Topic: Unbalanced groups and combat

[DangerMan]

Any tips on how to manage a group with very different levels of OB/DB between the players?

We are starting a new campaign now. We like to have a lot of fights. However, the PCs have a different take on designing characters. Two of them are hard core power players and quite shamelessly so. The others are not. Thus PCs will have very different levels of OB / DB. I'm thinking; Hey, what ever tickles your fanny.

However, setting up interesting / balanced encounters will be difficult. Too easy and the two fighter-demons will dominate everything. Too hard and the more balanced PCs will be krushed.

I dont mind so called "power players". I'm one myself. Though, mixing up styles within the group might prove troublesome for the poor GM. 

[markc]

  What I would do is plan for the weaker average and let the combat monsters mop up. But also have some skill chapters so the other PC's can mop up there.
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

Any tips on how to manage a group with very different levels of OB/DB between the players?

We are starting a new campaign now. We like to have a lot of fights. However, the PCs have a different take on designing characters. Two of them are hard core power players and quite shamelessly so. The others are not. Thus PCs will have very different levels of OB / DB.

So the problem is to define "fight" in such a way that mere OB/DB isn't a very significant factor. For example, if the "fight" takes place in a mountain pass socked in with fog, Perception skill is the dominant factor. If it takes place against an amphibious creature, Swimming may be the dominant factor.

[JimiSue]

Or, enhance the chances of the non-combat monkeys by requiring a fight to take place in a specific way... maybe the critter is not very vulnerable to slashing weapons that the big fighter uses, or has specific weak points that the non-combat-monkeys have a better chance of hitting than their heavier-armed counterparts.

However, it is important that you let the powerful combat guys to make full use of their skills from time to time. That kind of player likes to flex what they have, so to avoid peeing them off and losing them as players, let them flex.

[Kristen Mork]

Other ideas include:

• The non-combat characters need to hold the flanks to prevent a bunch of lesser minions from overwhelming the tanks.
• The party can preserve a chokepoint, but only if a few of the party volunteer to move into a position where they will suffer big penalties (waist-deep in water, for example).  Meanwhile, the other party members can serve as artillery.
• Make the map move around.  I like clockwork maps, and pendulum bridges, and shifting bookcases.  When the map moves around a) the tactical people have to think even harder and b) it's often the case that the tanks are unable to stay in an ideal location.

Building on what others have said, the key is to ensure that each fight is atypical (which is a good idea, anyway).

[Cory Magel]

We've had this problem in the past.  One character was very specifically focused in combat and would absolutely tear up foes that the rest the party would have trouble with.  Two other party members were your average combat types and the last three were non-combat types.

One of the biggest factors in trying to juggle this is how many foes will the party fight at one time?  If there are a lot of foes it, in my opinion, becomes a bigger problem that if there are only a few.  How many foes you are fighting is just as important as how tough they are.  A dozen weak imps can bring down a good fighter that might be able to take on a troll one on one.

The solution our GM chose worked, but it wasn't the best solution due to the one specialized combat character HAVING to fight a singular foe that the GM made so strong in melee that ONLY that character stood a chance against it.  This is a solution, but it gets old after a while... and if the one character that could stand up to it goes down due to a lucky crit or something of the like, the rest the party was just hosed.

What GrumpyOldFart, JimiSue and Peter said all are good options.  Combats don't have to be a face to face slugfest and will be much more interesting in the long run if unusual tactics are required.

[VladD]

IMO it is a boon that there's a few chars that do all the combat, it leaves the others free for tackling other dangers, such as disarming a closing trap, protecting the fighters from the enemy mage or finding a way out of the cul-de-sac.

Its VERY normal to have a few PCs that deal with the heavy combat and others that aren't specialized in combat; its the bread and butter of team work in RPG's. This allows for the players to work together, instead of trying to gain the upper hand. Specialization makes one strong where another is weak, forcing the players and their characters to work together.

Your problem comes from the fact the numbers seem to be TOO far apart, but it is only logical. Only ensure that the non combat characters never get in the way of an enemy dedicated combatant, because it will be a short fight, when the enemy is made to tackle a power min/maxing fighter.

One thing I do is to set the party up against ANOTHER party of complementary archetypes. Then they can duke it out on their own terms. The Dabbler faces the magent, the cleric must deal with the animist, the fighters slug it out with the other party's fighters and both Rogues meet each other in a dark alley way circumnavigating the choke point.... That way everyone has an equal fight, and hopefully, equal fun.

I seriously like Peter Mork's idea of protecting the flanks. I can see several set ups here where it is crucial to defend the rear of the fighters to insure they are not swamped, rear attacked and mauled.

[providence13]

Heavy fighter types are usually easy to spot after a round or two.
The opposition is likely to gang up on them..

Giving the foes Adrenals or Athletic Brawn skills could make them tougher still.

Right now I'm making use of Tattoo Runes in one campaign for the very reason you describe. The heavy combat PC's need more of a challenge and this doesn't give them magic loot that boosts combat.

My players understand that not everyone is streamlined for combat. "Hide or run away until the fight is over and then use your specific specialized skills where you can".

[DangerMan]

Many good suggestions here! Thanks guys!

Some of the suggested solutions depends on the PC's making rational choices and may thus prove troublesome, but I'll give them a shot none the less.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Do some reading on tactical principles, while keeping in mind that as GM, you get to choose the tactical environment of any given encounter. Once you've done that, you should be able to get ideas on how to screw up any individual player's day just by looking at his character sheet and noting where the lowest numbers are.

 

[providence13]

I'm thinking unless everyone plays a Fighter type, combat will always be "unbalanced". 

For me, one of my jobs as GM is to give players a reason to use skills they have. Not everyone can contribute to a combat situation.

