|
Hey all, my group and I are in the character building/conceptualizing stage of a RotRL campaign I plan to run. As things stand right now, no one wants to play a cleric or a druid, and I'm worried about the party surviving.
However, one of the players has put forth the concept of playing a Desna-worshipping bard as the primary healer of the party. She plans to invest in scrolls of CLW early on, and a wand when she can afford it. There's little chance of her multiclassing into a cleric because her wisdom is an 8.
Any thoughts on the feasibility of this? She'll pretty much be the main healer.
Some suggestions the Bard might want to consider if they are taking on this role:
Complete Adventurer
Chant of Fortitude (Feat): Keeps people conscious at negative hitpoints (so they can use a cure potion, etc).
Ironskin Chant (Feat): DR 5/- helps keep the damage down.
Healthful Rest (Spell): Doubles healing from rest.
Complete Divine
Augment Healing (Feat): Increases healing from spells.
Also, while taking a level of Cleric might seem silly with a Wisdom of 8, you can still use Turning (times per day based on Charisma) and Domain powers (Healing domain could be useful in tight situations). Turning, at least in the beginning levels, provides FAR more healing output than a cleric's spells anyways. Might help survive until you can afford wands and stuff.
Speaking of which, you'll also have a greater list of spells on your "wand usage" list, although if they are intending to max out Use Magic Device anyways then that might be overkill.
You might go a step further and grant him channel energy in exchange for something else.
Or make it another application of bardic music.
Channel Positive Energy: 3 uses a day minimum. Grows with level. Area-effect.
CLW Scroll: Static healing, single-target, full-round action that provokes AoO. Use Magic Device DC = 21. 25g per use.
Fact: Session 1 of Burnt Offerings (chapter 1) includes three encounters in the same day with ELs from 1 to 3, and the end of the adventure is a multi-level dungeon that -must- be cleared in one fell swoop.
Even if your bard resigns him/herself to the sad destiny of a healbot, 2 CLWs only aren't likely to pull a non-balanced party through -session 1- (by "Balanced Party" be understood the archetypical Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue team, all of them outfitted with the corresponding Wealth-by-Level). Past level 1, your heals -won't cut it- unless your troupe blows the whole party treasure from Burnt Offerings in scrolls while they can afford their first wand.
I myself play a bard in a non-balanced party in Absalom, the game is a low-powered swashbuckling campaign so we usually do fine... but then came the OOPS day when the GM picked a random PFS scenario and the group came -this close- to a TPK. All canned adventures are written assuming the group is a Balanced Party or equivalent and RotRL is no exception. While non-balanced parties can make it through, they have to play smart.
Word to the wise: Pick your fights carefully (no heroics, no kick-at-the-door playstyle), know when to hold them and when to fold them, when to back away, and when to run.
If goblins eat Aldern Foxglove that's too bad but better him than you guys, by the time you get to that last encounter of the day you'll all be down to half-hp, so the chances of beating a mounted goblin commando plus companions will be slim at best.
I myself play a bard in a non-balanced party in Absalom, the game is a low-powered swashbuckling campaign so we usually do fine... but then came the OOPS day when the GM picked a random PFS scenario and the group came -this close- to a TPK. All canned adventures are written assuming the group is a Balanced Party or equivalent and RotRL is no exception. While non-balanced parties can make it through, they have to play smart.
Not true. RotRL is not a series of "typical" adventures.
Rise of the Runelords is a Meat Grinder, even balanced parties of Epic Build characters have quite a bit of trouble with it.
A party without a strong healer will simply die.
|
I myself play a bard in a non-balanced party in Absalom, the game is a low-powered swashbuckling campaign so we usually do fine... but then came the OOPS day when the GM picked a random PFS scenario and the group came -this close- to a TPK. All canned adventures are written assuming the group is a Balanced Party or equivalent and RotRL is no exception. While non-balanced parties can make it through, they have to play smart.Not true. RotRL is not a series of "typical" adventures.
Rise of the Runelords is a Meat Grinder, even balanced parties of Epic Build characters have quite a bit of trouble with it.
A party without a strong healer will simply die.
Not necessarily; we made it through about half with little healing capacity, we only gained a full Cleric halfway through module 4, and then the end boss of that TPK'ed us...
Not sure if you are asking for 3.5 or Pathfinder RPG stuff... I am going to assume 3.5 since that is what RotRL was written for and you didn't mention anything about converting it.
The first adventure will be tough. Starting out you don't have a ton of cash so investing in scrolls is not really something you can put much cash into. At 25g each, I would consider asking each of the players to chip in for one. At first level a bard doesn't have another option for healing.
Once you can afford them magic items become necessary as the number of spells per day that you will be able to cast will make it tough to feel useful doing other things AND healing. Remember that a wand is cheaper per casting than is a scroll... so as soon as you can, get yourself a wand of cure light wounds. Next wand you should invest in is a Wand of Vigor which is a more efficient healer than is CLW, but better for use outside of combat.
