Hi all,
I’ll start GMing a RotRL campaign soon and I’ve got a group of 3 players. The 3 players have a bit of experience (2 short campaigns, one in PF, one in 3.5). Now, i want them to run the campaign without having to run a DM PC. Here is what i have so far:
Player 1: will play a melee of some sort, but don’t want it to be complex. No spellcasting if possible, no paladin (last class he played). I know he likes to hit hard and not be hit in return.
Player 2: hesitate between wizard, oracle and witch. Sometimes have trouble picking the right spells, so I’m helping a bit on that hand.
Player 3: wants to play a shaddy character. She played a rogue in the past and liked it. Last character was a sorcerer and thought that while cool, was too much to handle. Likes things simple. I was thinking Bard Archaeologist, or maybe Ranger (trapper or urban).
Now, they play in this campaign to have fun more than anything else, because they are not avid gamers. So i don’t want to force anything on them. But, i would like some input from people who have played the campaign to tell me if they have a chance. I read the entire book, but i want input from people who have played it. My guess is that an arcane caster of some sort is really important, especially near the end. And i think there is enough traps to make trapfinding worthwhile.
Other things of note for the campaign: It’s gonna be a 25 pts buy, maybe extra gold at start (maybe 200). I was hoping not to change any encounter, but might play some monsters dumber than they really are to help them a bit. I will allow them to recruit NPC if they do the right thing, but im not gonna give it to them free.
Thanks in advance for any advice you can give.
My "house rule" is for the players to create two characters. One stays in the tavern while the other goes on the adventure. A player can change characters any time they want (so long as it involves them being in the same place) but they must be played as different entities. It allows for already known death replacements too. That would allow your smaller group some flexibility. Playing them as the same person, even siblings, will result in removal of the privilege.
Alternatively, let them play multi-classed characters from 1st, don't use XP but let them level at the "speed of story" so their character abilities match the difficulty. 25 points allows that easily.
Arcane casting can be offset with wands and Use Magic Device. Even try a summoner or a Magus to give beefier arcane casting options.
Lack of divine casting can be offset by healing potions and buff potions if required, which is expensive but you can expand any of the potential potion sources to allow that.
But at the end of the day, if you DM in a balanced and flexible way, the lack of particular classes won't matter too much.
My "house rule" is for the players to create two characters. One stays in the tavern while the other goes on the adventure. A player can change characters any time they want (so long as it involves them being in the same place) but they must be played as different entities. It allows for already known death replacements too. That would allow your smaller group some flexibility. Playing them as the same person, even siblings, will result in removal of the privilege.
Alternatively, let them play multi-classed characters from 1st, don't use XP but let them level at the "speed of story" so their character abilities match the difficulty. 25 points allows that easily.
Arcane casting can be offset with wands and Use Magic Device. Even try a summoner or a Magus to give beefier arcane casting options.
Lack of divine casting can be offset by healing potions and buff potions if required, which is expensive but you can expand any of the potential potion sources to allow that.
But at the end of the day, if you DM in a balanced and flexible way, the lack of particular classes won't matter too much.
I like the idea of replacement characters, but im not sure my players would. They already put all their efforts learning one class, asking them to learn two would just be a burden. But im definatly keeping the idea in mind.
The party looks to be shaping as a barbarian, a wizard and either an urban ranger or a bard archaeologist. So they'll either be light on damage, or have no real party face. I guess i'll just throw more consumables to be found and we should be good.
thanks!
|
Players can learn another character class quick enough. I would be tempted to let them each run two characters. I have been DMing with players playing multiple characters for years. You would likely limit the use of NPCs with the party, as there are plenty of opportunities for this in RotR. You may want to add a monster or two depending on the encounter. It gives a player the opportunity to learn faster and experience different classes faster. Each player could have a front line and a back line PC.
A six PC party is very workable with RotR.
Just a suggestion!
Good luck and happy gaming,
Mazra
|
Player 1 - sounds good for a full plate/greatsword fighter. Have good strength, decent dex & con. As he goes up in level, Armor training will boost up his AC by allowing more dex in, plus Full Plate of course...
