The D-team; A discussion on adventuring with no full casters.

[Grimserver]

So lets say your a guardsman (or women, gender equality people), and you've been getting complaints from the local farmers that the nearby long-abandoned orc stronghold is no longer abandoned and its residents aren't being to gracious to their farmer neighbors. Of course since this stronghold falls outside of the city limits its out of your jurisdiction, and since there are no main roads nearby (for obvious reasons) you cant justify sending a patrol to the premise. Despite that, your captain has told you the issue needs to be dealt with, and issues like these need adventures. So off you go inn-hoping looking for some murder hob-- ahem, "adventurers" that you can entice with some gold to go clean that place out. Luck would have it in the last in there are two groups that don't have any quests on at the moment, lets call them the A-team and the D-team.

The A-team consists of what appears to be a wizard, a druid, a cleric, and a barbarian. They look well equipped, well blooded, and looking for adventure. The D-team is equally well equipped, just as blooded, and also looking for adventure, however they are made up of a bard, a ranger, a paladin and a fighter.

It doesn't take a 20 int to figure out that magic beats swords (and even magic swords), and so you go to the A-team. You sit down, buy them some drinks, bring up the quest an-- wait, what? They want how much? I mean, sure being a wizard, druid or cleric takes years of training and dedication but surely-- Why yes you know they could easily take down a dragon but your talking about an orc problem and-- Beneath their pay grade? Why the nerve!

Dejected by the all mighty full casters (the barbarian is just there to look pretty at this point) you realize that in your world full casters of any kind are a rare breed. They may start weak, but given time they can move mountains, destroy cities, call upon the might of angels (sorry BMX bandits) and even create new realities. Beings like that need not dally on orcs when they can loot dragon hords, battle demons and still make afternoon tea time with Iomedae. No, you need someone a little more... human. Someone who will take the dirty jobs and run with them. Someone who at level 10 still thinks an orc camp is worth charging into. You need someone who has made it this far with wits and brawn, not fancy magic. You need (to settle for) the D-team.

><<>><<>><<>><<>><< ;>><<>><<>><<>><<>>&l t;<>><<>><<>><<>><<>& gt;<<>><<>><

Situations like the above probably happen more often than not. After all, not every adventuring party in the realm of pathfinder is as loot hungry, adventure starved, and murder thirsty as player characters (because in real life, you arent getting toasted by a dragon). Likewise, not every party is gracious enough to be blessed not only by a full arcane caster (pick your flavor, I prefer strawberry sorcerer), but also a full divine caster or possibly multiples of either or. These parties likely have a mix of full martial characters (fighters, rogues), recreational casters (ranger/paladin), and partial casters (bard, hunter). With the advent of pathfinder unchained and its changes to monk and rogue in particular I feel like there are no mechanically bad classes left (except for you samurai, you special snowflake you).

So earlier today I was toying around with the idea above. What if you were an adventuring party that only consisted of full martial, recreation and partial casters. The obvious benifit is that mid and late game the fighter is still useful in combat since the cleric isnt summoning angels and the druid isnt roflstomping things as a t-rex. The obvious drawback is that you no longer have the cleric summoning angels and the druid roflstomping as a t-rex when you have to deal with a very magical big bad. Obviously there are other issues here, but this post is already a wall of text and I don't want to make it longer so time for the TL;DR

-What are the benefits of a D-team party
-What are the drawbacks of a D-team party
-How would you deal with regular APL appropriate threats as the D-team.
-If needed, how would you increase the capabilities of the D-team.
-Ideas for your ideal D-team (and for GM's, what would you get the D-team doing in your world)
and finally
-Would you play as the D-team if given the choice between the A-team and the D-team.

BTW personally I love the idea of the D-team. I've always been partial to martial and recreational/partial casters, but they always seem to be outdone by their 9th-level spell casting party-mates mid-game onwards. Would be great to see how a game with the D-team would run.

Let the discussion begin.

[Entryhazard]

Partial casters are often the best designed and well rounded classes.

[Dasrak]

Your D-team is more of a C+ team thanks to the Bard. Replace it with a Rogue.

[Lincoln Hills]

"An extremely powerful character attempts something that is easy for him and, thanks to completely outclassing his enemies, is victorious" isn't even a story by film or literature standards. In fact, it's usually more like a backstory. For the villain.

Fantasy fans love films and books about the underdog. Oddly enough, that love for the little guy tends to disappear when it's time to play an RPG. I keep reading on the boards that "the adversarial relationship of GM vs. players" is old-fashioned and nobody does it, but you wouldn't know it from the way many of us build characters. Seriously, we build and gear as if our GMs were geniuses with migraines. And recent messy divorces. From us.