As others stated, there are a decent amount of low level spells that could give non-combatants a chance.

Enchanted Rope and Rope Mastery skill: Although the enchantment can't be used to attack, I'd allow it used to form a trip wire, lasso, monkey's fist/gullwhacker (50%Act "c") and then use Rope Mastery to attack next round. Maybe even use the Whip table with A Impact crits, max.

Loosen Earth should definitely require a MM for a Fighter to run through. A fast pace might make a harder DR.

Wall of Cold gives an A crit with no RR.

Condensation could make grass slippery.. A light MM at least but every little bit helps.

Fog (creates a dense fog) has been mentioned and is awesome, IMHO.

Airwall is -50 OB and reduces Movement by half!

Charm Animals could stop a charging horse.

Distraction is -30 to all actions.

These are all low level spells and could allow weak Mage types to contribute to combat.

[markc]

providence13,
 I agree, caltrops and ground hugging fog is a great way to lure fighters into range for a spell user to finish off. 
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

As a simple example, let's suppose you notice that the party's meat shield hasn't put any effort into Climbing skill... so you hand him archers and/or spell users from an elevated firing position. The true challenge he ends up having to overcome is getting up there where they are, without being turning into fire-roasted shishkabob or falling and hurting himself. Once he manages that it becomes the usual power fighter mop-up.

There are enough choices on a character sheet that a player can't cover all of them. And you the GM get to choose the terrain, weather and other local conditions of the encounter. How "well rounded" the characters become is partly a measure of how well rounded you as GM require them to be in order to survive your imagination.

[JimiSue]

I will also say... fairly recently I have played a straight up mercenary combat machine in a different system (DragonStar, which is d20 in space, dragons rule the empire). The group is level 11 now, and my character as a fighter a) has a ton of feats, b) has  a ridiculous to hit bonus and c) has excellent armour. None of the others is really a fighter type at all. Due to a variety of specialisations in automatic weapons fire, if she clears the opponent AC by 6 or more, my character is now capable of spitting out 12d10 damage with an attack, and at 11th level that's 2 attacks per round. Even though I choose to self-nerf and use a less powerful weapon, she is still capable of 10d6, twice a round. (self nerf chosen because otherwise the GM would have used similar weapons against us, and I couldn't survive a single round of that damage output)

There isn't a huge amount that can stand up to that kind of onslaught. Kraken - 1.5 rounds. T rex (at a lower level) 2 rounds. So the GM tried to compensate but giving us tougher opponents. But we found out that an opponent capable of giving my character a run for her money, would make mincemeat of any other character... so in order to avoid TPKs, my character essentially had a big target painted on her armour.

Which is all well and good... but in combat, my combat rolling took as long as the rest of the party put together, and I could see they were getting annoyed at being second raters. End result is that now, no one wants to play in that game any more, myself included.

Ther moral of this tale being, be careful how you balance, it might have long term effects which are difficult to come back from.

[Cory Magel]

Just too toss in.  I would always do my best to make sure most combats are rarely just a big slug-fest.  Meaning there's another variable thrown in that makes it interesting aside from everyone's sheer offensive/defensive capabilities.  In the dark, on the water, in a close quarters maze-like terrain (dungeon, narrow streets/alleys), an area with lots of 'props' that could be made use of (containers of flammable liquids, heavy wood furniture to take cover behind), have some kind of 'time limit' for when the authorities or backup will arrive, maybe not have to WIN the fight but rather just accomplish some task then flee...

One way which we used to 'punish' certain players for bad behavior was to specifically set them up.  We used to have a player who would never get into the fray and make sure he was safe, even if to the rest of the groups detriment.  Finally one day the GM setup a fight where there were 'scouts' of a sort circling the combat waiting for an opportunity... and, of course, that player presented it.  Point being, you could sorta do the same, just not in a vindictive way, to the combat oriented characters.  Put them in a situation where the casters have to cover their backs.

[markc]

 IMHO if a character in the group was not into or getting into danger or avoiding it then my PC would probably have words with them and maybe a group vote to cut them out of treasure. Or give them the same treasure as a NPC or hired hand.
But that is just me.
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

Meaning there's another variable thrown in that makes it interesting aside from everyone's sheer offensive/defensive capabilities.  In the dark, on the water, in a close quarters maze-like terrain (dungeon, narrow streets/alleys), an area with lots of 'props' that could be made use of (containers of flammable liquids, heavy wood furniture to take cover behind), have some kind of 'time limit' for when the authorities or backup will arrive, maybe not have to WIN the fight but rather just accomplish some task then flee...

A situation I'm fond of using as an example was the time the party was fighting giants in a room at the top of a ladder, that led down a large, deep hole.

One of my players spent most of the combat hanging at the top of that ladder upside down... by a broken leg. While the rest of the party was fighting giants.

 

[GrumpyOldFart]

If you think about it, in such a case your maneuvering skill is as important as your fighting skill. "A giant just rang your bell with an open handed slap, make a stunned maneuver to keep from falling down the hole..."

[providence13]

Sorry if it's been mentioned but let's not forget poison.
Although the onset time is crazy variable, RAW.

Iv'e allowed the Thief in one game access to some Giant Centipede poison (5B Circ) and it hasn't unbalanced the game so far. He has to care for them (they are young about a foot long) and extract the poison so the supply is limited. The poison is stable, prepared and applied to weapons. Most critters can make the RR but some fail. This is no different than Fighter types getting a really good crit; stunning, extra damage, etc. 
Giving the opposition weak poison can help if the combat lasts more than a few rounds.

[markc]

 Nice I like the caring for the animals part and the "bonus" it provides. IMHO it also adds some good RP to the story.
MDC