I would also highly recommend that you and EVERYONE else in the party get a Belt of Healing as very soon as possible (750g). This is one of those "must have" items IMHO.
If there is a rogue, he should be UMDing wands of CLW as well. Try to spread it around if you can.
You need help from the party paying for things. If you are not just going to have healing stuff so you can be useful doing other things then you need money too (and a bard has sooo many roles that they need as much or more cash than most). I would recommend giving the party pool of cash a share of all treasure as well and then purchases of healing gear comes out of this. (if they want you to be a dedicated healer with your cash and all spells... well, give up and play a cleric... you will just be frustrated as a bard).
This should all be in swing and doable by Skinsaw Murders... but you will find the Catacombs of Wrath and Thistletop as tough fights due to healing issues.
Also keep in mind that if people don't get hurt then you don't have to heal them. The other players have a responsibility to pump their AC and do what it takes to not take excess damage.
Should be interesting... worst case scenario, a DMPC cleric can join.
Sean Mahoney
Creative Director
|
Not true. RotRL is not a series of "typical" adventures.
Rise of the Runelords is a Meat Grinder, even balanced parties of Epic Build characters have quite a bit of trouble with it.
A party without a strong healer will simply die.
I disagree.
Part of the GM's job in ANY game is making sure that the adventure runs well with his group. Runelords assumes 4 or 5 players of a well-balanced party, but that's the same for any of our products; we HAVE to assume that, since there's no way we can predict what types of parties are going to play it, and even if we could, since more than one party will play it, we have to take an "average."
A party with only a single bard as healer will have to watch its resources and make sure to help support the financial side of things, but unless the GM is a hardliner who doesn't alter the rules at all, he'll be able to adjust things as appropriate so that the party can still enjoy the adventure.
A party without a strong healer will face more challenges in Runelords but they won't "simply die," at least, not anymore than they would in any adventure that features lots of combat.
I'm of the opinion a bard is a poor substitute for a cleric for healing. I give bards a boost in my campaigns akin to the clerics channeling:
Song of Healing: A bard has ability to provide healing to all those in an area around the bard by performing a song of healing. This ability requires a full minute of performance, at the end of which time all living creatures who remained within 30’ of the bard during the entire performance are healed 1d8 hit points plus an addition 1 hit point per level of the bard. This ability may be used a number of times per day equal to 1 + her charisma modifier.
I've run stretches of Runelords with little cleric support and things have worked out fine. The toughest battles have actually been when the cleric *was* there, but that seems to be by chance.
Bards have a significant advantage when it comes to healing - they are spontaneous casters. Unlike druids, they have no need to memorize a specific number of level of cures. I also agree that multiclassing to cleric for a level (if you're running Pathfinder RPG with Channel Energy) would work out well, but isn't necessary.
Don't forget there is a bardic healing performance at higher levels.
Also:
CLW Scroll: Static healing, single-target, full-round action that provokes AoO. Use Magic Device DC = 21. 25g per use.
Bards don't have a Use Magic Device check to use any cure spell below Mass Cure Serious Wounds, they have them all on their spell list. Though they would for a Heal scroll (DC 31) - Staff of Life better option.
I disagree.
Part of the GM's job in ANY game is making sure that the adventure runs well with his group. Runelords assumes 4 or 5 players of a well-balanced party, but that's the same for any of our products; we HAVE to assume that, since there's no way we can predict what types of parties are going to play it, and even if we could, since more than one party will play it, we have to take an "average."
A party without a strong healer will face more challenges in Runelords but they won't "simply die," at least, not anymore than they would in any adventure that features lots of combat.
I gotta side with James on this one... part of any DM's job in any game is to provide challenge, rules adjudication, and entertainment... but it's also to provide a balanced campaign. Unless the DM handpicks the characters or classes available to the party (or worse yet, provides pre-gen characters to play), the players will nearly always pick a party that doesn't necessarily fit into the jello mold of the "4 Classic Core Classes"; i.e. Warrior, Skills Specialist, Healer, and Arcane Caster.
My current group of players is playing a non-conventional combo of classes. I'm converting the Rise of Runelords campaign to Pathfinder BETA, which is somewhat of a challenge given the still-somewhat limited resources available for PFRPG. The group started with a ranger, a warlock, a paladin, a cleric of Sarenrae, a rogue, and a fighter. Combat-heavy, but filling the slots of skills and healer nicely. Having a warlock as the sole caster meant no early Sleep spells or Identify's to ease their way, but they handled it well. But as you all may or may not know, the group of players have ways of changing or evolving... real life interfered and took away our ranger and paladin. A sorceress joined the ranks, which was nice, but then a party death claimed the cleric and the player did not want to roll up another one.. he made a barbarian instead. So the party was sans-healer. But they adapted... as DM, I saw the obvious loss in character resources, so substituted a wand of Cure Wounds here n' there as treasure drops, and made sure to encourage both the sorceress n' warlock to bump up their Use Magic Device skills. Potions were made available in even the small shanty towns, and I made sure the encounters dropped sufficient coin to handle expenses for replenishing wands n' potions.