[CWheezy]

I think you guys have a problem if, say, a volcano is going to be used in a ritual to destroy a continent, and the volcano is 1500 miles away. The A team is like, two spells. The D team is a month of travel?

[Lincoln Hills]

No, the A-team has a problem - because they can do something about it. The D-team's problem would be more along the lines of "Well, time to [help survivors / loot the wreckage]!"

[UnArcaneElection]

Too late at night for me to post a full reply right now, but marking for interest.

But you actually have a full spectrum in between A team and D team, and possibilities for various sideways ranked teams that have certain specialties . . . but that's going to have to wait for a better posting time.

Brief answer for now: For the D team you describe above, they have the disadvantage of not having high level spellcasting to prepare for all sorts of weird things, but they have the advantage that they can keep doing what they do for a longer time (they have somewhat less dependence upon spells), and they are somewhat less vulnerable to their squishiest member (Bard instead of Wizard) getting sniped by an ambush or some other thing that they didn't prepare for.

[wraithstrike]

I have been in a game with no casters. It is a lot more difficult. Even just having one caster can make things a lot easier. I probably won't join another game where that is mandatory unless I feel like playing on hard mode, and then it will depend on when the game is supposed to end.

[Rynjin]

Quote:

-What are the benefits of a D-team party

Generally speaking, given equal levels of skill and optimization, no one character will completely outshine another.

From a GM standpoint, a D-team is also an opportunity to throw "simpler" threats at the party.

"Gasp! The BBEG's fortress is in the middle of the desert! How will we cross 200 miles of sand and heat without dying!" becomes a potential plot at more than incredibly low levels, since the answer is neither "We teleport/Wind Walk/Whatever" or "I cast Create Water and Heroe's Feast let's do this".

Similarly, skill challenges like Climb and Acrobatics stay relevant.

All good things for the game, IMO.

Quote:

-What are the drawbacks of a D-team party

Here's the real rub: Challenges probably need to be toned down. Simple commodities like being able to fly when needed come online much later, if ever (magic items like the Winged Boots are expensive, yo).

The game either takes place in a smaller area, or contains many timeskips of months at a time in some cases, due to a lack of fast traveling.

The entire paradigm of the game shifts without ready access to the kind of magic a Wizard or Cleric can whip out. This is a double edged sword. It makes many simpler plots more viable and fun...but can potentially put more complex (and also potentially fun) plots entirely out of the PC's reach without a plot device.

A Plane hopping expedition, for example.

Quote:

-How would you deal with regular APL appropriate threats as the D-team.

Use of magic items and consumables becomes more commonplace.

Fight a bit more strategically/carefully.

Actually, a good example is this: As the D-team, even at level 10+ you should probably still be approaching encounters the same way you did at level 1 and 2: Cautiously, with an escape route if necessary, and with full understanding that you could very well die here.

Quote:

-If needed, how would you increase the capabilities of the D-team.

A good way to help out a D-team is houserules that abolish the need for "Big 6" items. Or, at the least, the "Big 4" of Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Stat Boosters, and Cloak of Resistance.

This leaves the party with more wealth to pump into things that let them tackle certain encounters. Necklace of Fireballs for Swarms, Winged Boots for flying things (or a good magic bow), that sort of thing.

Quote:

-Ideas for your ideal D-team (and for GM's, what would you get the D-team doing in your world)

Sorta covered above. Simpler, but still interesting plots.

Stuff you wouldn't normally get to do at high levels like a murder mystery, a long dangerous trek, or fighting a group of slavers.

Quote:

-Would you play as the D-team if given the choice between the A-team and the D-team.

Yes. Have, and would again. It's pretty fun. All of my favorite classes are Tier 3-4.

[TriOmegaZero]

I've played in a D-team before. It was kind of a rude awakening to realize it, but looking back, those were the most fun groups.

[Cap. Darling]

I dont undestand the problem. It sounds like a very low level adventure and at level 1-3 what you Call the D-team are not Those that need help.
And higher up 3 full casters and a barbarian will be more powerfull but i dont Think APs look that hard and if what you Call the D-team should be able to handle it if they try.
I would also be happy playing as the D team.

