My motto is: when in doubt, stick with the big 4: fighter, rogue, sorceror or wizard, and cleric. Beyond that, I would recommend bard because a character with focus on public relations would come in very handy over the course of this campaign; it isn't all dungeon crawls after all. After that, it's up to you- although I personally would recommend either druid or paladin, depending on whether you want extra melee help with some healing, or extra healing help with some melee.
In my campaign I've got a barbarian/warlock, 2 rogues, one of which focuses on ranged attacks and one of which is a charisma rogue, a wizard, a cleric, and a favored soul, and they've not been having much trouble with the encounters (although I did kill the barbarian with the grell in Jzadirune). Really, the thing that gives anybody the best edge in a combat is thinking strategically and working as a team- a party that has that down can be just about any combination of classes and still rock faces.
With your party, I would recommed having the paladin up front and the rogue focusing on combat stuff so he can help with holding the line; I dunno what kind of weapon/armor proficiency the necromancer gets but him and the favored soul seem like good mid-line characters, and then stick the shugenja and the shadow caster in the back for magical support. And then tell them to quit with the suck.
A couple of things to note here;
Before starting any campaign, especially a precanned one, there should be some sort of dicusssion regarding party balance and effectiveness; it doesn't not appear that this happened this instance. This is the DM's responsibility, as a party made of players who have not actually discussed with each other party balance is doomed to failure.
The party is made of of people who I would suspect enjoy role playing, and like making of beat characters. This is fine, but the questions each player must be able to answer for a newly created PC are A) What is my character designed to do B) I he/she good at it C) Is it a skill set that will actually be beneficial D) Where am I going with my character development, and will I stay true to the above answers with that development.
As A DM, I am loath to dictate to any player what they can and cannot play, so be careful you are not infringing on player enjoyment be banning the expansion books. This can be a cmapiagn killer by eroding morale. This of course must be balanced by the overall responsibility to create an effective party (not just the DM's job).
Clearly, reviewing your party make up, the party lacks some basic needs. In precanned canpaigns, the writing will support a fairly iconic party, and make it difficult for a non iconic party to succeed.
Problem #1. The party lacks a dedicated healer. This is crippling for any party, especially a low level one.
Problem #2. You have too many non core base classes. The paladin and rogue are good, and you can make an arguement for a necromancer (although everyone knows the frailty of a low level arcane caster).....but 3 non core bases classes are too much. Your bases just aren't going to be covered. In a party of 6, you need 2 tanks. You have one. Compounding this is the already stated lack of a dedicated healer. The shadow caster and favoured soul classes are , IMHO, weak to start with.
Problem #3. Too many casters, and the ones you have aren't even good at whatever they are supposed to be good at.
All that being stated, once you have started the campaign arc you have started down the path already, so whatever solution you come up with has to fit into the story arc in a credible way. In essence, the damage has been done. Once you start playing though, the gloves come off. Don't do a disservice to teh game, your campaign or the players by low balling them with watered down encounters. You must be somewhat darwinian and kill off the weak (without TRYING to)....in the end they will they will undoubtably get themselves killed due to a neat total lack of effectiveness. You mentioned giving them a mulligan or do over in order to avoid a near or total TPK. In fact, this is exactly what you need. Once the game has started, they chips have to fall where they may. If the party can't do the job, they need to bring some new characters to the table (worked into the story by you).
The shadow caster and favoured soul classes are , IMHO, weak to start with.
Haven't read Tome of Magic yet so I don't know jack about shadow caster, but I think favored souls are actually rather nicely balanced- yeah, they don't get the same sheer variety of spells that clerics do, but they get some other nice special abilities to make up for it, as opposed to simply getting to turn undead more. Besides, how can you not like a class that naturally grows wings? ;-)
There is a section in the back of the SC book that advises how functional each core class will probably be in the campaign. Check it out.
Also, vampires like Drathkar is a "puzzle" or "problem-solve" monster. A very well prepared group of 1st level PCs could defeat him by using his weakness and vulnerablities against him. But an unprepared 5th level party is likely to not be able to take him down. This is a monster that takes identification, research, special materials, and planning to take out.
I would be reticent to ask players to change their characters to fit the campaign; make sure it isn't tactical errors and lack of proper equipment that are doing them in first. I'm not too familiar with the non-core classes, so I can't be much help there. If it's a matter of spell selection, maybe think up a list of low level spells that these characters can use and will be a little more effective. I've found from experience that the more 'exotic' classes (like the monk) or the classes that rely more on finesse (bards, wizards and rogues) can be difficult for some players to really be effective with, especially if they cater to less direct confrontation or require some forethought and research.
