I have been thinking about how parties of heroes get together and I am a little bored with the disparate character types who happen to adventure together. 1 fighter type, 1 healer, 1 sneak, 1 arcane caster. We just met at the bar, saved the local noble's bacon and have been together ever since.
Any thoughts on one characteristic that each party member must have to adventure together? For example, members of a thieves' guild? students at a school for young wizards, clerics of the same faith, knights of the round table, barbarians of the same tribe etc.
I guess what I am thinking of is how similar characters on one level may find ways to be very effective together. Just rambling I guess, but I wonder if anyone has had experience with this type of campaign. Only published work I can remember refereeing is the doomed Circle of Eight in Vecna Lives.
Cheers!
I played in a game inspired by Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai". We used OA rules, and everyone had to be a sammie of some level, each from a different clan. It worked pretty well overall, and there was a lot of variety. We had a couple guys take leadership to provide spell support, but overall the characters were very distinct. I played the Unicorn Clan mounted sammie, using mostly lance and bow in the pre-shogunate style. That character rocked :)
Eh, the crux of it is that D&D is built under the assumption that the separate characters provide their own unique abilities to the overall power of the party, and by having a wide range of abilities, a wide range of challenges can be overcome with an acceptable level of difficulty.
Now, an all barbarian party will murder anything that A: can't fly, and B: doesn't have extremely potent DR. Even then, I would expect an all barbarian team to hack an iron golem to bits pretty fast, even without admantine weapons. Enter one flying enemy, like an arrowhawk, and the barbarians must now change strategies to an avenue that doesn't suit them: ranged. Sure, good base attack, but no strength bonus to damage unless its an expensive bow (which is either calibrated for raging or not raging, but not both) or a thrown weapon with a lower damage base and shorter ranges.
An all rogue party will blaze through traps (3 of them with enough ranks of search/disable device to consistently aid the main trapfinder for a continuous +6 to his already maxed skills). Massive skill points will allow almost every skill to be taken at a high rank by at least one party member. Group flanking will provide an almost constant +2 to attack and guaranteed sneak attack, meaning they will shear through most enemies they can sneak attack. But once the undead/plants/constructs come out, they will have to alter plans significantly. The previously mentioned iron golem would be nearly impossible to kill barring admantine weapons. A better choice would be several tanglefoot bags and a few dozen vials of acid and alchemist fire.
An all wizard party will cause huge damage in the first few rounds, but be progressively more spent each round after, and thus more vunerable. At higher level, two could focus on defense, two on offense, or some other combination, but the fact still remains that once spells are gone, barring wands or other charged items, they become high level commoners.
Its pretty easy to see how the rest of the classes play out. Some require less "contingency planning" than others: bards and druids can make incredibly potent "single-class parties". Paladins can do decently well, sorcerors are similar to wizards but require more individual specialization, rangers and fighters are similar to barbarians but less weighted towards overwhelming melee power.
Beware the all cleric party though. Built right, it's nearly unstoppable. Detect Traps, buff spells, healing, holy damage spells. They can fill all the roles if they are smart.
I have not quite a single class party, but my current group has:
1 human female knight Lvl 4
1 human male ranger 1/Fighter 3 (archer)
1 human male priest of Pelor Lvl 4
The game is set in Greyhawk, in the Shield Lands (pre-war), and the knight is minor nobility, the other two happen to be cousins living in the village her father owns.
This is a combat-oriented party. They would fail miserably if I set classical dungeon challenges or something like that, and I have yet to test them in social settings (so far, all social settings have been just flavour with no action), but I tailor the adventures to them. Recently, I used "The Automatic Hound" from Dungeon, and it was quite successful. They did not like the solution, however. It was noticeable that these three are experienced players, as they had a working tactic against the runehound in a short time.
The story is recounted here, but not updated since August. (Lazy me, but translating the players notes in English takes some time.)
Stefan
It would be an interesting change of pace to run a thieve's guild game or something like that, but even then not everyone would have to be the same class. As an example, a thieve's guild does need rogues, but they can also use fighters/barbarians for muscle, wizards/sorcerers for magic item creation/identification of magic loot/divinations/arcane support, clerics of their god of rogues and luck for mending wounds and things, rangers for wilderness specialties (or urban rangers), etc. Maybe everyone would have at least one level of rogue, but they could be just as diverse as any other party.
It would be an interesting change of pace to run a thieve's guild game or something like that, but even then not everyone would have to be the same class. As an example, a thieve's guild does need rogues, but they can also use fighters/barbarians for muscle, wizards/sorcerers for magic item creation/identification of magic loot/divinations/arcane support, clerics of their god of rogues and luck for mending wounds and things, rangers for wilderness specialties (or urban rangers), etc. Maybe everyone would have at least one level of rogue, but they could be just as diverse as any other party.