[Bluenose]

Most games in most RPG genres are based around something similar to the D-Team. Some games (and one or two genres) are based around something like the A-Team (Exalted being an example, Superheroes being a genre that can work that way). This works because the GM can adjust the game to take account of the power levels involved and set appropriate challenges, so there's simply no reason to consider the long distance trip a challenge for people who have the ability (whether magical, technological, or even social) to bypass the difficulties. Or they can make a long a difficult trip into the centrepiece of an adventuring session, for characters who haven't got those resources and for whom that trip is really hard. Either way can be a lot of fun, as long as you take account of the different genres that are involved. But it's a lot harder to justify putting the same challenge in front of groups that are playing in a different genre and expecting it to be equally engaging for them.

[Nyaa]

Grimserver wrote:

no full casters

You do realize that's whole three tiers worth of classes, right? Team T3 of magus, bard, warpriest and alchemist is a perfectly viable adventuring party. Team T5 of fighter, rogue, cavalier and swashbuckler not so much.

[SiuoL]

Well. I think it's the GM's job to make sure the D team have enough magical items to be effective like the A team. D team is far more effective against countless encounter in one day than the A team.

The more encounters in one day, the less effective the A team would be. On the other hand, D team effectiveness drop far slower than the A team. I GMed an A team once with tones of ankle bitters again, again and again through out the day. So many died because they were too reliant on the full caster. I throw the same Judgement Day to a D team, no one died at all. I even gave both team same amount of loot in gold, but A team just crumble the moment their full caster got knocked down.

[Michael_Hopkins]

The D Team I believe should consist of:

The Full Martial: Brutal Pugilist/Fighter mix that can have an answer to most physical problems. Items should boost strength and grappling abilities, and a gauntlet that can planar anchor anything it hits.

The Half Martial/Diplo Dude: Bard/Rogue/Alchemist mix or not; Definitely not the full oomph of melee but more of a distance fighter, and something that can use the synergy of the grapple debuffs. He should have quite a few skills and enough knowledge to help find weaknesses for our friends above and below. This character may also be the face, depending on whether the Druid decides to turn into a T Rex.

Divine Friend: Druid/Warpriest one or the other as they can fight in or out of battles while healing and buffing, or debilitating the enemies long enough for things to be moot. While the ROFLSTOMP may be a good idea, what happens when the BBEG pulls off a fun Dominate Monster spell on the grappling anchor beast in the group? Someone needs to make sure that goes away.

Now, if there was a fourth added to the party, as there should be, it would be the bon-a-fide skill monkey. Must have high ranks in UMD as a must, and have a fondness for traps and the like, so Unchained Rogue would be my best bet.

Frankly, I love the D Team, as I am currently playing a variation of the hug fiend (The Full Martial) of my list. Now, to make enough money to enchant my gauntlet to anchor things so they can't Dimension Door out of my grasp.....

[Just a Mort]

I think past lv 7 you start getting problems, d-team is probably better off at low levels.

[mplindustries]

Three out of your four D-team members are spellcasters. I don't really think there's that much of an issue. You'll lack fast travel magic before 13th (Bards get Shadow Walk or whatever it's called), but otherwise it seems fine. For a while, I was a Bard as the only (effective) caster (that didn't learn/prepare awful spells) in my party, and we did great. I used Mnemonic Vestments, UMD, and scrolls of the most important non-Bard utility spells to cover our bases until the wizard rebuilt his character and stepped up to be the utility caster we needed.

Now, if you had four non-casters, that'd be a much different story. I've run games like that--did so for years since in my previous groups, everyone HATED vancian casting (I still do). It also works, you just have to completely ignore CR and judge things yourself.

[GeekSpeaker]

I think it sounds like a wonderful idea. I wouldn't allow some 2/3 casters (bards, Magi) either as they're quite good in their own way.

A party like this has to rely more on cunning than intelligence. They need social skills and clever solutions to problems that can otherwise be solved by "throw magic at it." You might have to give the poor 2 skill-point classes some bonus points (they need it anyway), and avoid some of the more bullsh*t powers that specifically require magic to solve (petrify, some save-or-sucks), but it could definitely be done at low (or even medium) levels.

You might have trouble with a high level game, because creatures become so very magical. But, most people I know like to sit in the 5-11 sweet spot anyway.

[Just a Guess]

I just GMed a game from 1-6 for a group of partial casters. They ripped through most of the adventures.

The setup was:
- Archaeologist bard
- Inquisitor
- Oracle/slayer multiclass (started as full caster but because of multi-classing I considered him just another partial caster.)

I later started the same adventure line with the following setup:
- Warrior (!)
- Ranger archer
- Arcane duellist
- Wizard

The second group had a much harder time from the get go despite being one more.