If it comes down to switching character classes, talk to your players about it first. If you give them some options they may be willing to work with you if they think it will be more fun in the end. You could say,"Okay, Favored Soul, you should think about just converting to a cleric of equal level and the same deity and just say that you've always been one," and leave it at that. Or you could maybe say that if they want to have a whole new character, their previous one got discouraged and decided to go out and see what other career avenues are there for them: not everyone is cut out for adventuring.
As far as the necromancer goes, if he hasn't chosen evocation as a barred school, he should be able to cast some direct damage spells. Otherwise, consider conjuration spells as well. Make sure he has opportunities to diversify his spellbook somewhat (maybe with a kind reminder from the DM that he can scribe some on scrolls for when he needs them). I think reverse engineering a character to suit the campaign makes some sense; if you're in a life threatening occupation and you've had some close scrapes, you would want to spend time figuring out how you can be more effective.
In theory a necromancer would be a good idea, summoning undead lackeys, send them in, and people nuke from behind.
However having a paladin in the group with a necro can cause all sorts of trouble. Meaning that the Necro probably does not have a chance to use his/her abilites to the fullest for fear of upsetting the Paladin or even letting on what he is.
I dont envy your position, but I can recommend slight tweaks over a complete rehaul for some. Let them know your concerns and be honest with them. They will at lest appreciate the honesty and take a look from your perspective.
My motto is: when in doubt, stick with the big 4: fighter, rogue, sorceror or wizard, and cleric.
I agree completely with this. My party has made to SotSP only by luck and having a cleric who has been able to stay alive, and thus keep the party alive. Your concerns about an arcane spell caster are valid. My party started with two sorcerers, both multi classed and left them with no true arcane caster. One is a dragon disciple the other a rage mage. It cost them a TPK in Zeinith. Even now, enroute to Korran Korral they are a CR 11/12 party with no 6th level arcane magic.
The PC that started out as a rogue, gave it up for wizardry and then turned blood magus is the most powerful arcane caster, and the only one with fifth level access. The problem is the party has no rogue. The high level monk takes care of the sneaky sneak stuff, but traps and locks are a serious deterent. In SotSP in the temple of wee jas every door is locked DC 40 to unlock. The rogue had to take 20, with master picks to open them. Result! Most of the parties buff spells expired before the worked there way to the top of the temple. This will be a super deterent in Oblivion.
Like Padan said the 4 basic food groups are hard to beat, as they should be they are the core of the game after all. I have grave doubts about sorcerers but I'll save that discussion for another board.
I think this bring up a larger issue-- players would rather try out the "new" classes and let the rules define their characters rather than take the basics and define their characters through roleplaying. Actually WoTC encourages this sort of thinking by continually bringing out new supplements with new classes, spells, feats, and prestige classes.
Back when I started SCAP, I brought it in as the "backup" campaign for when not enough people showed up. Back then we had six players and a DM in our normal campaign, so the idea was that when 2 or 3 people couldn't come, we'd play SCAP. The players as a group made up characters, and kind of munchkin-ed them, but they stuck to wizard, fighter, cleric, and rogue because these characters were going to be passed around to whoever showed up and they wanted to stick to basics so you could quickly pick up the character and play.
Since then we've lost two players, and we now alternate between SCAP and our homebrew campaign, the four characters are played by the same people and you couldn't tear them away from the players. They have made the characters their own through roleplaying and tough adventuring, not through specialized rules that are only in a single supplement that not everyone has. In fact, when I tried to introduce the feats in the SCAP HC and some of the regional stuff from FR, they all ignored them and stuck with core rules.
As for your problem, I say let the dice fall as they may. Your players have been dazzled by specialized character classes which are, at best, supplemental to the core four and they're finding out that they don't have the tactical skill to make up for the class weaknesses. Let them die if that's how the dice go, and your players will figure out that there is an initial balance in the core game that isn't there with supplemental classes.
The reset button that you seem to want is generally called a TPK. You seem to be coddling them and at the same time complaining that you have to coddle them. Stop coddling them.
I'm just starting to run SCAP. We are having our first session Wednesday. I posted character creation rules and things to our Yahoo group. They are free to make what they want from any official source (and if a monstrous PC they are limited to an ECL of 3). But that said I told them the following:
1. This campaign is going to be HARD.
2. Every PC needs to be able to contribute to combat. Not be a front line fighter, but have a way to contribute to combat, that works in a team concept. In other words, make sure your PC works with the others.
