survive and helps your minions survive. Keep a decent wisdom, as the construct that deals extra damage against marked creatures works off of Wis.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 disciple_of_juiblex Jan 04, 2010 17:06:24	Hello all. Im posting becuse two peaple in our group are dropping out for a bit. So now our group is going down to 3 players/1 dm. This is the smallest group of fourth edition that we have done, and before we had 6 peaple and it stabilized around 5 peaple. One person is playing an unoptimized wizard. They have their heart set on it for awhile and that is 100% the option they are going to do. They are bringing in another player, who will be somewhat new and might go meele striker. it was mentioned that he had played a warlord for a short time but liked going into meele himself. He might or might not be built well. I build optomized characters and use a large amount of tactics. I was planning on going Ranged weapon Artificer but with the sudden withdrawl of the other person i was thinking on using my back-up character, an Assult Swordmage. However we have been warned by the new dm (She has played with the group since its inception almost a year ago but has never dmed before) that dragons will play a LARGE part of the story and antagonists. So should i stick with the Artificer or go Swordmage. Before it was showed with a group of 6 two leaders where nessessary for tough encounters, and facing dragons, even weakend, worries me. two frail ranged characters in a three man party or a 3 man without a leader both make me worried how we could handle tough encounters.
#2 ian.thomson Jan 04, 2010 19:01:31	I'd recommend some sort of healing type, Artificer comes closest. I've played in a 2-man group consisting of a paladin (me) and a wizard, and we did pretty well. I'd run out shouting divine challenges and saving the heals for me; the wizard would blow up stuff.
#3 PrimeSonic Jan 04, 2010 19:16:33	General rules on how to adjust encounters when a role is missing: No Controller > Less Minions No Defender > Less Soldiers No Strikers > Less Brutes No Leader > Less Artillery/Lurkers The group will probably need to rebalance themselves, probably taking a multiclass feat or something to make up for a lost role in the party. In my experience, 3 players is just fine and completely doable. Thanks to role bleed, each player can effectively cover two roles. My last 3 man group was like this: Paladin: Leader/Defender Barbarian: Striker/Defender Druid: Controller/Striker With just us three, we managed to handle some pretty tough encounters. I'd say give the players a chance to rearrange their powers and a feat or two so they can get the new, reduced group to work well together.
#4 ordrus Jan 04, 2010 21:33:42	While I've only DMed a couple sessions with less than 4 people. For the most part they worked well as long as they can keep their damage output up. One thing I'd suggest is using companion characters. There's a section in the DMG 2 about it. It's basically like making a new pc but they get a very limited amount of powers and little else. It helps fill in a role or two for a lacking party. Other than that I'm not too sure what else you can do.
#5 cerestus Jan 05, 2010 9:10:17	Three people should work just fine if the DM adjusts for it. I'd probably make sure you have a defender if you are looking to pick up some of the optimization slack. A fighter with deft hurler would be perfect. If you really want to be a swordmage and you really believe that there will be lots of flying enemies, I might consider an ensnaring one. Of the three swordmage builds, I'd be least likely to try assault here.
#6 brassbaboon Jan 05, 2010 22:42:03	We use a rogue to balance out our party, the rogue is rolled up using monster manual rules, so he's real easy to play. We rotate playing him so every session one player is playing two characters. But as I said, he's real easy to play. He has a few at will powers and like two encounter and one daily powers, that's all. He doesn't excel, but he fills the gap very well.
#7 Neutronium_Dragon Jan 06, 2010 0:19:05	It would help if you knew what the 'melee striker' was to be since there are so many variations on that and they bring different things to the table. It isn't even necessary to play a striker to have a powerful melee presence - many defenders do too (like the MC Hammer fighter). You probably won't go wrong playing a melee character of your own, though this is more to do with the observation that a party is generally best off if there are as many or more melee characters than ranged ones (and the wizard is the latter). Beyond that, the DM will need to adjust things to accommodate the low number of PCs, as some others have suggested. (I'd add the observation that the lack of a leader PC can also make many controller enemies a problem.)