So the party doesn't have a cleric, and sure, there are times when they miss having a prayer spell or remove disease at those crucial moments. But it can be done... the DM just has to be aware, and modify the adventure accordingly to help compensate... not giving anything away, mind you, but just giving the players access to resources that a party with a full Cleric as a card-carrying member might not necessarily need. You just need to be flexible as needed...
We got through the last book of RotR with one druid and my wizard acting as the healers.
My wizard had UMD and made use of 2 wands of cure light wounds, a wand of cure moderate wounds, a wand of lesser restoration, and a wand of restoration 1/2 charged
SPOILER ALERT!
I used shrink Item to take the giant peacock statue from the runeforge and donated it to a temple of Shelyn because of its beauty. The DM figured that an item like that was near priceless so the temple gave me 4 of the 5 wands plus some good favor which never got used...
After the end of the book I have 7 charges left on 1 wand of cure light wounds, 5 charges on the wand of cure moderate wounds, and 2 charges on the wand of lesser restoration, and 8 charges on the wand of restoration.
We got by with several reincarnates though, and summoned monsters augmenting our healing pool.
Our party had the following:
2 wizards, 1 arcane trickster, 1 druid, 1 sorcerer/barbarian, 1 arcane archer, 1 dwarven defender, 1 shadowdancer, 1 barbarian (the barbarian, druid, shadowdancer and arcane archer where there 1/2 the time all on and offish).
Part of the GM's job in ANY game is making sure that the adventure runs well with his group. Runelords assumes 4 or 5 players of a well-balanced party, but that's the same for any of our products; we HAVE to assume that, since there's no way we can predict what types of parties are going to play it, and even if we could, since more than one party will play it, we have to take an "average."
I am not sure that I agree that a DM should change the adventure to work with a given group. I realize that you are not advocating making things easy on them, but even changing it to work with a non-standard is, in my opinion, taking something away from the group.
I would suggest that a DM has the responsibility to point out that the group is non-standard and in what ways it is deficient. But if the party chooses to have these deficiencies then they are also getting more of something else. Perhaps they are a melee powerhouse and churn through encounters with lots of lower level creatures like nothing. Perhaps they have two arcane casters and the party is something of a glass cannon. Whatever it is, they are knowingly entering into a group that has some benefits for its makeup and other weaknesses compared to your base-line or stereotypical group.
I think it is wise to start the discussion on how they are going to deal with these short comings, but to avoid them to any degree would be to take away part of the challenge the group knowingly accepted.
My current group running through RotR right now has a Druid, Barbarian/Ranger, Psionicist, and Mind Blade. They have no way of searching for traps or disarming them and currently have no way to open locks more effective than the Barbarians universal key (his earthbreaker). The druid is playing the role of the healer for this group.
Because of the discussions they had ahead of time the druid character has taken the spontaneous healing feat and the party is setting aside money for healing items (they purchased a healing belt and will get more as well as wands and the like). The psionicist has taken psionic knock and well... the Barbarian takes in on the chins from any traps, that's why he gets all those hit points. But he expects that and they planned it that way.
I don't think it would good of me to remove the traps from the game or reduce them because they have no way of disarming them, just like I think it would be cheap of me to increase the number of creatures in fights because they have a lot of melee prowess.
I personally feel that the 'designed for a well-balanced party' is good adventure design and that it is good to keep it that way. I suppose if a situation were completely unplayable (i.e. they want to play through RotR with a group of all rogues) then I would have to run a different campaign that they are looking for (in that case some city based craziness likely, but even CotCT wouldn't fit too well).
Sean Mahoney
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I'm playing my first ever Bard Lady Bethany Archaise in a PbP at the moment and while I still don't have a feel for the Class just yet (no combats or critical encounters as such), I have always thought that the idea of a Bard as Primary Healer isn't such a bad idea.
Maybe it comes from playing Dungeons & Dragons Online and seeing parties with only a Bard as Healer still do well, but I still think it could very well be aviable option.
Of course you would have to concentrate on it to some degree and take Feats and such to maximise your potential.
1) It can be done, our group has run several adventures with no "healer" class. No cleric, no paladin, no druid. We had a ranger and a bard. At low levels, as long as the class can use a wand you are relatively safe. If you have to rely on UMD, I wouldn't try it, bad rolls will cause problems and there is nothing like rolling a 1 and being unable to use the item for 24 hours (once happened when we had a rogue "playing" healer).
Basically you just need to be aware of the limitations (1d8+1 always) and plan accordingly. Depending on the group, your tactics may have to change. If there are two possible wand users things are better as the group is SOL if the "main" healer goes down.
2) The group kinda all have to be "team players," we all would chip in ASAP to get that wand. Also later on you will need more wands, so that means less money to buy individual goodies as the wands aren't scaling like the spells, kinda like psionic powers that don't augment. You just have to use more charges to get close to/totally healed. Also we wouldn't always heal to full, if a charge could waste healing we wouldn't use it, so we wondered around down a few points more often than not.
