The Campaign Builder's Guild

So in my res at university, i am currently in a campaign and running another one. Both are going pretty well, although there have been run-ins witha authority figures in both the nearky ended in executions. I have noticed a strange phenomena in both parties. Let's see if you can guess what i'm talking about.

In my friend's campaign there are:
- halfling barbarian/warlock (me)
- human fighter
- half-elf paladin
- human paladin
- human samurai
- young ogre
- gnome rogue
- human monk

In my campaign the party consists of:
- elven ninja/assasin
- human fighter
- shifter barbarian/ranger
- human fighter/barbarian/disciple of thrymm
- half dragon anthropomorphic whale fighter (don't ask. we call him the "dragon whale")

so in both there are plenty of combat characters, a few skilled characters, but no spellcasters or dedicated healers to be seen (my guy only recently multiclassed into warlock in response to this realisation. now a warlock and a thief with cure wands are the party's healers)

What i want to know is what are the standard class make-ups of campaigns you have run or been in. are they spread out? all combat like these? mostly casters?

and bear in mind that i am in no way bad-mouthing combat parties. i love em.
hell, the group in the campaign i'm running just went up against and beat a mountain troll and 4 cave trolls about an hour ago (for those keeping score at home, that's a EL 13 group vs a 5-man 8th level party).

Current Eberron "campaign" (playing the "Age of Worms" adventure path from Dungeon):

Human (Serran) dragon shaman

[me]*Halfling rogue [DM's mom]*Kalashtar psychic warrior [GM's girlfriend][/list]

 x.  :-/

It's been a horribly long time since the last time I DMed, so I have trouble remembering what the last line-up was. I will tell you though, that my parties have usually been like this:

Pure Warrior-type
Pure Arcane Caster-type
Rogue-type or second Warrior-type
Wilderness-Type or second Arcane Caster-type

I've hardly ever had clerics from what I remember, and the druids and paladins I have had didn't become primary healers. Surprisingly this worked out alright, though some adventures were slow.

The primarily warrior type parties work surprisingly well and are really fun to play. Its also much closer to what is found in stories. How many tales have an equal balance of cleris and wizards to the more mundane characters like warriors and experts. not many, that's what. I wonder how they will do once they reach higher level and are in need or transport, healing and problem-solving spells that are hard to reach by non-dedicated-caster means.

There's always magical items. But giving them items that let them do such things is most fun when it's limited and perceived as a true, one-of-a-kind artifact (such as a gem that allows the possessor to use Teleport a few times a day, even as simple as that might seem). I've always found that people have much more fun with items when it's like that.

the party I DM consists of:

- a human cleric
- a xeph rogue/druid
- a goliath barbarian
- a felion (homebrew race) cleric planning to take necromancer levels (though this player is often absent, so his character is with the party only some of the time)

One of the two parties I'm in has:

- an elven ranger
- a dwarven werewolf druid (me)

Of course, that campaign takes place wholly within the city walls. :D Then the other party I play in has:

- an elven barbarian (ape totem so he has a climb speed)
- an elven paladin
- a half-elven abjurer
- a halfling rogue/cleric (me)

Generally, the DMs try to adjust the campaign to the characters rather than urging the party to become more "balanced". I'm not aware of any anti-spellcaster attitude in any of the three parties.

Túrin

One of our first 3rd edition parties wound up like this:
figher/wizard (about half and half)
rogue1/wizard x
gnome pure wizard (me)
paladin or monk (co-dms, so only one of these were around at a time)
druid/fighter

having 3 wizards was fun because we basically had 3 spellbooks we could share amongst ourselves. lots of synergy there. The paladin/monk and fighter wizard were our only tanks, but man could we throw some spells around.

Speaking of lacking clerics, one thing i've figured out lately is that clerics are really fun in a casual game. They can sleep for a night and turn from blaster into fighter or diviner or really whatever you want to do. And they can always heal, and everyone loves a healer. Our game is pretty casual, so i'm not sure how this holds up when all the other players have awesome super-specialized prestige class from splat book x.

It seems that some people shy away from spellcasting classes out of a distaste for the bookkeeping involved. I can't really blame them. There are a huge number of things a spellcaster has to keep track of and understand, and playing a basher can be nicely simple in contrast. Instead of long lists of spells to be familiar with, you just concern yourself with a few basic combat maneuvers: charge, flanking, maybe grapple or disarm. I'm drawn to spellcasters because I like the complexity, but I can certainly see the appeal of wading into melee with just a broadsword and courage. It's simple; it's elegant.

That, and it seems like the classical images we emulate seem to glorify the bashers. I can think of a few stories that portray a mage as the great hero, standing alone between the world and the forces of darkness, but I can think of many more where a warrior assumes that role, and magic users serve instead as mentors and facilitators along the way. The spotlight seeks out swordsmen-- that's just the way the genre often works. Players are aware of that.

I agree with you on that, Luminous. The only real examples of mages of any sort, in any genre, that I can immediately think of that take the protagonist spotlight are Elminister and Harry Potter. "Multiclass" types seem to be a little more common, especially in my own settings. One of the first incarnations of Aath (then called Nahrul) had epic legendary heroes, and only two out of thirty some were full arcane casters (if I remember right, there were 3 druids and 2 clerics). The rest, including the most powerful NPC, were multiclass fighter/sorcerers or fighter/wizards or ranger/wizards or something.

