|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 11:52AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
|
In the game I'm currently playing in, we all created our characters independently and ended up with a party of 4 strikers. We've managed to do already though thanks to multi-classing and very controler-like powers between all of us.
Now, it will soon be my turn to DM again and I have to recognize that we all love doing high levels of damage, to the detriment of other things. I will be sure that we get together to plan out the party roles but now comes this question: what can I offer my players to make the other roles enticing choices?
I was thinking about offering a house-ruled striker mechanic to all non-striker classes, perhaps playing off the primary role of the class so they get extra damage by doing their job.
Anyone else have ideas on how to avoid another 4 striker party?
EDIT 04/June
For anyone still giving their 2 cents. Turns out, when I got them all together to discuss their characters and party composition, they made a balanced team all on their own (1 striker, 1 defender, 1 controller, 1 leader).
Even when I offered each of them a bonus class feature from another class, they all took options to improve their primary roles.
Thanks for the feedback. Looks like we got this one down.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:00PM
#2
|
|
|
I don't see it as something to avoid. Regardless, you should be having a Session Zero before starting any new campaign. Talk about the tone and style, the campaign world, the kinds of adventures, the role of the adventuring party in the world, and the place of each character in that adventuring party. Only then will you be ready to start something new on the right foot. This may have the side effect you're intending. Or it might simply give more form and purpose to a new party of strikers. Either way, you'll have done it in a way that gets everyone on the same page and generates some excitement and buy-in on the campaign.
You don't need any house rules for this. And challenging a party of strikers is simply a matter of making the goal something other than killing everything on the map, then threatening that goal.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:20PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 31, 2006
|
Independent character creation is something I don't like. Like everything else in the game, character creation should be collaborative, with people playing off one another. If you're familliar with the mechanics, tell them why they should have a variety of roles. If they still wanna play strikers, that's fine. Experience is a hard teacher, but a good one too. Throw balanced encounters at them, and don't be afraid to pull punches. If you do, they'll learn very quickly why four strikers isn't such a good idea, and will probably make the switch in time.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:27PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2012
|
I have come to embrace the 4-Strikers party as a Player and DM.
Not useful to help your case, but to me the best status I can inflict on an enemy as a PC is "Dead" and slightly optimized Strikers can do that in no time.
With the plethora of Strikers minoring in Controller, Defender and Leader, my group and I found that the other classes are stricly for flavor and in a combat-intensive game can even be viewed as "weaker".
In terms of what you can offer the players to make other roles enticing, go for story or RP goals and purposes. Make it less about killing enemies as iserith points out and focus on skills and RP flavor. If the players feel that their strikers are overkill and do 150 points of damage on minions, they will realize that a leader or controller could do the same and have other options along the way.
They also might need to see what the other roles can actually do, and you can help that by giving them advice or integrate it in-game. A NPC companion controller that exploits terrain features with its cool sliding abilities, a defender that can hold an otherwise unsurmontable number of enemies when the rest of the group is trying to save peasants, just to give examples.
If all else fails, sit bakc and enjoy the 4-Strikers party, there is no wrong way to play D&D and have fun. Design appropriate challenges.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:27PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
|
Independent character creation is something I don't like. Like everything else in the game, character creation should be collaborative, with people playing off one another. If you're familliar with the mechanics, tell them why they should have a variety of roles. If they still wanna play strikers, that's fine. Experience is a hard teacher, but a good one too. Throw balanced encounters at them, and don't be afraid to pull punches. If you do, they'll learn very quickly why four strikers isn't such a good idea, and will probably make the switch in time.
We've been playing for years now but this was one of those few times where we did character creation separately. (I wasn't DMing this time). And amazingly, we've been doing okay.
Between our Vampire multi-classing to get some Skald healing and my Blackguard/Sorcerer Hybrid using lots of controller/leader-like powers thanks to the Templar theme, and our Hexblade and Rouge also having a few lockdown attacks, we've actually managed to come out ahead without trouble.
---
Regarding this next game:
Thing is, I want them to be able to choose their next class more based on style and not on damage output. Hence my idea to try to level the damage playing field.
---
EDIT:
This is some pretty nice feedback. It doesn't answer the question directly but rather points to why that was even a question to begin with. I think I may roll with this.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:32PM
#6
|
|
|
Regarding this next game:
Thing is, I want them to be able to choose their next class more based on style and not on damage output. Hence my idea to try to level the damage playing field.
This is a simple matter of a conversation, not house rules.
Why can't they both have style and damage? I'm not sure what the goal is here other than "I don't want to DM for 4 strikers."
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 12:38PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
|
Why can't they both have style and damage? I'm not sure what the goal is here other than "I don't want to DM for 4 strikers."
I'm okay with DMing for 4 strikers. I've DMed for a party of 3 strikers before.
My concern is making sure they'll have the tools to survive and deal with a variety of encounters, from balanced 1v1 skirmishes to big giant solo brutes to minion swarms.
When it was looking like it was going to be all strikers last time, I gave a free power or other tool to each striker for either survivability or crowd control.
I guess I was just thinking of doing the opposite this time: rather than have strikers with an extra set of tools, having a balanced team each with an extra striker toolset.
(It's my style of DMing to always do something extra with the PCs to where they have an item or power that's iconic to the adventure they're currently in.)
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:07PM
#8
|
|
|
The DM designs adventures taking the abilities of the PCs into account; he should not force design on the PCs to account for his adventures.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:47PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Jul 14, 2008
|
I see nothing wrong with the party. Let the campaign build around them being 4 hardcore killers, and then have the campaign world respond by upping the challenge progressively until you find out how many extra monsters are needed.
Also, find other ways to resolve combats. Being a good striker won't help you against a monster with DR 500, or an infinite horde of minions, or a race out of a burning airship.
One-half of the tabletop gaming news podcast Going LastCo-author on AoA 2-3 and 4-1.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 28, 2012 - 1:54PM
#10
|
|
|
The DM designs adventures taking the abilities of the PCs into account; he should not force design on the PCs to account for his adventures.
That's certainly one entirely valid style of play; the world adapts itself to whatever choices the players make so that everyone gets to play the way they want to play.
It's not for me though. I prefer a model where the players adapt themselves to the world (within reason). I find that players enjoy the challenge that this presents, and it makes for a more immersive experience. Necessity is the mother of invention, and creativity seldom thrives when everything is served up on a platter.
So my advice is: don't worry about their survival; that's their job.
|
|
|