[bookrat]

Dasrak wrote:

Your D-team is more of a C+ team thanks to the Bard. Replace it with a Rogue.

He said the D-team, not the F-team.

[Zhangar]

The "D-team" would generally be fine (like, assuming competent players who work together, they'd be able to do an AP just fine), and would probably be preferable for those GMs that wished high-level play was just like low-level play.

They'd be more dependent on consumables than I normally care for, but they'd be able to manage.

[kestral287]

-What are the benefits of a D-team party: Fun and flexibility. In terms of fun, it's much harder to outclass the Fighter with an Inquisitor than it is with a Druid. Doable, but it's not nearly as easy as "summon a bunch of stuff, follow them into melee". So the Fighter still has fun.

The D-Team party is also less reliant on SoDs, so fights tend to go longer and be more about tactics and the like.

In terms of flexibility, let's clarify: I'm speaking of tactical flexibility. What you can do in an encounter. In the wider world, nothing trumps the Wizard in strategic flexibility, the sheer breath of things he can do each day. The latter is what the tier system is largely based on, and there's a reason the Wizard is T1.

But with a team of Magus, Warpriest, Bard, Alchemist, you have four different characters who can bounce between front-line and support roles on a whim (to varying degrees of course, but they can all do it). To put it into the Forge model: you have four Hammers/Arms/Anvils, especially at the mid-to-high levels. The Magus can open by using his Lesser Rod of Quicken (held in his Grasping Tail, he's a Tiefling because he's awesome) to cast Haste, then moves into Spell Combat to cast Black Tentacles to lock a zone down and make a full attack. The Warpriest buffs himself up and attacks alongside the Magus, but is carrying some emergency healing and status removal for the party. The Bard begins his song and throws a Hold Person at one foe. And the Alchemist takes his Mutagen and moves into position to deliver AoOs with his longspear.

And in the next battle, they can deploy completely differently. The Bard takes to the front lines while the Alchemist falls back to throw bombs.

Divine full casters can pull off similar setups, but arcane full casters? Nope.

That said, to be totally fair most full martials can't either. But a D-Team party is probably going to include lots of 6th-level casters, as they seem to be a really common set of classes.

-What are the drawbacks of a D-team party

Scope is the big one that's been discussed-- you can't casually bounce between planes or around the world nearly as early. The one that worries me more, though, is a lack of access to the full Cleric list. Sure, a Warpriest learns Remove Blindness/Deafness, but not until long after an enemy full caster could have cast Blindness/Deafness. The Restoration and Resurrection lines make it worse.

-How would you deal with regular APL appropriate threats as the D-team.

Cover my bases. Somebody needs early AoE damage-- so either somebody is learning Burning Hands or we need an Alchemist. Somebody-- ideally two somebodies-- needs UMD, and we'll be investing in some key wands and scrolls; Lesser Restoration and Breath of Life for some examples.

-If needed, how would you increase the capabilities of the D-team.

Assuming you're talking from the GM side? Drop scrolls/wands of the basics. Avoid hammering them with conditions they don't have an out to yet, unless I'm adjusting the entire encounter accordingly. Don't require them to cross five hundred miles in five minutes.

-Ideas for your ideal D-team (and for GM's, what would you get the D-team doing in your world)

Magus/Investigator or Inquisitor/Warpriest or Paladin/Bard or Unchained Summoner. Though the APG Summoner's spell list is a godsend to such parties, it goes against what I would like to see in a D-Team party

-Would you play as the D-team if given the choice between the A-team and the D-team.

I'm in an odd boat here. My table plays gestalt games, so there tends to be room for full casters-- but I've seen the Brawler//Arcanist I GM for throw more punches than he does cast spells, and the same is true for our Barbarian//Druid. At the same time, that player is figuring out when to stab and when to cast, so he can contribute as often as possible. As a Magus//Sorcerer I really try to use both sets of spells as fully as possible, but the Sorcerer list is going to see more use in the long run. That said, I'm definitely integrating both classes due to Spell Combat-- the character fights like a Magus, just one with a lot more spell power.

So, personally I'd go for the A-Team... but at my table, the A Team fights how I'd like to see a good D-Team fight. Lots of flexibility in roles, because that Barbarian//Druid can fall back and cast, or can prepare lots of out of combat spells to support the party. I'll freely admit to bias in this, but I call this sort of table the best of both worlds.

[Imbicatus]

6th level casters and even 4th level casters add a lot of utility to a team, negating the need for full casters.

A Warpriest/Bard/Inquisitor/Alchemist will be more effective at 1-12 than a Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue.