3. The party will include 6 pcs.
4. It is strongly suggested that the party include:
--two front line combat capable characters (either two fighter types [fighter, paladin, barby, non-ranged ranger] or a fighter type [see above] and a martial cleric)
--a pure wizard (not a sorcerer, since you cant wait for 6th level of fireball, etc)
--a pure cleric (martial, healing, whatever; not a favored soul for the same reasons)
--someone with some "classic" rogue skills, whether or not that PC stays pure rogue is up to them
5. the party also needs to be able to handle the "city skills" of gather info, diplomacy, etc. Whether that is all one PC or is spread amongst several, that is their call.
They will most likely end up: fighter, barbarian, cleric, wizard, bard, rogue. The rogue may develop as a rogue/fighter. the bard may go sorcerer. The barby may cross to fighter (it is actually best to start as a barby IMHO).
If you run 6 PCs and have a fighter, barby or paladin, cleric and wizard, that leaves 2 "funky" PCs spots for people to do what they want. Have a ninja. Have a bard. Have a favored soul. Make a fighter/wizard that is building to eldritch knight. Be, gulp, a gnome illusionist. Its your call.
Clerics are INSANE in 3E. So are wizards. I am anti bards. I think you can do the same stuff in other ways. But some people prefer them. Like rangers. There are better ways to do all those things. But some people just want to play bards and rangers (count me in that group, I love playing a ranger even though I could do a better character build using other classes, druid/rogue or druid/fighter, or if human, druid/fighter/rogue; but all that be damned I love playing a ranger).
But I felt with this campagin, I needed to sternly caution the players that it would be hard and that it would be best to stick to the combat heavy party archetype. I also (fairly) cautioned them that there wouldnt be as much wilderness travel as usual so classic rangers and druids would perhaps be of less value from that standpoint. I thought that was fair to warn them, too.
I've warned them. Now they can make what they want. i never force them to play what they dont want to play. If they want to be a party of gnome rogue-acrobats, fine. Just make sure to bring extra character sheets :)
Clark
....
As for your problem, I say let the dice fall as they may. Your players have been dazzled by specialized character classes which are, at best, supplemental to the core four and they're finding out that they don't have the tactical skill to make up for the class weaknesses. Let them die if that's how the dice go, and your players will figure out that there is an initial balance in the core game that isn't there with supplemental classes.The reset button that you seem to want is generally called a TPK. You seem to be coddling them and at the same time complaining that you have to coddle them. Stop coddling them.
I agree. If no one in the party seems to have the tactical sense and influence to design tactics to take advantage of party strengths and minimize weaknesses, then they are asking for a TPK.
Or if not a TPK, than a stalled campaign, where the PCs earn less and less experience as they continually fight "under their weight class" in regards to CR.
If you want to play an offbeat character concept, thats cool. But if you are a detriment to the party's effectiveness, you'd think the Paladin would be b$++$ing people out after fights where he has to do all the bleeding. A Paladin afterall should have some sense of tactics and the charisma/social skills to get his point across.
I also like to have a meeting with the players (particularly if some are new) and talk about goals for the campaign. Its hard to run a super challenging campaign (like SCAP seems to be) if your players all want to really try more "alternative" style characters. Sounds like there might have been a disconnect between what you wanted to run (or chose to run) and what the party wanted to be run through. Perhaps. I dont know.
So this wednesday I am having that get together with my group. We'll eat pizza. Finalize characters. Talk about what we want and expect. Lay some ground rules about resolving rules conflicts. That sort of stuff. And I will also aks them if they want this as hard as it is or if they want it toned down. Some people like the "I nearly died but we won!" style of game. Some like the "I waded through it without a scratch!" style of gaming. I am way more of the former type as a DM. They will crawl out of my adventures barely alive. I think that is the biggest thrill. But not everyone agrees. If you arent all on the same page on this, you can have some frustrated players.
Find out why they chose the ninja or whatever. What did they want? What did they expect to recieve from your campaign? Then look at the adventures you plan to run. Do those adventures fit the things that your players are looking for. If they dont, they you BOTH should think about changing. Maybe you need to tone down some combat so that the "alternative" style characters can shine.
Admittedly, it is easier to change one or two PCs during character creation than it is to continuously modify a long written campaign, like SCAP. So the easiest solution is to encourage your players to make the right PCs for the adventure. BUT if they wont be happy doing that, then maybe you should consider modifying the adventures or even not run SCAP if you arent willing to change it. But the key is that you have to have sized up ahead of time that this is a challenging campaign and encourage your players that they will need to be able to deal with this sort of stuff. It is as much their job to tailor their PCs as it is your job to tailor the adventure to them.