Player 2 - Is it a question of option paralysis (can't decide which of his spells to use/prep in the morning) or regretting which spells he's pciked up? If it's the former I'd say go Oracle due to the fixed spell list, if it's the latter I'd say Witch as it's got quite a lot in addition to the casting to do, and is a prepared caster so weaker spell choice isn't crippling.
Playing 2 characters, while it would solve many problems, is not really an option. They don't really want to do it and would highly prefer that i play DM PC (which i won't). I know it would have been a great solution, but not possible in this case.
as for what class to play, i agree that player 1 would be best served with a fighter, but im worried that the party will lack skills if he does so. Barbarian seems a good compromise (more or less the same firepower, more skills, less defense), but that might change.
For player 2, he read the arcane bond ability and liked it, so he wants to go wizard. At first, i was tempted to convince him not to (option paralysis, as you put it), but wizard is such a good fit for this campaign that i will let him decide.
Player 3 is still undecided between bard archaeologist, urban ranger or trapper ranger. Since they have not "healer", im not sure trapper ranger is a good idea (potions are not cheap), and urban ranger would leave the party "faceless", although more efficient in combat. Hard to do an archer bard, between all the archery feats, lingering performance, arcane strike, etc.
But thanks for all the suggestions :)
I would suggest the bard archaeologist to your 3rd player. Then you have a damage dealer (barbarian), your arcane caster (wizard) and a roguish player with some limited healing who can also utilize healing wands, etc.
I would suggest the bard archaeologist to your 3rd player. Then you have a damage dealer (barbarian), your arcane caster (wizard) and a roguish player with some limited healing who can also utilize healing wands, etc.
Out of curiosity, why is archaeologist more roguish than the urban ranger for you? Is it only the rogue talents?
Both can disarm all traps (although the bard doesnt have disable device as a class skill). Both can use healing wands. On my side, the only difference i see is that the bard is more knowledge oriented and can be the party's face, while the ranger will bring more damage (FE, AC, full BAB).
I recommended it more because of its expanded healing capacity.
The ranger classes are much more limited in their spellcasting, and in order to use a healing wand without making a UMD check, it has to be on their class spell list. Rangers will be able to cast Cure Serious at 13th level. Bards the same at 7th. Without a healer in the party, and the deadly nature of parts of the campaign, healing will become very important to them. Also, keep in mind that wands stop at 4th level spells, potions at 3rd level. This means if you gave them a wand of cure critical, a ranger couldn't use it without an appropriate UMD check DC 20 (their list stops at Cure Serious). The bard type also gets a lot more spells/day than the ranger in case things get bad.
The Urban Ranger gains trapfinding, but the Archaeologist actually gets bonuses to it equal to 1/2 their level. I didn't notice Archaeologist didn't give Disable Device as a class skill, though, that's a little silly. I'd be looking for a trait that gives it to me as a class skill.
If you don't want to have to run a DMPC healer though, I recommend a class with some good healing spells. The Archaeologist would fit both your player's desire to be a bit shady, as well as shore up their lack of a healer.
Don't know if you give them another trait in addition to the AP background one. We do.
Anyway, found a pre-made trait to fit: Vagabond Child (Regional Trait in APG, p332). Can choose Disable Device as a class skill and gains a +1 trait bonus.
|
I recommended it more because of its expanded healing capacity.
The ranger classes are much more limited in their spellcasting, and in order to use a healing wand without making a UMD check, it has to be on their class spell list. Rangers will be able to cast Cure Serious at 13th level. Bards the same at 7th. Without a healer in the party, and the deadly nature of parts of the campaign, healing will become very important to them. Also, keep in mind that wands stop at 4th level spells, potions at 3rd level. This means if you gave them a wand of cure critical, a ranger couldn't use it without an appropriate UMD check DC 20 (their list stops at Cure Serious). The bard type also gets a lot more spells/day than the ranger in case things get bad.
The Urban Ranger gains trapfinding, but the Archaeologist actually gets bonuses to it equal to 1/2 their level. I didn't notice Archaeologist didn't give Disable Device as a class skill, though, that's a little silly. I'd be looking for a trait that gives it to me as a class skill.
If you don't want to have to run a DMPC healer though, I recommend a class with some good healing spells. The Archaeologist would fit both your player's desire to be a bit shady, as well as shore up their lack of a healer.