[Atarlost]

Your D team is going to suffer two drawbacks. First, all the really good anvils except the summoner are full casters. The summoner may as well be. Second, the minimum CR for a lot of monster abilities is set based on when the cleric gets the ability to remediate their effects.

If you're homebrewing and are willing to just not use poison or disease or any but the most basic undead or anything that can cause blindness or deafness or any number of other things that take magic to fix or to use them long after their usual sell by date when the slower casters finally gets the spells to make their effects not force retirement you can run for the D team just fine. If you're using a published module you might be able to find one the D team can handle. If you're running a published AP you probably need the A team. Some writer always feels like they need to put in stupid broken legacy monsters for "variety" and unless you're indecently lucky you wind up needing a cleric spell when the cleric gets it.

To solve this problem you need lots and lots of free scrolls and someone who can use them. Or a very fancy custom staff and someone investing heavily into UMD.

The lack of anvil is even harder to surmount mechanically because save DCs matter. The A team owns the battlefield. The D team has to work with what they're given. The best non-summoner 6 level caster for battlefield control is the hunter and he's a sad shadow of a druid.

The only real solution is to let illusions be massively overpowered for their levels. Don't have enemies without spellcraft even try to disbelieve illusions that imitate other spells unless there's a sense missing (eg. a silent image of something that should be noisy or a minor image that should have a pungent odor or any odor against something that has the scent quality). That lets the bard act as an effective anvil. Or a magus that isn't trying to actually fight.

[Bob Bob Bob]

I think you need to put some kind of gradation on the teams. A party of Magus/Warpriest/Bard/Hunter is worlds of difference from a party of Fighter/Rogue/Monk/Cavalier. More like a B-team than... well, whatever the lowest grade is because that last party sucks. Personally, I'd take a party of Barbarian/Magus, Paladin/Warpriest, Bard/Alchemist, and Ranger/Hunter over the A-team for PFS or many of the adventure paths. They all have diverse specialties, broad fields they can cover as a backup, and specialize in killing (which the A-team is usually really bad at, winning always, killing things not so much).

So yeah, just saying "not full casters" means "not the A-team", not automatically "the D team". Because a party of Magus/Warpriest/Bard/Hunter can probably just be treated like a normal party. A party of all Fighters, all Rogues, all Monks, or that Fighter/Rogue/Monk/Cavalier party is going to need... help. Quests specifically tailored to their potential with monsters to match instead of, well, anything the GM feels like throwing at them.

[Joana]

I ran a D-team party through part of Second Darkness. We had a cleric when we started, lost the player, got a new cleric, lost that player, decided we were sick of trying to get new people to show up, and just went with what we had, which was:

a fighter prestige-classed to Chevalier;

a multiclassed rogue/ranger;

a monk;

a bard.

This was before the APG was released, so no archetypes or anything outside of Core.

We ran without a cleric through about half of book 3 and all of book 4, so approximately levels 8 through 11.

To start with, I provided lots of extra consumable healing (let them discover the enemy's hoard of supplies.) It wasn't until the end of the fourth book that I had to start altering the challenges they faced. I switched out monsters with abilities that would require specific magic to counter with ones of the same CR with more mundane abilities.

At the end of book 4, our campaign ended due to one of the players moving away, and I was kind of relieved because I knew it was going to be a lot of work on my part to get them through it. Most high-level encounters assume that the party is going to have magical resources that mine, without a full caster, just didn't.

(I did attempt at one point to add an NPC cleric to the party when they rescued him from the enemy, but one of my players objected to having him join the party long-term, saying I knew what was coming and would make it "too easy" on them by having the right spells prepped.)

[TriOmegaZero]

My team consisted of monk, fighter/rogue, fighter/monk, and warlock.

[Lamontius]

Monk
Brawler
Bard
Magus
Inquisitor
Barbarian

^ My Skull & Shackles group that I GM for, they are at the end of Book 3
if they are D then I would hate to see A

[Rynjin]

Lamontius wrote:

Monk

Brawler
Bard
Magus
Inquisitor
Barbarian

^ My Skull & Shackles group that I GM for, they are at the end of Book 3
if they are D then I would hate to see A

To be fair Skull and Shackles is piss easy even when you have a party of three (the group I ran up through book 2), much less 6.

[Ciaran Barnes]

I GM'd a party with three ranged spell casters and a melee guy once. Most of the battles played out the same way. It was hard to make interesting, challenging combats abc eventually the chemistry got really boring. I have played in an all melee game, and while the battles felt much more cinematic and "wow we survived again somehow", that chemistry also gets old. Putting together a diverse party is the best way to go.