There is absolutely nothing "gospel" about a written adventure. You can and should change it to meet the needs of your game group. If they die and dont have fun because of the characters they chose, that seems to be a two way problem.
I always try to find who had the least fun in a session and then next session I try to design something so that that PC is really involved. Have a session where your rogue was bored? Then next session insert a magical trap or something that they will be crucial to the resolution. Keep your characters contributing and feeling involved. In particualr, with "alternative" characters, find a way to stress their uniqueness. Not just highlighting how they arent the core types of characters.
And there seems to be little doubt that while SCAP has tons of role playing and fun NPC interaction and a great plot, at its core it is some hard ass combat. It is challenging. In fact, when I really sat down to read some of it (in particular the finale in Zenith Trajectory and basically all of 13 Cages) I said "holy $h*t!!! These guys could write for Necromancer Games!" [which means they are freaking deadly encounters].
Its a cop out to say they died because you ran it as written. If you KNOW that is going to happen, you have to tailor the adventure for the needs of the group while still maintaining the right balance and thrill. That, IMHO, is the hardest part of being a DM--reducing a hard encounter or beefing up a easy one of the fly and have it seem legitimate and not "DM influenced."
Say it with me: "there is nothing wrong with changing a written adventure." Its a tool for you, not a script.
Sorry for the rant :)
Clark
I agree with all of those who stated reasons for not telling the players what to play. If they come up with 'round' characters, who have more personality than combat ability, so be it! The thing about Cauldron as a backdrop, it really supports so much more gaming than just what's written in the room descriptions and encounters.
That said, I thought I'd use this thread to post the party make-up of a group that just melted through the first three adventures with ease.
Our first three PCs were extremely effective!
Dwarf Fighter
Human cleric of Kord with 1 level of barbarian.
Elan Psion (kineticist)
These three overcame just about anything and everything I could throw at them. They were always at the suggested level for each chapter i.e. 1st and 2nd level in life's bazaar, 3rd level in drakthar's way, 4th level in flood season. And were done with a 27 point attribute buy, which you should all agree, isn't overpowered by any means.
They were extremely effective.
We had a rotating fourth, and sometimes fifth chair, some of these characters managed to make a contribution in battle and others didn't; these characters ranged from
Human Wizard (zero help - run out of spells, and try to help out with a crossbow, as they race against time through whatever dungeon it might be)
Half-Elf scout (zero help in combat - didn't have the firepower of the three main characters)
Elf Druid (not nearly as effective as that wolf of his was)
Human Fighter-Thief - Effective, though more so in support than in combat.
Half-Orc Barbarian - Single-handedly carried a few combat sessions on his broad shoulders. Very effective.
Human Monk/Psi-Warrior - cool character, but totally ineffective in combat, for anything other than a buffer. Couldn't hit anything, and the player grew very frustrated, throwing countless dice into the garbage.
Here's our current formation:
1. Paladin
2. Rogue
3. Shadow Caster (from Tome of Magic) [a very weak character that should be replaced]
4. Necromancer (uses summon undead and has no area effect magic, high damage spells, or access to any illusions)
5. Shugenja (from Complete Divine) [the weakest party member; has never inflicted a single point of damage over the course of play]
6. Favored Soul (from Complete Divine) [even though he's effective, he will be cut from the party because he's drawn from a supplemental source]
I am not too familiar with Shadow Caster, Shugenja and Favored Soul, but I can clearly see, that the group is lacking fighting power. One paladin as a front runner is not enough. A paladin is only a support fighter. Given his need for high scores in CHA, WIS, CON, DEX and STR, he will never match up to a specialised Fighter or Barbarian killing machine. In my group I have:
1. Barbarian (deals massive amounts of damage and can even overcome damage reduction in some cases).
2. Paladin (He does not deal enough damage, but can hold the line thanks to Combat Expertise).
3. Fighter/Basirian Dancer (Basically a fighter mage. He also has Combat Expertise and some good support spells).
4. Monk (Another good 2nd rank support fighter).
5. Brigand/Infiltrator (Which is like a fighter/thief. Makes good use of flanking and sneak attacks).
6. Sorcerer (with good fire power).
7. Cleric (Healing, Turning and good second rank fighter).
So as others already pointed out, as a DM you have to take care beforehand, that the party is balanced. That is not the case in your group. I suggest to drop some of the weaker characters and probably the Necro (it will not work with a properly played Paladin) and replace them with at least one Fighter or Barbarian and other Core class characters.
