Reading through the conversation so far, I've seen three basic camps. Do you agree that one of these three sums up most posters' positions?
.
No Roles - Roles don't matter at all. Make whatever you want, have fun, and the GM will adapt the adventure to suit.
One Role - One role matters. Kill the enemy. So long as you have the ability to kill the enemy (usually through damage), every other party ability is distant second.
Multiple Roles - A party should have at least one character who can: take hits, deal with traps, cast a wide variety of spells, heal, and hopefully most of you can deal damage as well.
Yeah, nice assessment.
I'd say a) and b) are pretty interchangable, though.
What's more, I'd like to pre-emptively say that "secondary" does not mean "obsolete". However, having all sorts of baddies to deal with is more or less the only constant in this game, and anyone who can't ain't pullin' their weight.
Well, as a DM, i usually try to drive my players to fill a certain roll ("Hey guys, he already have a rogue and ennemies only have one back") but never to the expense of the fun. if no one have fun playing a caster, well then there will be no casters. i'll have to adapt to this and not put the players in a situation where they only rely on magic, but sometimes, a nice jab to the party is when you hear them say "it would be SO much easier if we had a caster".
Sometimes, seeing what they miss can push the players to try out new roles in future sessions...
Being able to either deal with adversaries or help your allies is a necessity. I've played with a guy who made a totally useless character (a pregnant were-mermaid monk-cleric in a non-aquatic campaign), and we had to spend significant resources protecting her, but she didn't even do much, if any, healing after fights. She refused to use melee or ranged attacks, refused to use any spells, and still took a quarter of our XP and treasure. It was a real hassle, and we eventually had to invite the player to leave because he wouldn't adapt to our kick-in-the-door style campaign.
It's a good thing the rest of the party was real balanced: my elf archer druid with armored wardog companion, a khopesh-and-shield fighter (with an eventual dip into mystic (spontaneous divine caster from Dragonlance, kind of an agnostic oracle-lite)), and a fighter/arcane trickster two-weapon fighter. We eventually added an eldritch knight, too. Everyone was versatile, but excelled in their primary roles.
What is needed, Either A DM that conforms to the players, or players that conform to the DM's campaign.
If your DM is inflexible, and unwilling to stray from pre-written adventures (or even modify them), or adventures he himself has written, Then you most likely need a party to match. Myself If none of my players are interested in making a rogue, any traps are either bypassable, or more puzzle based traps. Locked doors either have keys somewhere on their side, or can be kicked in. If nobody wants to play a healer, wands and/or potions become far more plentiful. No big heavy damage sponge, more light weak enemies that use wits, and the big oafing enemies that would one hit kill the squishies, are in places that can be snuck around, negotiated with etc... Now if your DM is running everything as pre-written scenerios that don't adjust to the party, you probably will want, a tank, a healer, a caster of some sort, and a trapsmith of some kind, and if that isn't fun to you, you will want a new DM.
No Roles - Roles don't matter at all. Make whatever you want, have fun, and the GM will adapt the adventure to suit.One Role - One role matters. Kill the enemy. So long as you have the ability to kill the enemy (usually through damage), every other party ability is distant second.
Multiple Roles - A party should have at least one character who can: take hits, deal with traps, cast a wide variety of spells, heal, and hopefully most of you can deal damage as well.
I am part of the first camp, but I'd like to point out something about the second one (one role): I'd swap "kill the enemy" with "deal with the enemy". While you do need at least one that is capable of dealing with adversaries, that doesn't mean that you couldn't convince them to surrender, sweet talking them into joining you, avoid them altogether... Killing is not always necessary, facing the opposition is.
Also, GM characters: they are fine as long as they stand in the background giving support and don't steal the spotlight.
Personally I'm in the B camp. Kill it, kill it fast, kill it dead. However that's a survivalist viewpoint.
One could do a subset between B and C along the lines of: Remove threat. There are many kinds of threats and not all are creatures to kill. Falling rocks, disease, "traps", even something as civilized as con-artists. The more and varied the threats the more "roles" are needed to be filled. Your typical, by the book, adventure is mostly "monster" killing. Then you have games like Kingmaker and a bit of Jade Regent where there are threats to critical objects (kingdom, caravan) which may not be combat based. All the "kill'um" power in the world won't fix a busted axel.
All the "kill'um" power in the world won't fix a busted axel.
AM THIRTEEN ORISONS. BLEED SUCK MORE THAN SPARKLY VAMPIRE. FOUR CLERIC PARTY AM CAN HAVE ALL NOT-SUCK PREPARED, EVEN WHEN AM FIRST LEVEL. AXLE AM MENDING-ED.
BARBARIAN RAGE NO AM AXLE-FIXXY. VICTORY TEAM CLERIC.
All the "kill'um" power in the world won't fix a busted axle.
kill someone that has an axle and take it.
Threaten to kill a carpenter for not fixing it.
polymorph your peasants into horses for increased carrying capacity and load them with the stuff that was in the cart.
Kill your peasants.. now you need less food.
I think you've been lucky in your selection of fellow players :)
The GM must not have a character. This should be printed in the rulebook.
I don't want to derail this conversation, so please make a new thread if you'd like to learn the 1000 reasons why the GM must not have a character.
Covered this long ago, most appalling DMPCs are from inexperienced DMs who couldn't find anyone else to DM so that they could play their character. For an experienced DM it's not a problem as long as the role is needed.
All the "kill'um" power in the world won't fix a busted axle.kill someone that has an axle and take it.
Threaten to kill a carpenter for not fixing it.
polymorph your peasants into horses for increased carrying capacity and load them with the stuff that was in the cart.
Kill your peasants.. now you need less food.
I think you've been lucky in your selection of fellow players :)
:-p
All good points. If the GM is of the Kill'um mind set.
The first assumes there is an axle within taking range. To long a distance and you may return to find goblins have set upon the wagon... with fire. Additionally you have no one to instal it.
Threatening someone effetely requires Skill. Threatening a/your carpenter to fix it will only have it sabotaged to break again in an even worse spot. Going back to seek vengeance invites Goblins... again.
Polymorph is not strictly Kill'um power, and requires a certain level of play that strongly suggests other magical means of solving the problem.
Now you have no one to polymorph into horses.
Yes, I do count myself lucky that I've mainly played with the same group of highly intelligent and cooperative players for close to two decades. I've played with other groups and under other GMs who were no where near as talented, delightful, or who grasped the fundamental rule, "that everyone is to have fun."
===
Actually speaking of peasants it does bring up another good point. It is 100% possible to fill missing roles with NPCs. Either through roleplay, mechanics (Feats/Skills), or just outright buying their services with gold/money. I would love to see a more comprehensive set of minion/hireling price guides. I've built my own which I haven't had a good chance to test.
Hirelings used to be a big deal in earlier editions, at least their availability in the GM sections. They've kinda had a back seat through the 3e OGL era... a really far remove back seat. Like in the back seat of a car going the other way.
Covered this long ago, most appalling DMPCs are from inexperienced DMs who couldn't find anyone else to DM so that they could play their character. For an experienced DM it's not a problem as long as the role is needed.The GM must not have a character. This should be printed in the rulebook.
I don't want to derail this conversation, so please make a new thread if you'd like to learn the 1000 reasons why the GM must not have a character.
A GM having his own character is a bad idea.
There being a GM-controlled NPC with the party is not.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference at first, but it usually becomes obvious pretty quickly.
Agreed.