If money may be an issue (just starting the AP at 1st), if you are using PFRPG Beta, there is a social(?) character trait that allows a character to start with +900 gold at creation (wealthy parents or some such). It chews up a trait but would allow you to buy a wand right from the start (or two if two characters do it) that I would suggest asking the DM about. I think it was in the CotCT AP/guide (but don't quote me on it).
It would depend on the amount of healing needed. I wouldn't expect them to last anywhere near as long as a PFRPG cleric, so I'd look elsewhere if that is the degree of healing power you're looking for.
In our Second Darkness game, I'm playing a bard (currently bard 8 fighter 1 eldritch knight 1) and I'm the primary healer of the group. We also have a ranger. Out of combat, we use wands of CLW. In combat, I carry a wand of cure serious wounds. We're in Descent into Midnight now, and I'd really like to upgrade to a wand of cure critical wounds or a staff of heal, but so far, we haven't had anybody die, so the healing we have must be adequate.
|
|
In our Second Darkness game, I'm playing a bard (currently bard 8 fighter 1 eldritch knight 1) and I'm the primary healer of the group. We also have a ranger. Out of combat, we use wands of CLW. In combat, I carry a wand of cure serious wounds. We're in Descent into Midnight now, and I'd really like to upgrade to a wand of cure critical wounds or a staff of heal, but so far, we haven't had anybody die, so the healing we have must be adequate.
Now now, that isn't entirely true. The ranger died in the last adventure. He just didn't die from hp damage.
He was at full HP's. Not my fault he blew both saves against Phantasmal Killer.
|
|
As a DM frequently forced to balance the party by playing an NPC, my favorite is the bard. It can work as the main healer (just make sure everyone has higher-level healing potions for emergencies, which holds true for a cleric as well), a secondary healer in conjunction with a druid or combat-cleric, and fill in so many other roles (including clue-sticks!).
I'm also allowing the wizard player in my Legacy of Fire group to learn healing spells - once he finds arcane scrolls of healing.
|
Creative Director
|
I am not sure that I agree that a DM should change the adventure to work with a given group. I realize that you are not advocating making things easy on them, but even changing it to work with a non-standard is, in my opinion, taking something away from the group.
Personally, I can't imagine NOT changing an adventure to fit whatever group I end up with, because the whole point of the game, for me, is that the players have fun. I'm not a fan of the style of playing where there's an implication that it's "PC versus GM," with each trying to outthink the other, because that kind of game too quickly turns into textbook cases of the GM abusing his/her power.
I'm absolutely not advocating making things easy on the party, but if I were running Runelords and the players wanted to do an all rogue/fighter group of Sczarni thugs, I'd let them. In fact, that sounds kinda cool. With no spellcasting at all, I'd certainly adjust the game; I'd cut back on the mass combats where area of effect spells are assumed, I'd put a LOT more healing treasure into the game and take out most of the spellcaster treasure, and I'd go easy on the situations that assume access to flight and other big magic effects (or, more likely, I'd seed the area before with magic items or other alternative solutions to the upcoming problem).
For a group with no one able to detect traps, I'd probably take out the majority of the traps. Theyer'e basically just arbitrary wandering damage if you don't have PCs who can do anything about them, after all, and I take no pleasure in watching players get frustrated with being hit time and time again with things they can't do anything about—other than simply walking away and finding adventure elsewhere. In such a group, I'd take most of the minor pest traps out and replace them with monster encounters. OR I'd let them know ahead of time that the region they're going into has lots of traps, via overheard rumors or having them see a sprung trap or something, and then I'd probably seed the encounters before with some tools and clues and magic items that they could use to deal with the traps. This doesn't make things easy for them, but it DOES help to remove the feel of the GM is arbitrarily punishing the group for playing the game differently than he might.
In a homebrew world, and especially one where "the adventure" can go in any direction and the DM either has multiple adventure paths lined up, or is ready to improvise, then yeah.. I can see 'not changing anything' being okay.
In such a case, the DM should be giving enough warning that something might be too dangerous for the players to try, and thus let them decide to kill themselves trying, or move on to an adventure that they could handle.
In a game that's using a published adventure path, or if the DM wants the group to run a specifically planned event, then not tailoring it to the group is just punishing them for not reading your mind.
If the DM doesn't communicate that the group they have isn't going to be sufficient for the adventure planned, then he's being a sadist. ;)
.
That isn't to say that the DM should always make things a cakewalk. If all the DM does is allow for greater preparation time, and access to more resources (such as hirelings, aid from allies, or more magic items to compensate for their dearth in ability), then that should be just as fine as toning down the actual encounters.
Personally, I can't imagine NOT changing an adventure to fit whatever group I end up with, because the whole point of the game, for me, is that the players have fun.
This is something of a strawman argument though in that you are inferring that players can't or don't have fun if the adventure is not changed to take away those items that the group is not prepared to deal with.