...maybe a but light on in the melee wombat area.
Are those in the Monster Manual? :P
My motto is: when in doubt, stick with the big 4: fighter, rogue, sorceror or wizard, and cleric. Beyond that, I would recommend bard because a character with focus on public relations would come in very handy over the course of this campaign; it isn't all dungeon crawls after all...
Some of the best advice. If it were me, I'd say stick with the 'big four' and then start doubling up. Bards are still useful, though.
Supplements have cool ideas (I'm using one now), but I find them to be 'niche' classes, lacking versatility.
Regards,
Jack
Its a cop out to say they died because you ran it as written. If you KNOW that is going to happen, you have to tailor the adventure for the needs of the group while still maintaining the right balance and thrill. That, IMHO, is the hardest part of being a DM--reducing a hard encounter or beefing up a easy one of the fly and have it seem legitimate and not "DM influenced."
Say it with me: "there is nothing wrong with changing a written adventure." Its a tool for you, not a script.
This is some of the best advice in the thread and I wholeheartedly agree. You're not an automaton and the book's written on paper, not stone.
You cannot make your players or their characters into something they are not. I don't know all the details of your situation, DrWaites, but do your players *know* how to be more effective? If they don't know better tactics or know how to create a "better" character (or even *want* to create a better character), you're going to be fighting an uphill battle.
I highly doubt a TPK is the solution; a character death or two might not necessarily be a bad thing, especially if they're cocky (like calling out Tongueater -- ouch!). A TPK is more likely to turn off the group to the campaign than it is to galvanize them into creating characters more appropriate to the game you want to play.
If your players are tactically-challenged, explain things in more detail. Let them know that if they do such-and-such, they'll take an AoO. Sure, it's a bit of coddling, but if they're learning, it's a good thing. Coach them; after a fight, talk about what happened and why. Tell them how to improve. These things will make them better players and you a better DM. This isn't a game of DM-vs-player, it's a game of cooperative storytelling, with plenty of opportunity for tacticians to shine.
Of course, avoid being patronizing or telling them to run their characters. In other words, suggest, rather than preach. It may be that with a little prompting, a place to start, they'll run with it.
When we started our campaign, we took a couple gaming sessions to cover the rules and create characters. Even though we gamed together as a group for a couple years prior to starting this campaign, I changed some rules and provided more structure. I explained that this campaign is combat-intensive and that, while skills play a large role in the SCAP, any character who can't fight is going to have a rough go of it.
I also asked the players for a "character plan"; essentially, it was, "Where will your character be at 20th level and how is he going to get there?" It's not something I am going to hold them to, but it is something that forced the players to think about how their characters will develop. From that I realized I'd probably have to modify the campaign to accomodate their characters. They picked what they thought were tough and fun characters; still, a Scout 10/Warmage 10 is just not optimal.
My players are recreational gamers. They play once a week and none of them are power gamers; I think they spend less time outside the game session thinking about the rules, and more about the campaign itself. And that's fine -- for my play-style, it's great.
I don't want them to have to comb through all the books that are available to them hunting for the best possible build, worrying the whole time that if they picked the wrong things they'd be hosed. I want them to create characters they like play.
This isn't to say I'm not going to challenge them. We just started Drakthar's Way and there's already been an NPC death (Fario) and several close calls (PCs at -8 or worse). I warned them that characters will die -- it's just about inevitable -- but I don't want it to just be because I know the rules better and I'm a better tactician. Any DM can "win" D&D.
We've also gone from 4 PCs & 3 NPCs to 6 PCs; we still only have 4 players, but they get more mileage out of their own characters than they do out of DM-controlled NPCs (or even PC-controlled NPCs, because it's not easy to effectively run a character you're not familiar with).
I've seen a few posts in this thread that I've interpreted as, "If they can't take a hint, TPK 'em. That'll teach 'em." This sends the message that it's YOUR campaign, not the GROUP'S campaign. ("My way or the highway.") This hasn't worked out well for me; if it has for other DMs, though, I'd be very curious to hear the details.
Yeah, it's going to be more work for you to change things around to suit your group's characters, but it's not that tough. Remove a couple bad guys here, drop this bad guy a couple levels. And believe me it's worth it, when your players show up all giddy to see what's in store this session!
Best of luck!
