Recurring enemy party for my players

[Ender730]

I've been working on a party that's meant to be a recurring enemy for my players, and I was hoping to get some input. I'm building this with the idea that this party is a group of survivors. They need to be varied and capable of handling as many possible challenges as they can throughout their adventuring careers.

My players are all fairly new. They're not optimized, and on any given day there will be 5-7 of them. So I'm creating the enemy party to have 4 members, with a floating 5th member that I can put in play, in case more than 5 players show up. I should note that they have a beastly fighter and barbarian, both of whom can kill any of these guys in a single round.

Everyone's currently around level 7-8, so I'm putting the enemy party around the same level. So far, I've got:

Bard 7 (Archer):

This is the only "must have" in the entire group, for story purpose. He's an archer bard, the party face, the undisputed leader that makes sure everything goes smooth on and off the field. Has the trait that gives him Disable Device skill. He stealths, he scouts, etc.

Wiz 8 (Void):

I figured I'd make the wizard a Void specialist, mainly because I like the debuff and buff powers that he gets, but this isn't a lock. I also thought about making him a sylvan bloodline sorcerer, because the party's lacking melee combatants (is it?)

Druid 7 (Melee + Tiger companion):

With a tiger companion, they make up the only real damage dealers on the team. Maybe make her a caster? I was leaning towards damage dealer because the party seems lacking in it, but of course this could depend on the 5th member as well. The animal companion is important because it makes up for a "5th member" in a way, and at these levels, the duo should out-damage just about any other melee class. They're good for scouting as well.

Witch 6 (Scarred Witch Doctor):

Not sure about this one. I wanted another arcane caster in case the wizard goes down, and in a party with so many casters, a witch can rely on her hexes, so she can last all day. Plus having the Con makes her hardy. The witch is the party's scryer.

I don't want this party to be a "counter" to the players' party, so what I'm looking for is a 5th member to plug in a hole that an adventuring party's leader might try to fill.

I was thinking maybe I need a fighter or a barbarian, or even an anti-paladin. Then I thought that they need a "real" archer instead of just the bard, so I thought about a ranger, which could be great as that means that's ANOTHER animal companion. Also entertained the idea of a Hexcrafter magus, since that could go well thematically with a witch already in the party.

Lastly, I thought of a reach cleric because I felt that that's the one class that they would truly benefit the most from, but I felt that maybe that'd be way too overpowering against the players even at a 5 vs 7 handicap (or maybe not, because if their fighter and barbarian can somehow reach any of these guys and get a full attack, that'd be half the party dead).

None of them, except the bard, is a must-have, so any input would be appreciated.

[st00ji]

i wont comment on the mechanics of your party, since im sure plenty of others have better things to say than i on that subject.

however, i will ask if you have some reason for your party not to make sure all these guys take a dirt nap the first time things get aggressive. in my experience PCs dont tend to be particularly merciful, which can make recurring enemies problematic.

[Darkwolf117]

A switch-hitting ranger might be good. If you think they need more melee, the Animal Companion and the Ranger can go in. If you think they need some extra archery, the ranger's good with that too. They also add a bit of divine power to the party, to complement the druid.

Making it kind of like 2 ranged, 4 melee, 3 arcane, and 2 divine, spread around 7 bodies.

Seems like a good mix in my opinion, though I don't know enough to say how well they'd fare against your party. If they're crazy focused, like your fighter and barb sound like they may be, a balanced mix still might end up with these guys dead fast.

Edit: Forgot wizard in my listing.

[Ender730]

st00ji wrote:

however, i will ask if you have some reason for your party not to make sure all these guys take a dirt nap the first time things get aggressive. in my experience PCs dont tend to be particularly merciful, which can make recurring enemies problematic.

Once I know that one side has won, the story would get moved along with something that'll stop the fight. In either case, neither party will be TPK, but if the players win, they'll know for sure that they've won by the time the deus-ex-machina come into play, and they can be happy about beating another party.

I plan on using these guys the first time around to teach my players a lesson for having been too cocky lately, so barring rolling a ton of 1s in a row, it'll be nearly impossible that this party will lose to my players during the first encounter. The field and initiative advantages will be too tough to overcome. I can't imagine the fight lasting more than 2-3 rounds tops.

Quote:

A switch-hitting ranger might be good. If you think they need more melee, the Animal Companion and the Ranger can go in. If you think they need some extra archery, the ranger's good with that too. They also add a bit of divine power to the party, to complement the druid.

Making it kind of like 2 ranged, 4 melee, 3 arcane, and 2 divine, spread around 7 bodies.

Seems like a good mix in my opinion, though I don't know enough to say how well they'd fare against your party. If they're crazy focused, like your fighter and barb sound like they may be, a balanced mix still might end up with these guys dead fast.

Ah, yeah, switch-hitting ranger! I forgot about that. This is a verrry good possibility, thanks!

[Jarred Henninger]

I will always advocate adding a barbarian to a party.

Possible thread tangent:

I've seen rage powers run one of 2 ways, the ones that increase your DR apply all the time or only during rage. i only bring it up to cover all my bases. and to explain hey there are 2 DR entries

Now i present to you a tanky Barb

Half Orc Invulnerable Rager 8:

Racial Traits
Acute Darkvision~Gain Darkvision 90 feet. Replaces orc ferocity
Shaman's Apprentice~Gain Endurance. Replaces Intimidating.
Skilled~Gain 1 additional skill rank per level. Replaces darkvision.