I'm plotting something like this. They'll all start out with one level of rogue, swashbuckler, or bard. Over the course of the adventure (which would be tailored for a roguish party) they could take levels in other classes if they wanted. It seems like it would be a lot of fun.
Most of the 1E campaigns I took part in did not consist of the standard collection of classes. I don't know if they would still work in 3E. The biggest obstacle for a single class party is you have to write your own adventures to tailor specifically to your players needs. Having said that, we enjoyed these parties alot and if you want to try it I would give it a shot.
Multi-classing is still probably your best choice. We had lots of short campaigns with all thieves but the one where we all multi-classed gave a wider variety of challenges and went the longest. The quick level progression of 3E helps you with this because you only have to write one adventure focusing on challenging that one classes skills before they hit 2nd level and can multi-class.
Otherwise, the use of hirelings in a diminished or part-time role let you overcome some of the obstacles. Design these NPCs with no combat skills at all. One campaign had old Brother Theo (a cleric) who was too old to go into any dungeons with us but would drive the cart and stay with the horses and heal the wounded when we came back out. Another, consisting of 3 fighters, eventually acquired squires who handed us our weapons, picked up our bows and for 3E could have held tower shields. They had a variety of skills (picking locks, healing, non-combat spells) to help out after the combat was over.
Director of Narrative
|
I've played in a number of theive's guild type games with the kind of breakdown that the Honorable James Keegan described. It is an easy way to have everyone together for a cohesive reason and still allow a little internal drama if needed.
I also played a game with all rogues. We only allowed a tiny amount of multi-classing (1 non-rogue level every four rogue levels). It worked out nicely. We had the tough stealthy rogue, the skill monkey and the smart 'face' of the group that maxed out UMD. Then all we needed to do was to steal, er, acquire the proper magic items. It was fun and worked out well, but as mentioned earlier - these kinds of party rosters work much better with a game written by the GM rather than a pre-published mod.
Beware the all cleric party though. Built right, it's nearly unstoppable. Detect Traps, buff spells, healing, holy damage spells. They can fill all the roles if they are smart.
Definitely agree with you there. Their only weakness would be a lack of good battlefield control magic at higher levels. Clerics are good spell casters but their short on things like dimension door and teleport.
The most powerful party, and yet also fun, I was a part of were all Necromancers.
We demolished everything in the Shackled City AP.
We had undead minions for melee, Spells for everything else, and all had tomb tainted soul. So we could heal ourselves.
Beware the all cleric party though. Built right, it's nearly unstoppable. Detect Traps, buff spells, healing, holy damage spells. They can fill all the roles if they are smart.Definitely agree with you there. Their only weakness would be a lack of good battlefield control magic at higher levels. Clerics are good spell casters but their short on things like dimension door and teleport.
Unless one has the Magic domain and uses wizard/sorcerer scrolls. :)
In any case, I agree.
|
I'm seriously thinking of starting my next campaign (Savage Tide?) with all the characters 1 level Commoner. At 2nd level they may choose to enter one of the PC classes. It'll take some tweaking to get some of the stuff right but I already have some ideas for whoever becomes the spellcasters. Should be a hoot!
Way way back in a VERY old issue of Dragon, there was a good article on running adventures for parties that only consisted of one class...I'll post the issue number when I get home.
I have long had a conception for a single-class game that I would like to eventually run. It is a multi-night session for rogue-oriented characters that takes place in the 6-8 level range.
The catch is, the players show up without characters. They group assembles and are presented with a series of envelopes –twice as many as there are players present at the table. The players are told to take on the role of the elder council of the Thieves Guild and must select members of a strike team for a big heist on a local lord’s manor home (any old-timers remember that awesome “The Wooden Mouse” adventure from Dungeon?) On each envelope is the basic information about a potential character from which they might choose: basic stats and skills, feats and abilities, plus publicly known information such as fears, dislikes and grudges against other guild members. There is also a dossier on the manor home that is to be broken into and vital inside information about the job and what kind of skills might be necessary for a successful heist.
The players must decide what characters to select and what roles to fill in the party based on the information on the outside of the envelopes. There are all sorts of thief-class variants: a safecraker, a sneak-thief, an acrobat, a thug, a trap disabler, a thief/mage, a skill monkey –you get the idea. Once each player has selected a character, the other envelopes are collected and put away and the party assembled and introduced.
Then everyone opens his or her envelopes. Inside are their character sheets as well as detailed information on each character –magic items not publicly known, secret agendas and goals, feats or abilities they keep to themselves and any outstanding vendettas and secret motivations toward other members of the guild, etc.
Then they are off to the heist, which is a 4-6 session adventure. The thing is, the UNSELECTED envelopes form another group of thieves who join together out of spite for not being selected and put their own motivations in action in opposition to the party which affect the background of events as they unfold.