Nothing helps tactics explanations like miniatures. Even dice or a stone to represent characters and grids made out of laminated paper work. You can show the combat, point out errors or things they may need to "think about" before execution.
Orcus, I'm glad you like playing rangers, but you're wrong about there being better builds. The 3.5 ranger is a monster combatant. It gives up the ability to use heavy armor, but it has decent hit points, a free feat tree, favored enemies and the combat style advantage, a potential extra hit per round thanks to the animal companion feature, a fair skill point progression, and (eventually) spells. Sure, the spell list is limited, but proper use gives a number of advantages. Use a wood elf for the build, and you're set.
Fighters do have bonus feats, but the Power Attack tree is overrated, and the Focus/Specialization advantages don't kick in until higher levels. Barbarians are good frontliners and cavalry, but you have to be very careful with rage. The temporary hit points still count against your regular hit points when the temporararies are gone. Paladins are overrated; they aren't nearly as good as frontliners as you'd think.
You know, I'm not seeing a lot of love for sorc on this board- I actually prefer them. Yeah, they have a slightly slower progession to the higher level spells and no bonus feats, but they can go longer without rest and have a few more options in combat once their spells are gone. And, most importantly, if your enemy kicks a wizard in the middle of the night, he or she will (most likely) scream, bleed a lot, and die. Kick a sorcerer in the middle of the night and they will probably burn your face off. It's good not to have to prepare spells.
I like favored soul for the same reason, plus the extra abilities it gets as it progresses instead of just being able to turn undead a lot more. And look at those saves! But not being able to turn undead at all or spontaneously heal is a major bummer- I wouldn't want one as my main heal, but as backup heal they're a great choice.
And I say paladins are the best tank class in D&D- full armor, fighter hit die, immune to nearly everything, amazing saves through divine grace, etc. Send one in to soak up some damage. They're not terribly great combat machines though.
A couple of things to note here;
Before starting any campaign, especially a precanned one, there should be some sort of dicusssion regarding party balance and effectiveness; it doesn't not appear that this happened this instance. This is the DM's responsibility, as a party made of players who have not actually discussed with each other party balance is doomed to failure.
I come for a different school of thought - let the players be whatever the hell they want to be. If they are sub-par that will make overcoming the enemy even more satisfying.
If you party really does suck (level 4s fighting as level 2s!) then drop in magic items to help them out. Equipment can even the battlefield easily.
If they suck because they are not thinking tactically or stratigically - then teach them a lesson. This will make further campaigns easier. My players clearly know that some encounters will be too hard for them and I wont cut them any slack. However I tend to always put in some "trick" or tactic to win. And I am always open to innovative tactics from players who I will reward.
Also with 6 players no need to be merciful IMO. If they still can't get their act together re-rolling new characters will be a learning experience for them.
Having said that I will give my players an idea of the type of campaign I am going to run so they can think about what skills/feats to take. For example I told them the SC will be dungeon crawl intense with little to no wilderness content. I also told the cleric that there will not be many undead but there will be outer-planer creatures. I gave him the option to trade in his turn undead to turn outsider.
I see no issues with little hints like that. But trust me when I say don't cut them too much slack. If they walk into a TPK (they *waited* for tongueater and fought him with all the goons?) then let them live with the consequences. You never know they may pull through. I dont know how many times I thought my party was going to be TPK'ed but instead they pulled through. This is very satisfying for both DM and players.
RE Drakthar - my party retreated 3 times before finally figuring out they needed silver AND magic to kill him. When they returned prepared they wiped the floor with him. In my experience as well multi-classing is more of a power soaker than picking unusual classes. So, again, as people have advised, make sure it isnt the players and not so much the characters.
Nothing helps tactics explanations like miniatures. Even dice or a stone to represent characters and grids made out of laminated paper work. You can show the combat, point out errors or things they may need to "think about" before execution.
We have been using miniatures since 3rd edition's release. We now have a pretty good selection of D&D plastic minis, and we utilize a dry erase mat with a 1" grid for tactical movement.
While I like that the miniatures erase some of the confusion about character placement, I think their use has its drawbacks. My group tends to second-guess almost every movement, moving the figures around in very unnatural ways as if we were playing checkers. Then they take the figure back to the starting position and rethink everything.
The use of miniatures has really slowed down our combats. We're pretty good with the rules (even the "complex" manuevers such as tripping, grappling, and bull rush), but the party seems on a whole very indecisive, not only about tactics.
Doc
Then set time limit on moves. I dont have to do this as my players make moves fast. But I have a house rule that if someone is taking to long they miss their turn. I also have it so that once they dice drop no more take backs.