[Ashiel]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

"An extremely powerful character attempts something that is easy for him and, thanks to completely outclassing his enemies, is victorious" isn't even a story by film or literature standards. In fact, it's usually more like a backstory. For the villain.

Fantasy fans love films and books about the underdog. Oddly enough, that love for the little guy tends to disappear when it's time to play an RPG. I keep reading on the boards that "the adversarial relationship of GM vs. players" is old-fashioned and nobody does it, but you wouldn't know it from the way many of us build characters. Seriously, we build and gear as if our GMs were geniuses with migraines. And recent messy divorces. From us.

As you roll your 7th Fortitude save, you have to ask yourself one thing. Was full custody really worth it?

[Grimserver]

I should probably clarify some things. First off the use of D in the D-team has no actual connection to the capabilities of the group I made, since the variety of power and ability is still quite wide even if you remove full casters. I just chose the letter D on a whim cause it sounded nice. Still, feel free to assign anything from B-F team to your groups.

Second, I chose the composition of the D-team to be a weaker mirror of the A-team (wizard>bard, druid>ranger, cleric>paladin, barbarian=fighter) for better comparison. Note that I use "weaker" in the sense of versatility.

Thusfar I see the main draws of the D-team being closer power gap, tactical combat, each player being valuable all the way through and lower grade challenges being viable later in the game. The drawbacks seem to be late game power loss, reliance on consumables, and battlefield control.

I wonder, gestalt was mentioned by Kestral287. Assuming that gestalt was still limited to no full casting, would that alleviate some of the drawbacks of the D-team?

[7thGate]

One of my favorite teams ever was my first 3.0 game, which consisted of a paladin, a ranger/rogue, an arcane archer and a barbarian. The most fun thing about it was that there were a number of challenges that didn't get trivialized by magic that would have been completely bypassed if we had a full caster, like traveling to distant destinations or environmental hazards. Individual fights were fine; martials pump out good damage, after all, its all the non-combat scenarios where they don't have the easy answers that the difference really shows up.

[Rynjin]

Yes and no.

Really, all it results in is a slight options boost. Since no full casters are allowed, the inherent drawbacks (no 7th-9th level spells, condition removal gained at later levels) still remain, though you could cobble together a poor man's Wizard/Cleric/Mystic Theurge via something like Bard/Inquisitor or Magus/Warpriest and function admirably.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Gestalt... wouldn't really fix anything. Weak classes could be gestalted with other weak classes and they'd still be weak. Stronger classes could gestalt to cover their weaknesses to give them more powers... of the same level of power they already could have achieved. A gestalt of warpriest and whatever still only gets 3rd level cleric spells at level 7. Nothing will speed up spell levels.

Now, it's entirely possible to use gestalt to increase a D-team to a B-team. As I said, I consider a Magus/Warpriest/Bard/Hunter a solid B-team, gestalted with whatever classes the players want to play you would probably be fine in normal PFS scenarios (though yes, I'm aware gestalt isn't allowed) and the first four or five books of an AP as-is. The biggest issue is still spell level access (and mostly for condition removal) but it can be somewhat mitigated with consumables.

[Ashiel]

Grimserver wrote:

So earlier today I was toying around with the idea above. What if you were an adventuring party that only consisted of full martial, recreation and partial casters. The obvious benifit is that mid and late game the fighter is still useful in combat since the cleric isnt summoning angels and the druid isnt roflstomping things as a t-rex. The obvious drawback is that you no longer have the cleric summoning angels and the druid roflstomping as a t-rex when you have to deal with a very magical big bad. Obviously there are other issues here, but this post is already a wall of text and I don't want to make it longer so time for the TL;DR

BTW personally I love the idea of the D-team. I've always been partial to martial and recreational/partial casters, but they always seem to be outdone by their 9th-level spell casting party-mates mid-game onwards. Would be great to see how a game with the D-team would run.

Let the discussion begin.

Your projected D-Team is "a bard, a ranger, a paladin and a fighter". Thing is, the only thing bad on this team is the Fighter and he's less bad because of the kind of support he's getting (from the bard and the Paladin in the form of performances + auras + buffs).

Quote:

-What are the benefits of a D-team party

The benefits of the group you're looking at is that they can kill most anything. Generally speaking, there is not very much that resists magic swords and axes for very long. With the Bard, Ranger, and Paladin, you have all of your bases covered in terms of general utility magics (as between them they get spells like delay poison, neutralize poison, resist energy, (lesser) restoration spells, etc). Paladins can resurrect people and don't even need a material component to do so.