Fun, right?
Fleece66
i hate incoherent parties. in the begining i would let my players decide which would take which of the "core" classes they wanted and then go thier seperate ways. returning a week or so later with characters that made NO sense. finaly i made everyone create 1st rogues from the same neiborhood. low level enough to stay off any theives guild radar but pety criminals nun the less. most of them moved onto other classes quickly but it was quite cool to hear the standard battle cry of "Reeaadyyyy....FLANK". The next adventure i had everyone create characters that were freinds from a large Magic Institute that set out for adventure on the day of graduation. they each had to pick a class that could cast arcane magic. that one ROCKED.
I really like "The Heist" idea. one of my favorite things to do is make chars. Mind if I steel that idea?
One of the best games I played in was a bunch of Specialty Wizards (2e). No Fighters, no Thieves, no Clerics, no Mages. Just 4 lowly wizards making their place in the world.
Then comes the NPC guide, a pit trap with oil and torches rolling into the oil trying to ignite. We both fall down and he gets his foot stuck in a hole in the wall (trying to find a trigger). I go over to help him, CAUSE LIGHT WOUNDS! My hands wrapped around his neck issuing forth a shocking grasp and his mouth filled with oil as I pushed him under the surface. Cleric didn't stand a chance!
Good times! : )
One of the best games I played in was a bunch of Specialty Wizards (2e). No Fighters, no Thieves, no Clerics, no Mages. Just 4 lowly wizards making their place in the world.
I have also played in four-specialty-wizards campaign which was fun...on battle, our group was capable of dealing considerable amount of damage quickly even if long battles or several battles on the row would be deadly. Takes some consideration from DM to modify the encounters to fit the party, but can be fun.
We have also had some other thematic parties which haven't been single class however...sneaking rogue group does benefit from skulking sorcerer and tricky fighter, and our divine party did have a paladin and a monk to support the clerics.
Fun, right?Best. Idea. Ever.
Seriously. I'm stealing this.
Have at it, guys -but I want full disclosure and progress reports! There is more I'd love to fill you in on but I can't have any of my players reading and figuring it out. If you want to email me directly (pegleg at prodigy dot net -that's not against the rules, is it?)
I've been holding onto that one for a while. Really since the Complete Thief came out in 2nd edition with all the variants.
Many players have problems with a DM creating characters and, as a player, too, I do understand. But from the DM perspective, you want and need some party cohesion. Sometimes, you want to run something a bit more cosmopolitian and players show up with rangers and druids, or vice-versa. As a DM, I try to have a strong hand in character creation, but lots of players resent this. But, as Daigle will undoubtedly mention, sometimes the player discovers something about themselves as a player when forced to run a character they don't agree with. Years ago I created a paladin witch hunter for him to play in a very atmosphere-heavy mini campaign -a very dour character for the normally jovial Daigle. He hated it at first but still talks about running that character and learning to enjoy the template I set for him to this day, and that was 10 years ago!
I find that by keeping such experiments short -by running a game such as this as a one-two-three-or-so shot, rather than a campaign, for example, others know that they won't be beholden to a character they might have done differently for an entire year. I find tough players are more approachable to such concepts and can have more fun with it without a long-term commitment...
Fleece
A one-class party sounds pretty interesting to me. It would certainly make sense for a group of individuals with similar training (yet different foci) to work together — like a group of commandos or monster hunters. Personally, I think this would work best using classes that are based off of talent trees since You could then have a group that are all the same class but have pursued that path in different ways after "basic training".
The catch is, the players show up without characters. They group assembles and are presented with a series of envelopes –twice as many as there are players present at the table. (snip)
Then everyone opens his or her envelopes. Inside are their character sheets as well as detailed information on each character –magic items not publicly known, secret agendas and goals, feats or abilities they keep to themselves and any outstanding vendettas and secret motivations toward other members of the guild, etc.
Great idea as far as splitting the group in half, but that's basically how many LARP's work. Isn't it also how tournament-style RPGs work? It's a system designed to ensure good character-group cohesion and challenges the players to play roles/characters they wouldn't normally build themselves. All good qualities, but if there's that much enthusiasm, why not check out how some other folks have done it for ideas?
The catch is, the players show up without characters. They group assembles and are presented with a series of envelopes –twice as many as there are players present at the table. (snip)
Then everyone opens his or her envelopes. Inside are their character sheets as well as detailed information on each character –magic items not publicly known, secret agendas and goals, feats or abilities they keep to themselves and any outstanding vendettas and secret motivations toward other members of the guild, etc.Great idea as far as splitting the group in half, but that's basically how many LARP's work. Isn't it also how tournament-style RPGs work? It's a system designed to ensure good character-group cohesion and challenges the players to play roles/characters they wouldn't normally build themselves. All good qualities, but if there's that much enthusiasm, why not check out how some other folks have done it for ideas?