I've seen a few posts in this thread that I've interpreted as, "If they can't take a hint, TPK 'em. That'll teach 'em." This sends the message that it's YOUR campaign, not the GROUP'S campaign. ("My way or the highway.") This hasn't worked out well for me; if it has for other DMs, though, I'd be very curious to hear the details.
That's not what I was saying. I thought Dr. Waites was asking about players revamping characters to make them more effective, and how you deal with that in game (a reset button). My feeling is that your characters don't magically go "Poof!" and have new skills and abilities because everyone decided that their old characters suck. Kill the old characters and roll new ones.
But to answer your question, my players have asked me to try to kill them. I've often said that the best experiences come from the PC's just barely squeaking by to victory, and they agree with that, but they want to know that I'm not fudging rolls or trying to keep them alive in any way. They want their victories to be because they had superior tactics and skills, not because I'm trying to tell a better story than "And then they all died."
So it's not about my way and my game, it's about their way, and knowing that a TPK is possible is the kind of jeopardy they want.
How did they party manage level 4 without deaths thus far out of curiosity?
I’m very mixed about rerolling characters without there deaths, or revamping skills/feats for that matter. I however do make small exception I had a player come in with a character into an already running campaign (Cleric Hospitaler) and after a couple of sessions we discovered that a couple feats were causing problems namely vow of peace and nonviolence. These made actually killing enemies very problematic. I let the player replace the feat tree mostly because it affected the rest of the party.
Personally I like a party made up of highly specialized versions of characters. Cleric (Healer), Dwarf Barbarian (Tank), Sun Elf Evoker /w Spellcasting Prodigy (Crazy Damage), Ninja (OK Skill monkey /w damage abilities in a pinch). I love specialized characters...
That's not what I was saying. I thought Dr. Waites was asking about players revamping characters to make them more effective, and how you deal with that in game (a reset button). My feeling is that your characters don't magically go "Poof!" and have new skills and abilities because everyone decided that their old characters suck. Kill the old characters and roll new ones.
As I said, it was my *interpretation* of some of the posts I read. I may have read more into the posts than was there. Or read the posts in a way that was different than intended.
I'll also admit that I don't have the full scope of the situation. It sounds like the players know that they're having problems, but I'm not sure that they know the extent of the issue -- or how to fix it.
I agree that if characters need to be completely reworked, the players should just create new characters. I don't like the discontinuity of "same name, different everything else".
I don't agree that the current characters have to die, though it's a relatively inconsequential thing. The current characters could retire from adventuring, move away, start a family, open a business in Cauldron, or any one of a dozen different things. After all, how many NPCs do you come across that have this in their background: "Pete is a former adventurer. After losing most of his companions in Jzadirune, he decided to hang up his sword and open Pete's Tavern." These PCs have definitely gotten to this point.
Speaking as a player, I'd rather have an option of what happens to my character, not have him die somewhat arbitrarily.
No matter what (TPK or retirement), the end result is the same: the characters will no longer be played and are effectively NPCs.
(Personally, I think that it'd be neat for the new PCs to hang out at the tavern the old PCs pooled their money to buy. But that's me.)
But to answer your question, my players have asked me to try to kill them. I've often said that the best experiences come from the PC's just barely squeaking by to victory, and they agree with that, but they want to know that I'm not fudging rolls or trying to keep them alive in any way. They want their victories to be because they had superior tactics and skills, not because I'm trying to tell a better story than "And then they all died."
So it's not about my way and my game, it's about their way, and knowing that a TPK is possible is the kind of jeopardy they want.
I wholeheartedly agree that one of the best, most exciting things that can happen in the game is a knock-down, drag-out, no-holds-barred, kill-or-be-killed fight that leaves your players tapped out, but ultimately victorious.
The threat of a TPK is a whole lot different than an actual TPK, though. A TPK means they lose -- the battle, their lives, and quite possibly their characters. Not to mention that the bad guys are now free to do whatever it was that the PCs were trying to prevent them from doing.
I guess some players wouldn't care too much, but in my experience a TPK is a campaign killer, or at least a severe campaign hiccup. All of a sudden you have to plug brand new characters into an existing plot line and give them the motivation to continue with the previous group's work or you have to figure out a way for the characters to be revived. Both tend to feel contrived and I don't like it.
I am curious, have you ever TPK'ed your party? And if so, what was the players' reaction?
I am curious, have you ever TPK'ed your party? And if so, what was the players' reaction?