Once again, if the party started out with the knowledge that they were lacking in some area and have a plan to shore up that weakness, then I think changing things to reduce that challenge is actually cheating them out of some of their fun of playing a non-standard group and the challenge that it provides.
But then, I suppose you are not saying that all challenge should be removed as well... I guess my point is that there is not an imperative for change or customization in order for a group to enjoy an adventure.
(I personally spend my time customizing the role-playing aspects of the game and increasing those from what is hinted at or potentially in the adventures but not spelled out).
I'm not a fan of the style of playing where there's an implication that it's "PC versus GM," with each trying to outthink the other, because that kind of game too quickly turns into textbook cases of the GM abusing his/her power.
When I first started playing D&D I had a DM who only liked being in a dungeon and all dungeon and encounters were randomly generated from various charts that he had. As a result I have a visceral dislike of random encounters. However, that experience that I had does not mean that random encounters couldn't be used by a good DM to great effect; I just haven't seen it and am so opposed on a gut reaction level to them that I find I don't use them.
I wonder if your quote above is something like that. By leaving in a challenge that they knew they would have a harder time dealing with I don't think that I am being "PC vs. GM" at all. In fact I sit there and instigate the discussions on how to deal with any perceived areas of weakness (though they have to come up with a plan, I still am shooting out discussion points and guiding them to make sure they have one).
My guess is that there is a fine line between make sure there is not even an 'implication' of GM vs. PC and being a fair and impartial arbiter of what is going on. I guess I would watch that in trying to avoid something you think is bad that you don't go so far in the opposite direction that it causes an issue or lessens the players fun. You are not their adversary but you control the things that are. You are responsible as a DM for playing them fairly and consistently with the world. If you become too much of a the players buddy and friend to avoid any hint or implication of GM vs. PC it could ruin the game just as easily as the hard core GM vs. PC type.
I'm absolutely not advocating making things easy on the party, but if I were running Runelords and the players wanted to do an all rogue/fighter group of Sczarni thugs, I'd let them. In fact, that sounds kinda cool.
It does sound cool, it is a game I would like to run. However, I wouldn't be running them through Rise of the Runelords. There would be far too much in that campaign that doesn't really cater to what these players seem to be interested in. If that is the group that they wanted to play in order to have fun I would be looking at running a completely unique campaign. Sure I might steal things from other APs, but this group isn't likely looking for a hero of the world type game.
With no spellcasting at all, I'd certainly adjust the game; I'd cut back on the mass combats where area of effect spells are assumed, I'd put a LOT more healing treasure into the game and take out most of the spellcaster treasure, and I'd go easy on the situations that assume access to flight and other big magic effects (or, more likely, I'd seed the area before with magic items or other alternative solutions to the upcoming problem).
As for changing out the treasure, I don't know that I like that either. If a fighter only uses a spiked chain do you make sure he finds a magic one in the treasure? I guess I just make sure that the players have available to them the option of purchasing what magic items that they want. This way they can still get outfitted well, but I am not tailoring the gear for them (in most cases... I have done this on occasion).
For a group with no one able to detect traps, I'd probably take out the majority of the traps. Theyer'e basically just arbitrary wandering damage if you don't have PCs who can do anything about them, after all, and I take no pleasure in watching players get frustrated with being hit time and time again with things they can't do anything about—other than simply walking away and finding adventure elsewhere.
Is that really the situation? Can't they be aware of this shortcoming in their group and get things like wands of detect traps, knock and other spells to take care of the traps? How is that different than not having a healer and having classes like the bard and ranger step in with wands or other items like healing belts to deal with the situation?
To be fair, I have considered removing traps just because I think the design of them is not all that fun in 3.5. They are essentially a skill encounter for a single member of the party, everyone else just gets to stand back while that PC searches and disables then opens lock. It also slows game play down by making EVERY door take a lot longer as it is searched for traps... but I digress... that is another conversation.
This doesn't make things easy for them, but it DOES help to remove the feel of the GM is arbitrarily punishing the group for playing the game differently than he might.
I guess I just can't agree that leaving these issues to be dealt with by creative and inventive players is arbitrarily punishing them. Rather it is letting them deal with and overcome obstacles in the game. Once again, I think it is a GMs responsibility to point out these areas that aren't covered and insure that the PCs have a plan... but taking away the challenge just doesn't seem like the only way to allow the players to have fun. In fact I feel like they are there for a good story and feel a lot of accomplishment if they overcome challenges. From that point of view removing them is like a parent not allowing a child to try new things because they can't protect them. That child also doesn't get the highs of accomplishment and the well deserved pride in doing it.
Sean Mahoney
In a game that's using a published adventure path, or if the DM wants the group to run a specifically planned event, then not tailoring it to the group is just punishing them for not reading your mind.
If the DM doesn't communicate that the group they have isn't going to be sufficient for the adventure planned, then he's being a sadist. ;)
Aren't these kind of contradictory statements? Communicating to them that they might not be ready to deal with something like healing or traps and then changing the adventure so they don't need to also seems kind of cruel.