I've had DMs do the pseudo-LARP thing before and while it wasn't any fun for me(the DM in question did it more out of a need to be controlling and make sure he had a good time himself as opposed to challenging the PCs to do something different), I don't see why another group wouldn't have fun with it. What was more fun in my experience was the party having to deliberate amongst themselves and try to sell an adventuring party- origins, rivals, swag, the whole bit- to the DM instead of trying to get individual (and usually conflicting) characters to work together. Also, the issue I referred to above was the May 1995 issue of Dragon- a great issue with a GREAT article on the monoparty.
A party of elf clerics focusing on archery would be cool. :)
The battle against archtyping eh, tuff one. Even if things did not start out that way, I think characters would start multiclassing to cover their bases. Depending on the importance of certain abilities in your world a few minor changes could really stop what your concerned about; take trapfinding for instance; get rid of the rule that only rougetypes with trapfinding can find traps over dc 20 and make sneak attack a combat feat and the need for that class dissappears. Get rid of the rule that separates Arcane and Divine magic and just call it magic and poof; the problem of needing an healer and a mage goes away. Let anyone wear armor and get rid of the really dumb rule that armor interferes with magic and poof not only do you get rid of the need for the tank archtype; your suddenly playing something else hehe. Amazing how just a few rules are the strings that hold the whole game together.
now, if you dont want to change any rules; I suppose a group of Druids could best overcome any challenge. I think they have the most versatility; can work in water, on land, in the air. Can blast, buff, heal, find information; they can fight and flee amazingly well. While I think it would be fun, a party of all druids would be a big challenge for a gm. I cant think of any one group class that can overcome as many challenges as they.
I played in a game where we all played basic monsters; was a Flind Shamman; almost everyone was a warrior or barbarian and shamman being a thug with some druid powers; this was probably the most like what your describing that I ever played in; every game I have gm'd you always hear the discussion of who is gonna be the mage, healer, tank; as much as i hate it, it happens, I try to encourage people to play what they want and don't sweat the small stuff; really hate to hear the guy complain, "I dont wanna be the cleric, I was the cleric last game" just makes me want to pull my hair out.
I'm seriously thinking of starting my next campaign (Savage Tide?) with all the characters 1 level Commoner. At 2nd level they may choose to enter one of the PC classes. It'll take some tweaking to get some of the stuff right but I already have some ideas for whoever becomes the spellcasters. Should be a hoot!
I'd like to do this, not in ST however. Something like AoW's would be cool for this though. :)
every game I have gm'd you always hear the discussion of who is gonna be the mage, healer, tank; as much as i hate it, it happens, I try to encourage people to play what they want and don't sweat the small stuff; really hate to hear the guy complain, "I dont wanna be the cleric, I was the cleric last game" just makes me want to pull my hair out.
My group have never been like that -although I kind of wish they were.
Each player just makes a character at home (usually after reading something or seeing some movie character do something cool etc) and when I ask them what they want to be in the next campaign I just tell them the set-up or genre of the thing I'm aiming to run and then have to help them fit it all together somehow. (backstories etc)
Quite often there’s never a healer or anything. …But they do seem to manage with whatever they end up with in the end.
If they can’t pick the lock, they break the door -or go back later. If someone needs healing they'll use a potion/die. Sometime run away or take the character somewhere safe or to a healing npc if they can manage it etc.
They do spend a lot of time as a group doing things that would otherwise be easily solved if only they had a cleric/rogue etc but that’s part of the fun I think. Finding ways around tricky circumstances. At times it is a little annoying as the DM (ok a lot) -especially when I want to get to the end of an adventure or story arc or speed things along.
I don’t think my group has ever had all the typical bases covered that the game system expects (fighter, arcane, cleric and rogue). They just don’t think of it as a 'game system' really. They kind of treat D&D as a drama club in a way and a chance to 'be' a character they want to explore.
Only one member of the group is into the 'game system' aspect and only me and him even understand terms like 'tank' etc -its weird. :)
I have tried explaining to the group that the game expects certain niches to be filled and how things would be easier if they just worked within those (still rather loose) margins etc
…but they just take what I say with a pinch of salt and get back to designing their D&D version of Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Captain Jack/Cyclops/Samo Hung or whatever has taken their fancy at that time.
:/
...Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Captain Jack/Cyclops/Samo Hung or whatever has taken their fancy at that time....
Hmmm...
I've just given myself an idea for a rival party lol!
Lets see:
Cyclops could be done using Dragonfire Adept or Warlock...
Samo Hung -Battle Dancer/fighter.
The others I don't know...
I'm not certain. Maybe you autta just stick with the default: Nothing. Or you could throw them together and say they each know a terrible secret.