I've been running a mid-level campaign for a short while, with a pretty effective group of 4 PCs.
The current party is a Paladin 8, Oracle 8, Wiz 5/Ranger 1/Eldrich Knight 2, and a Ranger 5 (ranged weapon focus)/Rogue 3
Here's my dilemma. The Paladin wants to change his character. I told him that he is of course free to change his PC, since the focus of the game is of course to have fun, however, doing so would not be without penalty. While the rest of the party is halfway to level 9, he'd be starting back at the beginning of level 8.
Well, my Paladin just came back to me telling me he wants to play a Wizard. This would change the party dynamic to have no melee focused characters. The strongest melee fighter is an Eldrich Knight, who is more focused on casting than on fighting. I have presented this to the Paladin, but I think he's pretty set on the change.
Does anyone have some recommendations for handling this situation? I am considering allowing the Ranger/Rogue to change up her focus from bow to two-weapon fighting.
Should I adjust my encounters to adjust for having no melee combatants, or should I keep throwing normal encounters at them and let them deal with having no melee combatant amongst themselves?
Or am I just over-reacting?
|
I've been running a mid-level campaign for a short while, with a pretty effective group of 4 PCs.
The current party is a Paladin 8, Oracle 8, Wiz 5/Ranger 1/Eldrich Knight 2, and a Ranger 5 (ranged weapon focus)/Rogue 3
Here's my dilemma. The Paladin wants to change his character. I told him that he is of course free to change his PC, since the focus of the game is of course to have fun, however, doing so would not be without penalty. While the rest of the party is halfway to level 9, he'd be starting back at the beginning of level 8.
Well, my Paladin just came back to me telling me he wants to play a Wizard. This would change the party dynamic to have no melee focused characters. The strongest melee fighter is an Eldrich Knight, who is more focused on casting than on fighting. I have presented this to the Paladin, but I think he's pretty set on the change.
Does anyone have some recommendations for handling this situation? I am considering allowing the Ranger/Rogue to change up her focus from bow to two-weapon fighting.
Should I adjust my encounters to adjust for having no melee combatants, or should I keep throwing normal encounters at them and let them deal with having no melee combatant amongst themselves?
Or am I just over-reacting?
If he knows his wizard, this will ultimately make the PCs job easier. Not having melee isn't a death sentence. It can be hard to overcome depending on the makeup of the party, but more spell casters will generally make the part more powerful in the end.
You should run things exactly the same for the moment. No need to react if there's nothing to react to, but be prepared to go anti-caster more.
|
I've been running a mid-level campaign for a short while, with a pretty effective group of 4 PCs.
The current party is a Paladin 8, Oracle 8, Wiz 5/Ranger 1/Eldrich Knight 2, and a Ranger 5 (ranged weapon focus)/Rogue 3
Here's my dilemma. The Paladin wants to change his character. I told him that he is of course free to change his PC, since the focus of the game is of course to have fun, however, doing so would not be without penalty. While the rest of the party is halfway to level 9, he'd be starting back at the beginning of level 8.
Well, my Paladin just came back to me telling me he wants to play a Wizard. This would change the party dynamic to have no melee focused characters. The strongest melee fighter is an Eldrich Knight, who is more focused on casting than on fighting. I have presented this to the Paladin, but I think he's pretty set on the change.
Does anyone have some recommendations for handling this situation? I am considering allowing the Ranger/Rogue to change up her focus from bow to two-weapon fighting.
Should I adjust my encounters to adjust for having no melee combatants, or should I keep throwing normal encounters at them and let them deal with having no melee combatant amongst themselves?
Or am I just over-reacting?
I think that party will be fine as is. The classic 4 is overated in my opinion, parties will figure out how to help each other as needed to make the group work.
The PC's generally surprise you with how they figure out how to deal with things. Don't change your campaign at all, and they will find ways to deal with whatever comes up.
I think that partys without melee characters are only combat dommed on low lvls. a lvl 8 wizard can summon enough small blockers to give the rest of the party enough time to finish most foes.
|
|
PS: One thing you could elect to do is make the discarded paladin into an NPC that YOU run.
THIS
I always take the characters if a player wants to change, as they still exist in the world and are still likely part of the plot.
I also have a habit of having them captured, needing to be rescued, and sometimes killed. A little penalty for lack of loyalty :)
Ultimately, this is a game and is about having fun with a group of friends (as you stated perfectly). If his changing characters will somehow ruin the fun for everyone else, than it needs to be addressed. If not, then let him change if that's going to make it more fun.
I wouldn't adjust encounters, as it's their choice to go all ranged. They will figure it out, as other people have said. Whether with summons, hirelings, another character switching to pick up the slack (such as the EK going more melee and letting the new wizard do the casting) or whatever.
I don't think you need to worry that much. They're the adventurers heading out into the wilderness to face down monsters, let them figure out how to win as long as your encounters are level appropriate in general.
If they encounter too many combat problems, maybe you should encourage them to hire a melee NPC.
They are 8th level so you can get away with out melee type Character. It only gets easier to do with out them from here on. Being 8th the new wizard could grab leadership and get fighter as Cohort. I like doing that if I play wizard. A permanent body to buff and send into combat while controlling the battle field lining up the enemies for the fighter.