Quote:

-What are the drawbacks of a D-team party

The biggest drawback in typical combat is no sweepers. The team will excel at destroying anything that moves but it will take a lot of rounds to destroy lots of things that move. Without things like fireball, dismissal, holy word, undeath to death, circle of death, banishment, wail of the banshee and other excellent sweeping spells, the team has to kill and/or dispatch every enemy manually. This generally means that enemies have more time and ability to ruin the party.

The party also suffers problem solving issues. For example, a lot of level appropriate enemies will very likely just kill your party. For example, catching Mummy Rot could very well be your end unless the Paladin has both disease and curse mercies, whereas a Cleric can easily prepare multiple castings of Remove Curse + Remove Disease and keep trying, without a good healer you're probably dead. Similarly, when an enemy caster plane shifts the Ranger or Fighter to hell, none in the party can do much about it (whereas a cleric could retrieve him, while a wizard could call him back to the plane, etc).

Further, it's very easy to stall the party out with weak enemies (mostly because of their lack of sweeping), which is especially rough in encounters where time is essential. I don't even mean the "hey your GM's plot is rushing you" sense, but in more of the "Hey, you're fighting elementals inside a burning building and suffering heat hazards every round, hurry up and kill or bypass these elementals before you're BBQ" or "Oh look, resetting negative energy traps in a room full of undead" types of time situations, where the combat dragging out leads to your side losing.

In short, if they can't hit it, it's probably out of their league. In virtually any planar adventure the party is going to suffer and any interactions with mixed groups of outsiders is probably going to leave them feeling really sad (a few dretches spreading stinking clouds around making it difficult to attack while a hezrou was tossing chaos hammers and unholy blights into the clouds relentlessly would probably be very frustrating for a group whose mode of operations is "hit it with a stick").

Quote:

-How would you deal with regular APL appropriate threats as the D-team.

Golfbagging and very specific selections of gear and magic items and typically focus-firing on enemies and building very, very defensively. The Bard, Paladin, and Ranger all need to craft lots of items and the Fighter needs to devote the majority of his WBL, feats, and other resources into being less of an achilles heel.

Perhaps the most ideal tools for dealing with level-appropriate adventures is used wands (purchased from towns), crafting lots of Pearls of Power (to keep the Paladin and Ranger's spell slots plentiful), and careful use of certain spells.

Quote:

-If needed, how would you increase the capabilities of the D-team.

Leadership. If that was off the table, see above advice. Build defensively first (the party's offense is great but they can't afford to deal with a lot of common ailments and an errant blindness/deafness could easily be the deathblow in an encounter) and carry lots of wands and oils for solving issues. The bard might as well maximize Use Magic Device because he can and may need it.

If the Fighter dies, let him stay dead. The entire team would be better off without him, as his existence means expending resources on him, whereas his nonexistence means reaping additional XP and treasure which can be funneled into more pearls of power and other utilities that the bard, paladin, and ranger can make use of.

Quote:

-Ideas for your ideal D-team (and for GM's, what would you get the D-team doing in your world)

Drop the fighter, replace with something that isn't a waste of air. Inquisitor or Alchemist seem like good options. Or a skald bard, becards Bard + Skald + Paladin + Ranger would be disgustingly fun.

As a GM...they'd handle the exact same things or die trying. What's the point otherwise? Succeeding through experience and guile is one thing, but it's nothing to write home about if you're playing a special course designed for reject adventurers.

Quote:

-Would you play as the D-team if given the choice between the A-team and the D-team.

Drop the Fighter and we'll talk.

[Purple Dragon Knight]

CWheezy wrote:

I think you guys have a problem if, say, a volcano is going to be used in a ritual to destroy a continent, and the volcano is 1500 miles away. The A team is like, two spells. The D team is a month of travel?

You can't teleport in or close to a volcano... so your 90 year old wizard might have some hiking to do (or at least risk volleys of arrows from the trees on his flight approach)

[Chengar Qordath]

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

I think you guys have a problem if, say, a volcano is going to be used in a ritual to destroy a continent, and the volcano is 1500 miles away. The A team is like, two spells. The D team is a month of travel?

You can't teleport in or close to a volcano...

Why not?

[Zhangar]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

I think you guys have a problem if, say, a volcano is going to be used in a ritual to destroy a continent, and the volcano is 1500 miles away. The A team is like, two spells. The D team is a month of travel?

You can't teleport in or close to a volcano...