It seems like if you do the second that you don't need to do the first and vice versa.
Sean Mahoney
|
I don't know. I've run this type of thing a lot with a group I play with. They are so convinced that Fighters and Barbarians are so great, that they almost all make them, expecting that I'm suppossed to give out only Healing potions and GP for treasure, only throw large single monsters at them, not use traps or magic (unless it does HP damage), and so on.
If I do this, it one re-enforces their idea that only fighter types are good characters, and two starts getting very boring on many accounts. I can not through many things at them (or tpk the party every single game), treasure is very linear, storyline is very simple (there are just so many, mostly all the boss monsters, that they have 0% of beating, even many levels below them), and even ranged combat can own them. Even dungeons must be custom built for them, or entire characters will sit out combats, (especially when they are ambushed in hallways).
That being said, there are sometimes when you want to customize an adventure or encounter for a party. The first thing to look at is the party's and the DM's fun. It is okay to skip some puzzles if there are not any Wisdom and Intelligence based characters (I use Wisdom for puzzles and riddles, but a lot of people go with Int.). Don't replace it with a trap or fight, (which rewards the party for nothing), but also don't tell them.
On the other hand though, a lot of the fun is failing. Failure shows you what it means to succeed, and it can also be very funny for everyone, if they let it. Maybe that rogue that rolled a 1 on the wand started having their nose grow whenever they told a lie for the next 24 hours, (or maybe anytime they told the truth. . .). As long as the character they are trying to heal doesn't die from the failure.
For the Bard, just keep in mind you are going to have to lead the party. You know what your character has left, and always keep in mind that you are not a Cleric. Don't let everyone else forget that. It is not your job to just sit their and fix their mistakes, they need to take that responsibility themselves, (taking ranks in UMD, buying potions for themselves, buying you Wands, and not rushing into combats). You are your own character and have your own gear you need for yourself.
If they don't go for it or you are going to buy all the healing (and the many other Cleric only goodness like restoration, res., and various protections), than you need to have them agree that you get double portions of and first choice in all treasure drops, your doing double the work after all, not negotiable.
If they don't go for that, don't play a healer at all, and let the party deal with it.
|
This is something of a strawman argument though in that you are inferring that players can't or don't have fun if the adventure is not changed to take away those items that the group is not prepared to deal with.Once again, if the party started out with the knowledge that they were lacking in some area and have a plan to shore up that weakness, then I think changing things to reduce that challenge is actually cheating them out of some of their fun of playing a non-standard group and the challenge that it provides.
But then, I suppose you are not saying that all challenge should be removed as well... I guess my point is that there is not an imperative for change or customization in order for a group to enjoy an adventure.
The flip side of the coin is this. If you are the DM and running the game for you and your players to have fun, then telling the players that their choices for classes is lacking for what you have in store for them kind of throws a wrench in the works.
First, it gives the players the feeling they cannot play what they wanted to play, which can diminish the enjoyment for those players somewhat, especially with younger players who REALLY want to play the class they decided on.
Second, it has the potential to remove some of the elements of surprise. After all, if you point out that the party has no means of turning undead, well you've just removed some of the surprise of that mass of skeletons coming out the fog as the party camps in the moor.
Additionally, when I get the opportunity to be a player, I always find it more challenging and more enjoyable when the party is faced with a situation that we are not necessarily prepared for based off of party classes. It forces the players to think outside the box and when things work out it makes the victory that much more memorable. Also, having no clue what we as a party will encounter always has made for a more entertaining gaming session IMHO.
In the role of DM, your main job is to ensure that the adventure is balanced to the party that the players choose. If the players choose to run with a low power group, then you adjust the encounters down a bit to ensure it is not a guaranteed TPK. If they decide to run with a high power group, bump the encounter up to make sure they have a challenge.
The important thing is the term 'balance'. You don't want to modify things to make them a cakewalk, but you don't want to ensure a TPK. The potential of a TPK should be present, but not guaranteed.
When I first started playing D&D I had a DM who only liked being in a dungeon and all dungeon and encounters were randomly generated from various charts that he had. As a result I have a visceral dislike of random encounters. However, that experience that I had does not mean that random encounters couldn't be used by a good DM to great effect; I just haven't seen it and am so opposed on a gut reaction level to them that I find I don't use them.I wonder if your quote above is something like that. By leaving in a challenge that they knew they would have a harder time dealing with I don't think that I am being "PC vs. GM" at all. In fact I sit there and...
I have to agree with you about the completely random encounter thing. That always drove me nuts. "What do you mean we encounter a giant slug? We're in the middle of a salt flat!"
I also agree that by leaving in a challenge that will pose more of a problem for the party is fine (as long as you, the DM, can see some means of the PCs having a chance dealing with it). See the comment above about having to think outside the box.
|
|
It is okay to skip some puzzles if there are not any Wisdom and Intelligence based characters (I use Wisdom for puzzles and riddles, but a lot of people go with Int.).
