Hey all,
Going to be starting the SCAP soon, and am looking for a little advice. As of now, I have five players: ranger, urban ranger, psion, fighter and an evoker. Note the lack of healing and roguey-ness.
I figure the healing can be done through scrolls, potions and wands, but I am more concerned about traps, locks and secret doors. My thought at this point is to introduce a trap+lock expert (maybe Ghelve had an apprentice?) as per the Expert NPC class.
My question is this: am I removing a lethal threat and making the game more enjoyable, or am I simply removing a party challenge and making the game less fun?
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Olodrin
I wouldn't include an NPC rogue in the party as I don't think there are that many traps. I'd also guess the party will be especially careful without one. The first adventure has many traps but the characters are warned beforehand and smart PCs shouldn't have to deal with too many of them.
If they find out they do need someone to take care of them, let the characters find and hire a rogue. Otherwise, let them be creative in finding their own solutions for closed doors, traps and so on. You could change one of the magical items in Lifes Bazaar to a chime of opening if you want to help them a little.
In my opinion you should instead rather include an NPC cleric, the SCAP is quite tough at times and is meant for a party of 6 players and having no healer is a though deal. In our SCAP campaign the sessions without the cleric are always the toughest ones. (maybe Rufus Laro from the temple of St. Cuthbert?)
Of yourse you could instead just increase the availability of healing items as you mentioned.
I agree with Talon. You would be better off having a cleric NPC than a rogue-type. The group that I am DMing does not have a rogue, but they do have an artificer contact that serves as both a rogue type and a cheap source of magic items. The cleric that we have, on the other hand, is a terror. We have needed his healing a lot!
Rufus, or another acolyte, would probably work out well for your group. Best of luck.
G
I've said this stuff elsewhere (sorry about repetition).
Don't introduce any NPCs that need to exercise independence or make meaningful decisions. It takes away from the success of the players, increases your workload, and grants the NPC unfair advantages.
Rogues, for example, aren't good NPCs. When do you decide that they check for traps -- every time you know there's one to be found?
I think clerics aren't too bad -- just have them hit things or heal people, and little else. A mute cleric would be great, so that he/she can't contribute anything to the planning that the PCs themselves didn't come up with (yes, I'm serious -- I've done it before).
My two cents :)
Jack
A mute cleric would be great, so that he/she can't contribute anything to the planning that the PCs themselves didn't come up with (yes, I'm serious -- I've done it before).
That's funny, I put a mute fighter in my group and he's my player's most favourite NPC ever! It works.
Don't see why you'd need a cleric, you've got two rangers who can keep everyone helped up via wands.
I wouldn't give the party a rogue either. Let them hire one if they come to that conclusion (and make it a Last Laugh member who steals from them).
|
Don't see why you'd need a cleric, you've got two rangers who can keep everyone helped up via wands.
I disagree. I think a proper cleric is essential. SC is hard! The party will be taking bucket loads of damage, and that just isn't going to covered by wands. I've seen single NPC villains deal over 100hp damage per round.
Wow, I guess i'm a real bastard then! I rarely if ever include one of those two NPCs for the party if there are 4 or more players (yours being 5).
The players should know up front that a cleric is necessary. That goes without saying. As a DM, after I read the material or know beforehand what the material will be, I'll inform the players the classes/skills that will be necessary for the the campaign.
For this particular campaing which i'm about to start in the next couple of months, I've let my players know that they will of course need a cleric and a rogue type with good social skills and trap finding abilities, and at least one good weapon-wielder. From there they based their characters.
Personally, if a party doesnt want to include either of those two iconic roles in the party, I say too bad, play it as is, and let them deal with their choices or bad judgement. I'm not advocating making it unnecessarily thougher to punish them, just that it's run as is, and all things being equal, they'll learn fast that it may be necessary to change around the scope of the group for cohesion-sake.
I say if you introduce an NPC to fix this, or allow for such things to be easier to obtain / afford / etc, then you're simply taking away an element of accountability from the players, and giving the impression that you'll always have a "get out of jail free" pass for the players.
Todd's idea is however coniving and great that if they dont have a rogue and hire one, then he becomes a great villain of the PCs when they find out he had stolen valuable goods from them.
I know Todd well, and played in an online version of SCAP he ran, and I know he's just the type to be devious that way. Props again, you're still sinister and devious, Todd.
For the record so far for my campaign, after explaining the kinds of characters that wouldn't be as effective in the campaign (barbarians, druids) and those that will be (clerics, rogues) my party consists of five players with the following tentative character options:
Elven Bard (social and buff specialist)
Elven Cleric (healing / remedy specialist)
Human Fighter/Rogue (trap and weapon disarming specialist)
Human Paladin (Morale, ettiquette specialist, and party shield)
Elven Wizard (sage knowledge and summoner specialist)
Not very diverse in races, true, but they do have the important needs (IMO) for classes.
Robert