#8 roningarou Jan 06, 2010 4:09:20	Three players is more than doable in 4th Edition. My current party consists of three PC's: Changeling Swordmage, Revenant Sorcerer and a Razorclaw Shifter Seeker. The trick is to know what kind of encounters are hard for your group composition, and which are not. As PrimeSonic stated above, leaving out certain kinds of monsters when a certain Role is lacking is one thing to do. You might think Minions can't harm a party, but a group of PC's that does not have any Controller-like abilities can easily be swarmed and flanked by a hand full of of these little creeps. Same goes for the other monster types. Furthermore, don't be afraid to play to the party's weaknesses and strengths. You want to give a party with some very high Damage-per-round a fight to show off? Throw in some low HP, low Defenses monsters that can be nuked away pretty easily. On the contrary, see your heroes' hit points wither away like classical vampires in sunlight when they face a pretty perfect monster composition backed up by some healers, when they themselves did not bother to bring a Leader. A practical example is my own party. The Swordmage is a Defender, but has some Striker-like features and with his Greenflame at-will he is pretty good in cleaning up Minions. Same goes for the Sorcerer: his Chaos Bolt is the bane of everything with a single hit point. The Seeker is a natural Controller, and makes sure that nothing swamps the party. Thus, I know that Minions are not a single problem for them. However, everything with some good Defenses and enough HP to get close to a PC is feared by them, and in some fights I abuse that just to show that the PC's are no immortals (not yet, they've just reached 4th level). Should you notice that your party just doesn't deliver anything in any situation, consider brassbaboon's tip: give 'em a sidekick. Some might frown upon this idea, but if it contributes to the fun you're having, why not? ;)
#9 disciple_of_juiblex Jan 06, 2010 10:31:00	hmm, thanks for the responses all. We are taking a week off so hopefully we can get another member, the dm wants to run with atleast 4 characters if possible. If thats not possible i will try to duggest getting a melee sideckick to round out the party.
#10 erleni Jan 06, 2010 17:20:47	I've been playing quite a while in a 3-characters group and we work fine. The group is very unbalanced (barbarian, assassin and hybrid shaman/druid) but we managed to survive so far. The main difficulty we encountered so far are monsters who can disable one (or more) of your party members with stun/dominate/whatever. Losing one party member can be devastating so try to optimize a little your ways to make saving throws against these kind of effects. A single succubus can be devastating for a 3-character party (one kissed and possibly one dominated...).
#11 vestax Jan 06, 2010 22:25:40	I would suggest a paladin since you are missing the role of defender / leader. You can build a paladin who is WIS / CHA based so he will have a large number of lay on hands per day and still be able to carry out his role as primary defender pretty well.
#12 deliverance Jan 07, 2010 6:41:09	I'm running a 3 man group, and so far it has worked fine. The group consists of a Dwarf Fighter, Human Wizard and Human Rogue. Just adjust the encounter appropriately and you will be fine.
#13 absimiliard Jan 08, 2010 15:08:53	I've run 2-5 player sessions in my current campaign. I find 2 is a little low, but it's do-able. It tends to be a bit restrictive in what I can throw at them though, and that makes encounter-building a bit tough. On the other hand the fights go REALLY quickly and two people can RP through a lot of story pretty quick too. Three players works pretty darn well. It's just enough more that fights can be more interesting tactically. Yet it's still a small enough group that you get a lot done, and fight go pretty fast as well. Four to five players is my preferred group. Lot's of flexibility in encounter-building. And while fights aren't any faster they're tolerable. RP moves along reasonably well with 4-5 also. 6+ players is inferior to everything else. I'd far rather run, or play in, a game with two players only than in a 6+ group. You have too much flexibility in encounter design and can get tempted to throw bigger monsters at the party than you should, and combats last F%^!&*!!! FOREVER. Seriously not good in this edition. That said, if your DM isn't willing to modify encounters, like if they're new-ish and running out of a stock module, three is probably too few. Four does okay in that circumstance if they work together and are reasonably well built. But three's just too few. I would dread Keep on the Shadowfell with just three players and a "I don't modify the module" DM, in fact I think I wouldn't play it at all. My $.02. -abs
#14 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jan 21, 2010 17:55:17	I'd recommend some sort of healing type, Artificer comes closest. I've played in a 2-man group consisting of a paladin (me) and a wizard, and we did pretty well. I'd run out shouting divine challenges and saving the heals for me; the wizard would blow up stuff. I'd recommend artifcer, summoning build. A few of the constructs you summon have a marking mechanic, and another deals extra damage against marked enemies. Handy, and it lets you slightly cover for the missing defender. If you have enough free feats, take defensive minions, arcane initiate, and careful summoner. Your summoned creatures will have +3 to all defenses, allowing them to stick around longer for defending/absorbing hits. And toughness is a must in such a build, as it helps you survive and helps your minions survive. Keep a decent wisdom, as the construct that deals extra damage against marked creatures works off of Wis.