@LC: Well, that and the fact that the swordsmen often seem more involved in the action. Cast a spell ... zap ... problem solved - it just isn't as fun or heroic seeming as going toe to toe with a monster.

Of course, you can design adventures that give wizards more to do, so it's not as bad as all that. But it would be interesting to see mechanics that allowed for more interesting magical dueling.

Stealing into the trogs' lair, Darieth the Red could sense magic about, but no particular source presented itself. He requested a moment for investigation, "Hold on, fellas." Slipping easily into his trance, he extended his mystic senses in all directions. There was definitely something out there, but shielded from him. Some spell that had deliberately been obscured. It would take time and energy to uncover it - energy that he might need later, especially if he had to defend the party against whoever cast the spell he was sensing. On the other hand, it might be better to know what they were going up against...

"Hey, Darieth, get with it!" His trance was interrupted by Garek. "We can't stand around like this, we need to keep moving."

Darieth shrugged and followed the others. "Be alert, there's something out there." But his warning came too late. As the adventurers rounded the corner, they entered a large cavern where an underground stream emerged from the rocks and tumbled into a deep pool. Darieth sensed the spells around them just as a squad of troglodyte warriors materialized on all sides. He ducked a badly aimed thrust and backed up against the cavern wall as Garek moved to engage the warrior who threatened him.

In the chaos of the ensuing battle, Darieth could sense an enemy caster supporting the trogs. With an effort of will, he dispelled the enemy spell, then extended his power to create a protective shield around the area to keep out enemy spells. He sensed a spell dissipating against the shield, but found himself in a contest of wills as the enemy attempted to overwhelm his magical power. Meanwhile, his companions had formed up and were driving the warriors back. Finally, they fled, and the trog shaman fled with them.

"What was up with that?" asked Garek.

"A fairly weak shaman, he'd cloaked the warriors so we wouldn't notice them. No real problem, but if there are more where he came from, they could overwhelm my defenses. We'll have to be more cautious if we see any more spell casters."

Quote@LC: Well, that and the fact that the swordsmen often seem more involved in the action. Cast a spell ... zap ... problem solved - it just isn't as fun or heroic seeming as going toe to toe with a monster.

Of course, you can design adventures that give wizards more to do, so it's not as bad as all that. But it would be interesting to see mechanics that allowed for more interesting magical dueling.

That's also true. And it's a pretty damning commentary on the D20 magic system.

QuoteWell, that and the fact that the swordsmen often seem more involved in the action. Cast a spell ... zap ... problem solved - it just isn't as fun or heroic seeming as going toe to toe with a monster.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Especially on the cleric list--flame shield, for instance, you want to cast and then get people to attack you. In a session fighting a hydra, my cleric cast flame shield (sun domain), then attempted to grapple. Each attack of opportunity against the grapple dealt 1d6+10 fire damage. It nearly killed the cleric, but it was loads of fun.

I guess i can see how the "zap... problem solved" feeling can apply for save or death kind of spells, but i don't think it applies to all d20 magic by any means.

I agree with brainface. In a way, D&D is a stereotype-breaker compared to most fiction. For good or ill, D&D focuses much more on magic than fiction. In the higher levels, you just can't survive without some forms of magic, and a well-played wizard or cleric will beat, if not plain outshine, a non-spellcaster.

As LC said, playing a warrior is easier, but one who is prepared to play a pure spellcaster from level one, and has the time to get familiar with his class' spells and to prepare his spells carefully before each adventure will reap the benefits as he gets into the mid and higher levels, as the elven wizard in the third group I described has shown (we're currently at level nine).

Túrin

Party i DM consists of:

Thri-kreen monk 6
Thri-kreen rogue 6
human dragon-adept 6
human (class from 9 swords book)6
human cleric 6
Blue psion 3/rogue 3 (my cousin)

No arcane casters there and only 1 meat shield, and they wonder why they have so much trouble

party im in:
Drow figher 3/sorcerer 3 (me)
halfling ranger 6
elf monk 6
human fighter 6
human rogue 6

Im the only arcane spell caster, but no cleric.

Ive noticed that everyone else is afraid to multiclass, my cousin and i are the only ones that ever bother to.

Well, the party I DM looks like this:

Elven Bard 4
Human Paladin of Kord 4
Gnome Cleric 4
Dwarf Barbarian 4

Not too bad, the Bard can provide some back-up spells, the Barbarian is the meatshield, the Cleric heals, and the Paladin dishes out damage pretty well.

Parties I play in:

Human Bard 2 (Me)
Elven Druid 2

This was set up so that our characters would have some way that they were extremely different.  My Bard is outgoing and clever, the Druid is shy and bookish, and neither of us is an even halfway-decent warrior.

Half-Elf Monk 2/Wizard 5 (Me)
Half-Elf Sorcerer 7
Human Paladin of Freedom x/Urban Ranger x

This is set in a huge city and our characters are part of the new City Watch detective patrols.