Why not?

Teleport wrote:

Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible.

Teleport has a "the GM can tell you nope, doesn't work" clause baked into it.

[PIXIE DUST]

4 summoners...

now you get your 3/4 caster AND still get your angels to boot :P

[kyrt-ryder]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

No, the A-team has a problem - because they can do something about it. The D-team's problem would be more along the lines of "Well, time to [help survivors / loot the wreckage]!"

Well, the D team has a choice.

Sacrifice a week of travel on the gamble of somehow acquiring a scroll of teleport UMD'd by someone in their group...

Or get their hands on the best mounts they can and see how fast they can cover those 1500 miles!

It actually might make for an interesting adventure if handled right [probably best set in a world that doesn't HAVE reliable long distance teleportation.] A race against time for the chance to stop said ritual.

Personally I think I'd just stay put unless the reward was MASSIVE. 1500 miles away is outside my sphere of concern, aka IDGAF

[Chengar Qordath]

Zhangar wrote:

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

I think you guys have a problem if, say, a volcano is going to be used in a ritual to destroy a continent, and the volcano is 1500 miles away. The A team is like, two spells. The D team is a month of travel?

You can't teleport in or close to a volcano...

Why not?

Teleport wrote:

Areas of strong physical or magical energy may make teleportation more hazardous or even impossible.

Teleport has a "the GM can tell you nope, doesn't work" clause baked into it.

Ah, GM Fiat. Fair enough then, though the caster party can still massively cut down on the travel time even if they can't teleport directly to the volcano. Big difference between traveling 1500 miles vs. 15 miles, or even 150.

[wraithstrike]

Well since the D team has been clarified to not be restricted to no casters I would like to run a party of level 6 casters or a combination of level 4's and 6's.
I would also like to try to play in such a a game.

[Endoralis]

I am currently in such a game it is

My Character A Freebooter Ranger/Sensei Kata Master
A Samurai
A Magus
A WarDrummer Skald
A Empiricist Investigator
A First Worlder Summoner
A Hunter
A Sacred Shield Paladin

We are level 4 now..

We have gone against a plethora of things that would kill Even the A team.. And No The GM hasnt gone easy on us.

We've Fought 2 Stone Ropers and a Roper at level 3 as well as an Apex Predator Elder Minotaur, 2 Serpentfolk Fighters.. With Agile Whips! And other such things that would kill a player dead.

We basically have to use oils, scrolls and wands along with massive teamwork to live.

[CWheezy]

If you only have level 6 casters you are still doing pretty well. You have a full caster level for dispel magic, which is pretty important later for dispelling some battlefield stuff. You can eve get greater dispel!
You would be able to complete an ap no problem with a team of alchemist, inquisitor, bard, magus

[Joynt Jezebel]

I am also currently in such a game where we wound up with a D- team. Our party is-

My Character a Master Summoner
A Gunslinger
A War Priest
A Bard

We are level 4 and playing in Curse of the Crimson Throne. Like Endoralis's bunch, we are doing fine and our GM has even upped the power of some of our enemies.

I know its at higher levels that the full casters are missed. But at level 4 the party is good. My master summoner calling up a wall of ghost scorpions to engage the opponents while we shoot them with ranged weapons has proved very effective. It would be better balanced if we traded in our Bard for a wizard or Arcanist, true.

[Leandro 'Verbal' Garvel]

CWheezy wrote:

If you only have level 6 casters you are still doing pretty well. You have a full caster level for dispel magic, which is pretty important later for dispelling some battlefield stuff. You can eve get greater dispel!

You would be able to complete an ap no problem with a team of alchemist, inquisitor, bard, magus

Yeah, I can't help but feel that the 6th level casters are strong enough and versatile enough to be a C team, or maybe a B+ team :P

I've ran almost that exact party class-wise, through Rise of the Runelords, and they did fine and dandy for the whole campaign (and that was a Core Races only, 15 point-buy game).

[Endoralis]

TO be fair none of those teams are the D-Team the D team needs to have a class that can do little else but fight and likely one class thats a 6th level caster. All three of the teams listed including mine are the B-Team. If you notice from the difference, the D-Team was 2 Half Casters, a Bard Caster and a straight Martial. That is significant different from mine or even Jeebel's group.. which features a Tier 1-2 Bard Caster, Ranged martial, and two more casters one divine one arcane all based around buffing/fighting.

[Dekalinder]

The most obvious consequence is not being able to have an awesome intro song

Yes, this is all I have to say on the matter.

[Endoralis]

I dunno I'll settle for this