I always run with an actual puzzle or riddle. No dice rolls, just the players facing a problem they need to overcome through on their own.
Sometimes this route does have problems. In one dungeon I made for a campaign I was running I had a series of puzzles and riddles. Someone in the group managed to breeze through each and every riddle and all but one of the puzzles. But that one puzzle that had the group stumped was great! The players kept trying to figure out what was going on and after puzzling it out as a group for about 30 minutes or so, managed to finally figure it out. It gave each player the opportunity to work on the problem rather than dole it out to one or more players who happened to have the needed stats/skills/whatnot.
On the other hand though, a lot of the fun is failing. Failure shows you what it means to succeed, and it can also be very funny for everyone, if they let it. Maybe that rogue that rolled a 1 on the wand started having their nose grow whenever they told a lie for the next 24 hours, (or maybe anytime they told the truth. . .). As long as the character they are trying to heal doesn't die from the failure.
For the Bard, just keep in mind you are going to have to lead the party. You know what your character has left, and always keep in mind that you are not a Cleric. Don't let everyone else forget that. It is not your job to just sit their and fix...
Failure does add a lot to a game. A game where everyone succeeds all the time gets boring pretty quick.
And for the Bard acting as a primary healer and the party they travel with, just remember the FPS mantra "clip awareness, clip awareness".;)
It seems like if you do the second that you don't need to do the first and vice versa.
I'm sorry if that implication was lost on you. Yes.. either warn them that they will need certain elements, or let them play what they want and tailor the adventure for them.
I agree. Failure when there was a chance to succeed (ie, failure on the players part) is fine. If there were appropriate clues, or even a modicum of warning of the level of threat, then yeah.. kicking yourself because you didn't see it can be all part of the fun.
Failure because they didn't read the DM's mind or divine an adventure writer's esoteric puzzle clues... not so much.
Although the second one can be fun, if you don't mind making new characters constantly. I had fun playing King's Quest too... just not normally the type of gaming I expect to see in D&D.
|
|
Failure because they didn't read the DM's mind or divine an adventure writer's esoteric puzzle clues... not so much.
I agree fully with you on this point. I have always viewed it as part of the job of taking on the role of DM to ensure that the PCs have at least some measure of chance to succeed at a challenge.
It's those successes where success seems like such a long shot that make a game truly memorable ... like a party of level 2 characters with no magic weapons taking on the quasit in the RotRL catacombs and ultimately succeeding by using a bedroll (and a cloak and a second bedroll as it started to cut it's way out) to cover the dang thing and beat the heck out of the moving mass under the covers.
|
|
It actually works pretty well, especially if the party's cool with helping to finance scrolls and wands of healing. Go for it! :)
only if they finance this articles... otherwise is strainign a bit the character... tried a few months back a bard who was mostly support and healing... and we were being dried...
it can work but it strain itself.
I don't know. I've run this type of thing a lot with a group I play with. They are so convinced that Fighters and Barbarians are so great, that they almost all make them
It's a conundrum. On one hand, you don't want to spoil their fun, but on the other hand, you want to have some fun for yourself.
And always changing adventures, or creating them, so that swordery will win the day can get boring for a GM. Unless, of course, you target their weaknesses.
And I think you should target their weaknesses. The world doesn't always change to accomodate you - it's the other way around.
But don't do encounters where they simply lose. Instead, create characters that would be comparatively easy for a "balanced" party (i.e. one that has warrior, expert, priest and arcanist), but is a lot harder for an all-melee party. Not impossible, but hard. Make them work for their XP. (And I don't increase XP because you're lacking something if you eschew it on purpose)
And you might show them how much other classes can rock. Pit them not against monsters, but against hostile parties. Parties that have more than just melee-type warriors.
Show them how the rogue flanks them and weakens them with his bleeding, crippling strike.
Show them how many of their damage is undone by a cleric who uses quickened channeling. And the same cleric will be in full melee-buff mode (i.e. divine power, righteous might) and beat the crap out of them while doing everything else. And don't forget other nice stuff a cleric can do, like holy smite (or whatever works against the party), hold person, harm, blade barrier, bestow curse.
And the wizard will be the wizard. You won't see him, but he'll alternate between damaging you and inconveniencing you with rays of enfeeblement, hideous laughter, slow, enervation.
Maybe they learn a lesson and see how much fun other classes can be.
Hey all, my group and I are in the character building/conceptualizing stage of a RotRL campaign I plan to run. As things stand right now, no one wants to play a cleric or a druid, and I'm worried about the party surviving.
However, one of the players has put forth the concept of playing a Desna-worshipping bard as the primary healer of the party. She plans to invest in scrolls of CLW early on, and a wand when she can afford it. There's little chance of her multiclassing into a cleric because her wisdom is an 8.
Any thoughts on the feasibility of this? She'll pretty much be the main healer.
I love the idea, and I think they should go for it. I don't think there is any need for any drastic changes. Part of the party dynamic is figuring out the party's strengths and weaknesses as they are adventuring.