The key here is that the party knows they have to adapt. If all the players understand that there's no reason this party cant handle normal challenges. The oracle and eldritch knights can form a front line bolstered by battlefield control and summons. If this was level 1 i would be concerned, but at level 8 it shouldnt even be an issue as long as the party is smart about it.
The major point of concern would be in the length of combats. It is going to go way up or way down depending on the style of wizard. a Level 8 wizard can one shot alot of enemies, but you are also pulling alot of damage out of the party (paladins can really lay down the hurt on evil enemies) and putting that power into whatever the wizard focuses in. If the wizzy doesnt save or die the enemies it means combats will take longer since there is less damage coming out of your party. But that shouldn't impact success rates if they play their cards right.
As long as everyone is ok with it and adapts, you shouldn't have too many issues. One option is that if you are very worried, you could require the swapped out Wizard to have the leadership feat and require that the cohort is a melee type. Call it a cost of changing mid stream tax. This would give them a 6th level melee fighter to take up some of the slack.
There was an old issue of Dragon () that had an article on having parties that consisted of characters who were all the same class. There were some interesting viewpoints on how to handle the no magic/no melee conundrum, I'll have to look and see if I can find it.
Should I adjust my encounters to adjust for having no melee combatants, or should I keep throwing normal encounters at them and let them deal with having no melee combatant amongst themselves?
That's what I'd do. I expect my players to adapt to the way the game develops. If they can't do that or adapt in ways that makes their challenges harder, that's the burden they have to bear for their choices.
Or am I just over-reacting?
Maybe a little. But it's true that a change of a PC can have downstream effects on the rest of the party and the game as a whole and should be considered seriously and prudently.
Are the other players on board with this change? Would their PCs accept the new PC in their midst to replace the paladin? Has the paladin's player considered these questions? If it seems he has not, remind him that he should let the other players know his plans as well, not just the DM. They may be the ones feeling the need to fill the gap the paladin's absence leaves.
I echo the sentiment of, "Just run as normal."
The party may need to adapt to shifting its tactics. But it should be fine.
I had kind of an opposite experience--I ran a party that was very strong on melee, but had no arcane casters (it was paladin, ranger, fighter/rogue/shadowdancer, and cleric). What happens I've found is when a party has a "gap" they will simply find some challenges easier than a more mixed party---and some challenges which would be easy with a more "typical" set up are more difficult---but absolutely not impossible.
If your party is good at working as a team and thinking outside the box they should do fine. The party that you have sounds extremely versatile and should be able to deal with what comes.
The only thing I would do is provide a warning, somewhat echoing James Maissen above: sometimes when one player changes a character, others want to do so too. All of a sudden your campaign turns upside down.
This happened to me once. I declared to the players that everyone is allowed to change ONCE. And then no changing afterward. That stops both the type of player that wants to change their character every session and someone who later realizes they can be happy with what they have with a more minor adjustment.
I DON'T recommend keeping the paladin as an NPC in the game, save as a background character who may show up on occasion. Two reasons:
- You're a GM, you have enough to worry about without the complication of running a GMPC. And how can you be fair if you use this NPC Paladin in combat against your own enemies? It's doable, but frustrating.
- The paladin player probably still likes his character enough he may be frustrated to see anything significant happen to the character out of his control. I realize some may say, "Tough luck" to that but there's no reason to brew resentment. It just makes it harder for you and everyone else.
Don't panic!
Really no need to worry about the Party make-up. The PC will adapt!
What they lose in one area they will gain in another and it's up to them to work it out!
[Edit]
The other thing to remember is the a party without a Paladin is a party having more fun!!
Contributor
|
Although...
Did the party start at first level and advance from there? In general, one can more easily optimize a character built at 8th level than making the choice of what feat/spell/etc is most useful for the next several adventures. This could result in a power balance difference between the already-existing wizard and the new one that could become a problem. Just something to watch for.
I don't think you need to adapt the game to fit the party change just yet. First, they'll have plenty of ways to make up for not having a melee focused character. Second, they'll probably need to get kicked around a couple times before they learn how to work the new strategy, but that's fun! Pulling victory from near defeat, then coming back smarter the next time . . .
Also, I suggest you don't keep the paladin around. Let the player retire his character (true retirement - like he gets recalled by his church to teach the younglings, or takes a vow of hermitage) or decide to go out in a blaze of glorious battle. Having the former PC around is more likely to be a distraction than an enhancement to the game.
Most important! Talk to the player of the Eldrich Knight. Is he planning to continue with a lot of spellcasting, or will he welcome this as an opportunity to become more of a melee type. While I would be perfectly willing to allow a player to choose whatever class they want, or even to switch to whatever class they want, once a player has staked out his specialty, nobody gets to step on it without their permission.
If your Eldrich Knight is planning to be "Wizard with his toe dipped into Fighting" and you allow another player to make a straight Wizard, the new character will outshine the old one at his own game. It sucks to get upstaged, and it sucks even more to get upstaged when you weren't expecting it, more and more as the campaign goes on.
|
If your Eldrich Knight is planning to be "Wizard with his toe dipped into Fighting" and you allow another player to make a straight Wizard, the new character will outshine the old one at his own game. It sucks to get upstaged, and it sucks even more to get upstaged when you weren't expecting it, more and more as the campaign goes on.
+1, see how the other players feel about this.