STR 17+2+1+1 (+4 RAGE)
DEX 14
CON 16 (+4 RAGE)
INT 8
WIS 10
CHA 9

HP 93 (+16 Raging)
AC 21 (+7 Armor, +2 DEX, +2 Shield) (-2 RAGE)
DR 8/- (+3 Fighting Defensively)
DR 4/- (+4 Raging, +3 Fighting Defensively)
SAVES +9/+4/+2 (+2/+0/+2 RAGE)
CMB +13 (+2 Raging)
CMD 25

ATTACKS
+1 Scimitar (+14/+9) 1D6+7 (+2 Attack and Damage Raging, +2 Attack and Damage Below 0 HP)

FEATS
1 Endurance
1 Diehard
3 Stalwart
5 Extra Rage Power
7 Deathless Initiate

RAGE POWERS
2 Animal’s Fury
4 Intimidating Glare
5 Guarded Life
6 Dragon Totem
8 Dragon Totem Resilience

ARMOR
+1 Mithral Breastplate, +1 Madu

[Whale_Cancer]

Jarred Henninger wrote:

I've seen rage powers run one of 2 ways, the ones that increase your DR apply all the time or only during rage. i only bring it up to cover all my bases. and to explain hey there are 2 DR entries.

Quote:

A barbarian gains the benefits of rage powers only while raging[...]

[Ciaran Barnes]

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

[Jarred Henninger]

never said i understood it, just like to plan ahead.

[Blueluck]

Ender730 wrote:

Once I know that one side has won, the story would get moved along with something that'll stop the fight. In either case, neither party will be TPK, but if the players win, they'll know for sure that they've won by the time the deus-ex-machina come into play, and they can be happy about beating another party.

I plan on using these guys the first time around to teach my players a lesson for having been too cocky lately, so barring rolling a ton of 1s in a row, it'll be nearly impossible that this party will lose to my players during the first encounter. The field and initiative advantages will be too tough to overcome. I can't imagine the fight lasting more than 2-3 rounds tops.

So, you plan to have a number of battles between the PARTY and the ANTI-PARTY. The ANTI-PARTY will win the first encounter through preparation and tactics, but the PARTY will win the rest. However, before each battle is fully over, you will use GM fiat to interrupt, and save the losers from death?

This sounds like it would be extremely frustrating for the players.

[Ascalaphus]

Party-Antiparty conflict can work, but it takes some setting up. I've used it in a Vampire campaign with success; these are the rivals the PCs would really love to beat someday.

The key is giving plausible (not Deus Ex Machina) reasons why killing the enemy party isn't an option for either party.

In Vampire, that was because the vampire prince forbids killing unless it's at his orders. Harassment is allowed, killing isn't.

Because there are in-game reasons why the anti-party won't kill the PCs just because they dislike them, and the players know this, the players won't fall into the D&D mindset of "no step back, kill or be killed". They also know that if they can manipulate things to the point where they get permission, they can vanquish the anti-party. Likewise, there's the threat that the anti-party will succeed in a scheme to convince the vampire prince to let them kill the party, and the players knows they'll try that now and then.

[Blueluck]

Ascalaphus wrote:

Party-Antiparty conflict can work, but it takes some setting up. I've used it in a Vampire campaign with success; these are the rivals the PCs would really love to beat someday.

The key is giving plausible (not Deus Ex Machina) reasons why killing the enemy party isn't an option for either party.

In Vampire, that was because the vampire prince forbids killing unless it's at his orders. Harassment is allowed, killing isn't.

Because there are in-game reasons why the anti-party won't kill the PCs just because they dislike them, and the players know this, the players won't fall into the D&D mindset of "no step back, kill or be killed". They also know that if they can manipulate things to the point where they get permission, they can vanquish the anti-party. Likewise, there's the threat that the anti-party will succeed in a scheme to convince the vampire prince to let them kill the party, and the players knows they'll try that now and then.

I totally agree.

One fairly easy way to set this up is to make the two parties rivals working toward the same goals. When the party is given a mission, simply give that mission to both groups with explicit instructions not to "waste time fighting amongst yourselves". This works especially well of the party is generally good-aligned and the rivals are generally evil-aligned, because it allows the other party to reasonably be the aggressor, and to occasionally cheat.

[Ender730]

Quote:

The key is giving plausible (not Deus Ex Machina) reasons why killing the enemy party isn't an option for either party.

When I say deus-ex-machina, I mean that it's whatever reason you give for it to happen. I didn't mean to imply that I would just randomly make up a reason on the spot. Just didn't feel like writing out a long explanation of the storyline :)

Blueluck wrote:

Ender730 wrote:

This sounds like it would be extremely frustrating for the players.

I didn't want to write a text wall explaining the whole thing, but I guess I'll try to elaborate better. The first encounter will be plot-related, but also serves to teach the players that they're not invincible (they're new-ish players, and haven't really had too much difficulty thus far). So they'll most likely lose the first encounter. This is one of those things that new players will usually have to go through, so there's really no avoiding it. I've tried doing it the nice way by talking to them, setting traps, making encounters a bit more difficult, etc., but through some luck they've had a relatively easy time. It's about time I pull out the "roper" encounter (the roper encounter was my induction to what happens when our party acted all invincible).

Frankly, I don't find an RPG to be enjoyable if I feel invincible. The players really need to feel mortal, especially now that we're climbing up to level 7.

The second encounter will end with the deus-ex-machina, but as I mentioned before, it won't actually end until one side knows for sure that they've won. If the players lose, this gives me a way to mercifully not TPK them. If the players win, this gives me a way to bring back the bad guys. If my players win, there's no reason they would complain about a deus-ex-machina at this point, given that their first encounter will most likely end with them being captured instead of dead.

For the third encounter to happen, the players would have to have either lost the 2nd encounter and wants another attempt at revenge, or they won but they want to end it for good. Either way, I'll let them duke it out fairly without pulling any punches in the third encounter.