?

Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
any thoughts on running a party of characters who are all fighter… 
7th-Jun-2005 10:40 am
boke1
any thoughts on running a party of characters who are all fighter types? the party is probably going to be 2 rangers, one barbarian and one fighter, although one of the rangers may be a druid.
Comments 
7th-Jun-2005 02:48 pm (UTC)
This actually sounds like a cool party.

The obvious :

Obviously theyre going to get hurt (which is fine); but in order to keep it flowing so that they don't have to rest and heal for a day every other encounter, I'd have one of the rangers given a wand of cure lt wounds right from the start. Combat medic. Otherwise just loads of healing potions.

Unobvious; undead, certain abberations, demons, etc.. will be tougher encounters. However, these guys are going to be great against hordes of low-level mooks if they pick their feats right. You could probably throw 20 goblins at them at 2nd level. This is the sort of encounter fighter types really enjoy usually.



7th-Jun-2005 02:51 pm (UTC)
They'll require a lot of healing items, and NPC healer, or downtime for natural healing.

Also, they won't have much recourse against magic, but they'll take out a magic-using baddie in one turn most likely (if they can get to him).
7th-Jun-2005 02:58 pm (UTC)
The Iron Heroes from Malhavoc Press is coming out soon, and is an alternate setting for low magic games. it might be of interest.

There is also a section on fighter based games in the Complete Warriors Handbook.

Barring outside resources, I'd suggest:

(1) increase healing rate. Without magical healing, a single hit from a low-level fighter's sword (d10+4) is going to take 5 days on average to heal for a second level player (Character level per day). Allowing Con bonus increase healing helps.

(2) At low level, this isn't a big deal, but a bunch of fighters are better with a few large opponents as opposed to crowd control. One dire wolf is probably more broachable than a pack of normal wolves. Same with one Hobgoblin sorceror vis-a-vis a hobgoblin warparty.

(3) The party isn't going to have a lot of skill points (well, the rangers might, assuming 3.5 Rangers). Still, no social skills of which to speak, no disable device, open locks, etc. Be aware of that when creating obsticles.

9th-Jun-2005 02:43 am (UTC)
As far as the the first point goes, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. How quickly would you recover from a sword swipe dished out by someone with (apparently) an 18 Strength?
9th-Jun-2005 01:10 pm (UTC)
Me? I wouldn't. If it hit, I'd be dead. But that isn't the point.

One of DnDs major flaws, but long existent tenants is that Hit Points isn't just the physicial resiliance of your body; that's your con score. Hit points represent, amoung other things, your ability to handle yourself in combat, avoid damage, and bob and weave out of the way of things.

Besides, games are supposed to be fun. Waiting in town, doing nothing (so you double your healing rate) for a week isn't exactly fun.
7th-Jun-2005 02:59 pm (UTC)
I'd say it depends a lot on how they build their characters. It you have a couple battle field control people (trip monkey or what not) it could help considorably, keep things incapicated while the rest beat them down.

The party might need to rely on ambushes / suprise / flanking against harder opponents and make sure to spread out while approaching things like mind flayers that could hit them all in an aoe will save bit.

again, obviously they'll want some way of dealing with healing. Downtime, wand of cure light wounds, etc as has been suggested.
7th-Jun-2005 03:44 pm (UTC)
I think that would be an incredibly fun party.

Fighter types (non-Paladins) and Rogues (not Bards) are the most fun parties to run/play, in my opinion.
7th-Jun-2005 04:07 pm (UTC)
they will do well at lower levels, and have a lot tougher road at higher levels.
7th-Jun-2005 04:17 pm (UTC)
the fighters should varry a bit...one scout type to act as ranger... ranger or druid to act as cleric... barbarian to act as a rogue.

just thinking of the bases you'd need to cover... it there's not gonig to be locks to open or traps to find indoors, a ranger works fine and the fighters are backup.

depends entirely on the setting.

:o/
Dan
7th-Jun-2005 06:45 pm (UTC)
Everyone's talking about the lack of a cleric, which is an obvious problem, but what about the lack of a rogue? Seems to me that a party like that will lack... subtlety. Having to break down almost every locked door or chest? Stumble through every trap? As a DM, I like traps. I think I'd end up toasting these guys fairly quickly..
8th-Jun-2005 01:00 am (UTC)
Why not? It worked for R.A. Salvatore
8th-Jun-2005 05:11 pm (UTC)
The Rangers should be able to use wands of cure light/mod/ser wounds and cure disease & neutralize poison. Not quite a cleric, but it'll be a big help if there's no Druid.

It sounds like a cool group to do something like King Arthur - a group of highly skilled mounted "knights", each with their own specialty.

Having one multiclass as a rouge would be a good idea for the "subtlety" issues.
9th-Jun-2005 01:57 am (UTC)
Sounds battle heavy. I would recommend an NPC cleric or druid, myself. They need a healer.

But make it a cleric that can't cast any Raise spells or something of that sort. That would be hilarious. Maybe the cleric doesn't believe in raising the dead--now they have to be extra careful.
9th-Jun-2005 02:53 am (UTC)
Here's a point nobody seems to have made: it seems to me that on the whole the treasure tables provide something for everybody. With a party consisting of characters that all use the same types of equipment, I'd expect a lot of fighting over the particularly nice stuff.
9th-Jun-2005 01:07 pm (UTC)
Spiked Chains and Combat Reflexes for everybody!

Yeah!
This page was loaded Sep 26th 2017, 12:44 pm GMT.