No, I haven't. We had the discussion after a session where it looked like they were going down in the Malachite Stronghold and I had Fario and Fellian come to their rescue. They told me to stop with the F&F crap and try to kill them.
I have had high level characters die on me, but it was high enough that the cleric just did a resurrection and we went on. I have also been part of a party where characters have died and the player decided that even if we did a Raise Dead his character wouldn't be coming back because he preferred to roll up a new one. It wasn't a big deal.
I've also had a player who was playing a tank get sick of bashing things, so he retired the character and rolled up a diplomat so he could talk. Then he decided he liked to bash things better, so his old character came back and his new character became an NPC. Again, it wasn't a big deal.
I think if I would TPK the group they'd just roll up new characters and go and try to find their old bodies. Corpse run!
After all, how many NPCs do you come across that have this in their background: "Pete is a former adventurer. After losing most of his companions in Jzadirune, he decided to hang up his sword and open Pete's Tavern."
Um, that would be Skie. :)
And I say paladins are the best tank class in D&D- full armor, fighter hit die, immune to nearly everything, amazing saves through divine grace, etc. Send one in to soak up some damage. They're not terribly great combat machines though.
Heresy! I fear for thy soul, Brother. Clearly thou art under-using thy divinely granted ability to Smite Evil! Judicious use of the Extra Smiting feat and some hours in the scullery may bring you back into the fold. :-) Take a look at the Triadic Knight PrC from the Forgotten Realms book 'Champions of Valor.'
Heresy! I fear for thy soul, Brother. Clearly thou art under-using thy divinely granted ability to Smite Evil! Judicious use of the Extra Smiting feat and some hours in the scullery may bring you back into the fold. :-) Take a look at the Triadic Knight PrC from the Forgotten Realms book 'Champions of Valor.'
Hey, smite evil is pimp, I never said it wasn't. But if other DMs are anything like my DM (i.e. they hate PCs and want them to suffer like a good DM should ;-) ) when I played my pally, they will just toss neutral monsters/bad guys at you until you begin to ask questions like "Is it a full-round action to give up the paladin lifestyle and go sell heroin on a street corner?" You can off-set this somewhat by taking a few of the feats that allow you to replace turn undead attempts with other cool things, but feats are precious to a paladin. Fighter bonus feats, on the other hand, always work.
I'll check out the Triadic Knight thing though.
|
Someone asked if anyone had a TPK and my group did just over a month ago. The players went into it knowingly though, I had given them ample warning about going into that dungeon prepared and when I saw how quickly they were being wore down within I asked them if they wanted it scaled back to a more manageable level they said no.
When they finally met their end(or more acurrately suprised their end, ran away, and for whatever reason thought they would have a better chance coming back when it knew they were there and was ready for them...) they took it well and went down fighting.
We weren't very far into the campaign(just started flood season) and since no one who wasn't trying to kill them knew where they were and that none of us were very keen on the idea of just saying 'Well that didn't happen' we actually have restarted the entire campaign with a new group of heroes and homebrew versions of the first two chapters to keep it all fresh.
So far it all is going suprisingly well, the classes themselves are alot more balanced this time, and while this is a group that has played together regularly for some time now the games have always been much more freeform so getting bashed about in our beta-scap helped them form a more coherant team dynamic.
Plus on this go round the RP has been alot more smooth, the players all already feel comfortable with the setting, so those who have grown up in the town don't have to break character to question about what taverns are about and the like. Its great when even early in a campaign the players are aware enough of their surroundings to be able to use it fluidly in conversation(One of our PC's asked Annah about her night job at the slippery eel).
I think if I would TPK the group they'd just roll up new characters and go and try to find their old bodies. Corpse run!
Thanks for letting me know. (Thanks also to Tarlane, who responded about this topic.)
I've never had a true TPK, so I can only base what would happen in my campaign on what I've heard from couple other people and what's happened when players from my group have croaked.
Even though it may not be directly applicable to my campaign, I appreciate the feedback.
|
|
(My 1st post here) Just looking at the class list you have, it is certainly possible for them all to be useful in combat. The Favored Soul can be pretty decent up-front. The Shugenja is certainly capable of taking armor proficiency feats as he doesn't suffer arcane spell failure. (In Rokugan where the class came from it was considered 'inappropriate' but Cauldron is hardly Rokugan) and the Shugenja should be up there healing, perhaps launching some ranged attacks from a bow of some sort. Even the necromancer could carry a light crossbow and deal out some damage. I have no clue what the tome of magic guy is though.