It's a conundrum. On one hand, you don't want to spoil their fun, but on the other hand, you want to have some fun for yourself.And always changing adventures, or creating them, so that swordery will win the day can get boring for a GM. Unless, of course, you target their weaknesses.
And I think you should target their weaknesses. The world doesn't always change to accomodate you - it's the other way around.
But don't do encounters where they simply lose. Instead, create characters that would be comparatively easy for a "balanced" party (i.e. one that has warrior, expert, priest and arcanist), but is a lot harder for an all-melee party. Not impossible, but hard. Make them work for their XP. (And I don't increase XP because you're lacking something if you eschew it on purpose)
And you might show them how much other classes can rock. Pit them not against monsters, but against hostile parties. Parties that have more than just melee-type warriors.
Have an all melee group that just didn't think casters were worth the time or were simply too fragile to make it fun?
Well that can be changed when the enemy has archers, low hit point but lethal archers. Sure the fighters and barbarians could desimate them if they could close and if they could aborb the beating doing so. Then show them that a wizard with the right spells do could even better. Protection from Arrows + Fire ball does wonders to change that veiw. Oh so they are all ready to ignore it saying it was a special case, well then show them the wonders of haste every fight, the bulls str, the magic missles that finish off foes who are hanging on by a thread, and the fire to burn trolls down without a chance to heal it. Oh they will see the light then. Only problem is getting them to play fighters.....
|
|
I thought I chime in very late.
I do not believe you can finish RotRL without a healer of sorts (druid/clereic/healer). The campaign I am running currently sees I cleric that has taken the martial cleric option out of the campaign book. There has been multiple times that with out the cleric or with out giving the party heals that they would have died. I dunno if it just my DMing style but that is what I have experienced.
The party I DM'd was composed of:
Fighter (tower shield, dazzling display)
Ranger/Barbarian (TWF and good with bow)
Druid (Fire domain, scribe scroll)
And sometimes:
Cleric (2H sword, 8 Cha)
All PCs got Max hp for class +Con mod + 3
All other creatures got normal hp +1/HD, (max +3)
Fighter was super tough, but took some nasty lumps when I rolled well.
Cleric about broke even in terms of healing needed/provided due to kick in the door playing style.
Ranger/Barbarian was a Dex based character that was consistent, but dealt far less damage then a normal Barbarian, except against favored enemy.
Druid scribed many scrolls of CLW, and used all of them! I think something like 8 by the end of the time they completed the glassworks!
By the time they completed the mod, they had used something like 20 scrolls, and 25 charges off a CLW wand.
A huge factor will be starting HP! If your party has some dwarf barbarians, you will have 22+hp 1st lvl characters to heal up. That could often be 4 or 5 CLW spells.
Could a Bard with an 8 wisdom use a divine cure wand without mimicking the wisdom score with UMD?
|
|
The day has finally come.
After many false starts and revamps of character choices, our campaign is finally getting under way.
Our current group of characters (for a Savage Tide Campaign, as things worked out) will be:
A Dwarf Swashbuckler who fights with two weapons
An Elf wizard specialized in Abjuration
A Human Rogue focused on the bow and sailing skills
and a Human Bard heading for the War Chanter PRC who will be the primary healer.
The party has already agreed to share the costs of healing wands and potions, and the Bard's player is really looking forward to fulfilling his role as healer without having the character become "just a healbot". The roleplaying with this group is gonna be interesting.
Could a Bard with an 8 wisdom use a divine cure wand without mimicking the wisdom score with UMD?
No such thing as a "divine wand". It's a wand with cure "X" wounds in it, and any class with cure "X" wounds can use that wand without needing an UMD check.
Only scrolls are split up between "divine" and "arcane" otherwise it's just what it is. Staves for instance, a staff of fire could be charged by a cleric with the fire domain (in 3.5 domain terms) just as easily as it could be charge by a wizard.
Could a Bard with an 8 wisdom use a divine cure wand without mimicking the wisdom score with UMD?
Yes, wands do not have ability score prerequisites, only spell list prereq's. Scrolls of cure light though, no, that would require a separate DC 26 UMD check.
No such thing as a "divine wand". It's a wand with cure "X" wounds in it, and any class with cure "X" wounds can use that wand without needing an UMD check.
Could a Bard with an 8 wisdom use a divine cure wand without mimicking the wisdom score with UMD?
Right, duh. I missed the point on that one.
Only scrolls are split up between "divine" and "arcane" otherwise it's just what it is. Staves for instance, a staff of fire could be charged by a cleric with the fire domain (in 3.5 domain terms) just as easily as it could be charge by a wizard.
Except you couldn't charge staves in 3.5 :)
Granted, we grabbed everything but the domains from beta for use... those domains though... well we stuck with the 3.5 ones.
SO in summary, IF you are using 3.5 domains, AND using the beta staff recharging rules THEN a cleric could recharge a staff of fire.