A ranger can use CLW, CMW, or CSW wands at first level with no requirement for a UMD roll. Though, you are correct that a ranger would have to make a UMD check to use a CCW wand.
Good points CaroRose, but unrelated to the roguish part of the character ;) But you're absolutly right that the expanded spellcasting will come in handy, if only to lighten the load of the wizard buff-wise.
But im not sure it will help with the healing. How often do you cast a "cure" spell in combat? It rarely matter, because it doesnt heal enough. And out of combat healing, cure light is the better hit points/cost ratio, so it's all the same. At least in my game.
For the Vagabond child, it was already the second trait i had in mind for the character, but some might argue that with the bonus the archaeologist get, it doesnt really matter in the end. But it's nice to have for the first book or two.
The problem (for the player) with the bard is that there is a lot to manage. You need a swift action for Archaelogist luck, another swift action for Arcane strike, then you can either attack or use spells. Since we are talking about a beginner here, that's a lot to think about (adding lingering performance to the mix if you want to use your swift action for Arcane strike). That's the only thing that stop me from recommending it without second thought, as i think the ranger would be easier to play.
But let's say she does play the bard, any build you recommend? I tried to build an archer, but barring the human extra feat it looks like that:
1: PBS
3: Precise shot
5: lingering performance?
7: Deadly aim? rapid shot? many shot? arcane strike? extend?
9: anything that wasnt taken at 7...
Even if you go human, as a "skill monkey", focused study is tempting.
and if she goes melee (leaving the party without a ranged specialist), you either go STR (and it doesnt fit the character she wants to play) or weapon finesse, and with the latter, you become inefficient in melee, at high level anyway. I though about multiclassing with lore warden, for more option and combat manoeuvers, but again, at high level, inefficient.
any suggestions? :)
Are you set on Arcane Strike? You only get one Swift action per round, and by 7th level the bard would already have a +2 to her attacks & damage due to the archaeologist's luck, as well as she will likely already have a magic weapon. It may be a better investment to take another one of the other suggested feats, or something that extends/improves her achaeologist's luck.
The healing in combat thing seems like it has some widely varied opinions. In our group (we usually have only 3 players as well) we have taken the stance of if someone in combat gets down to 1/3 hitpoints, the healer is moving in to keep them up and fighting. The reasoning being that if one of your people goes down then you're down to 2/3 strength rather than 3/4. The 'reputation' of this particular AP seems to show it as highly deadly, even within the first chapters.
If you want examples, check out NobodysHome's campaign log, or even Gluttony's log. Both have had some very near TPKs, with multiple healers, and multiple dropped characters eeking by with some quick in-battle healing. Yeah its not a lot of healing, but sometimes just a few more points is all you need to carry you to your next action.
Let me think a little more on the bard management issue. See if I can come up with some other suggestions. I may have to play with a build or two.
Are you set on Arcane Strike? You only get one Swift action per round, and by 7th level the bard would already have a +2 to her attacks & damage due to the archaeologist's luck, as well as she will likely already have a magic weapon. It may be a better investment to take another one of the other suggested feats, or something that extends/improves her achaeologist's luck.
The healing in combat thing seems like it has some widely varied opinions. In our group (we usually have only 3 players as well) we have taken the stance of if someone in combat gets down to 1/3 hitpoints, the healer is moving in to keep them up and fighting. The reasoning being that if one of your people goes down then you're down to 2/3 strength rather than 3/4. The 'reputation' of this particular AP seems to show it as highly deadly, even within the first chapters.
If you want examples, check out NobodysHome's campaign log, or even Gluttony's log. Both have had some very near TPKs, with multiple healers, and multiple dropped characters eeking by with some quick in-battle healing. Yeah its not a lot of healing, but sometimes just a few more points is all you need to carry you to your next action.
Let me think a little more on the bard management issue. See if I can come up with some other suggestions. I may have to play with a build or two.
Im not dead set on Arcane strike, but getting +1 to +5 to hit and damage is kinda tempting. And will lingering performance, it means you can use it 2 rounds out of 3. So at level 7, your looking at +2/+2 for 1st round, then +4/+4 for rounds 2 and 3. That seems pretty much the best you can get for a bard that wishes to do any kind of damage. But that's just theory... never actually seen it in game.
I'll take a look at the 2 threads you suggested, see if i'll have the same kind of problems.