Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 lord_rock Mar 29, 2009 0:29:22	The party I'll be joining is: Pursuit Avenger Beastmaster ranger Lazer cleric I really really want to play a longtooth druid... but a longtooth warden would fill that all so important defender role. Can I play the druid??? more of a theoretical systems question... can the 4th ed party function without a defender? It has been posed before... what now with PHBII???
#2 arderkrag Mar 29, 2009 0:41:34	The party I'll be joining is: Pursuit Avenger Beastmaster ranger Lazer cleric I really really want to play a longtooth druid... but a longtooth warden would fill that all so important defender role. Can I play the druid??? more of a theoretical systems question... can the 4th ed party function without a defender? It has been posed before... what now with PHBII??? Sure can. I and one other player were both playing strikers last night (Me a ranger and him an avenger) and we fought a 3rd-level dragon (we are 5th level). We not only came out on top, but came out both with more than half of our hps. (I notably only took 8 damage.) So, yes, you can function fine without a defender. You'll have to fiddle with your tactics some, but it can easily be done.
#3 Titanium_Dragon Mar 29, 2009 0:41:59	Well, you're covering the controller slot, which your party is also lacking; really, right now your party has two of the most expendable role (strikers) and no defender or controller. I wouldn't stress out about it overly. The druid isn't a defender, but you've got plenty of bodies and only one guy who sucks in melee (the cleric), while you've got a beastmaster (which can get in the way due to multiple bodies) and an avenger (a somewhat defenderish striker). You'll be fine, I think. The biggest problem parties without defenders tend have are skirmishers running rampant through their lines (which the avenger discourages somewhat) and enemy soldiers latching onto the Cleric's face (which you really can't do all that much about). However, you've got a party which should do mostly fine, as no one is all that frail.
#4 matthewstryker Mar 29, 2009 0:42:54	more of a theoretical systems question... can the 4th ed party function without a defender? It has been posed before... what now with PHBII??? The answer is yes, but it's not recommended. Defenders are very important. You have two strikers and a leader in that party. They could use a defender.
#5 ieattrollsforbreakfast Mar 29, 2009 5:58:45	I've been running a campaign with 4 strikers, 1 controller and 1 leader and we've been getting along fine without a defender. It makes encounters a bit more swingy, the rogue drops below 0hp fairly often, but they're still winnable. Play the character you want to play, not one you think you have to.
#6 Alter_Boy Mar 29, 2009 12:44:58	Heed the words of Phillip J. Fry: "I'm going to be whatever I want to do!"
#7 ambulacetus Mar 29, 2009 13:02:24	Play the druid; I wouldn't sweat missing a defender too much. In my experience, having a party with all your rolls covered may be a little easier, but it is not necessarily "better" or more powerful. To clarify, if you have all of the roles covered you can usually get away with using fairly standard and obvious tactics (the defender blocks the biggest threat, the leader backs up the defender and keeps him on his toes, the striker goes after squishy but hard-hitting targets, and the controller takes crowd control and limits enemy options). If you are missing roles you can still be effective (very effective even). However, you may need to get more creative with your tactics and think a little outside the box.
#8 lord_rock Mar 29, 2009 13:21:20	my feeling overall with a lot of the PHBII stuff was it makes "roles" in a party a lot less important. our party in particular has a lot covered being both a man down and doubling up on strikers. Beastmaster ranger- ranged, melee, blocks traffic like a defender Pursuit avenger- loves when the squishies come to him instead of having to chase them about. lazer cleric- keeps everyone alive. Usually hangs out next to the beastmaster to have some room to manuver around 2 allies. druid- controller but melee control feels a lot like a defender. Focus on beast aspects and lots of slows, daze, knockdown = defendery. Shaman has similar beastmaster feel as it can block traffic and still be a leader. Sorc does control and striking just fine (especially a lucky wild mage). Bard does the control, defender, leader thing as well. Many people have already noted that the barbarian leans towards defender too by dealing as much dmg as he does so he can't be ignored. This was both a discussion about our party and a bigger look at PHBII stuff and how it could change up these dynamics a lot. What I'm doing is making up both characters (party just hit 6th) and we'll try out the druid for 2 encounters. If things go badly I'll switch him out and suddenly he's a little stickier (warden) but is mostly the same longtooth shifter. What is your experience with not covering the usual roles with PHBII stuff??? (PHBII races also have an effect on this discussion).
#9 crazysamaritan Mar 29, 2009 14:08:55	"roles" aren't "the party needs X,Y,Z, and Q". "roles" are "these classes are good at these jobs".
#10 Ore Mar 29, 2009 14:15:07	Personally, I think the Leader is the only role that should necessarily be filled most of the time but even that is not a hard and fast rule with me. I honestly think just about anything would work.
#11 alien270 Mar 29, 2009 14:20:26	You've got an Avenger in the party, which is the Striker most able to take care of himself. The Beastmaster Ranger is also pretty tough, and the pet's HP will be very high (the biggest problem here will be a lack of surges). Of the Controllers, the Druid is definitely the toughest and definitely has some Defender elements. Grab Grasping Claws for OA's to keep enemies from messing with the Cleric/prevent them from running after the Cleric. I would also advise that most, if not all, of the characters pick up Toughness and Durable (Durable will be especially important for the Ranger, as his surges will be spread over himself and the pet). With two strikers, and a Druid (who, with lots of charging and the right feats/items makes a respectable secondary Striker), you should be able to tear through enemies before they have a chance to inflict too much damage on you.
#12 lord_rock Mar 29, 2009 21:54:43	"roles" aren't "the party needs X,Y,Z, and Q". "roles" are "these classes are good at these jobs". huh?
#13 crazysamaritan Mar 29, 2009 22:12:07	The party doesn't need any class. Someone in the group will take the "distract enemies" role, someone will take the "take out the BBEG" role, someone will take the "keep the party on thier feet" role, and someone will take the "slow the enemies down" role. This will happen even if every party member has the same class. Defender classes are good at the "distract enemies" role, but you don't have to take one of those classes to have that role. Striker classes are good at the "take out the BBEG" role, but you don't have to take one of those classes to have that role. Leader classes are good at the "keep the party standing" role, but you don't have to take one of those classes to have that role. Controller classes are good at the "slow enemies down" role, but you don't have to take one of those classes to have that role.
#14 undrave Mar 29, 2009 22:41:21	I played in a party where we were an Invoker, what was essentially a melee Beastmaster (I say essentially but the whole story is more complex, heavy homebrew), and me as a Bard. It was DANGEROUS! We got bloodied and beaten up badly a LOT even though we survived. The addition of a Paladin though was VERY VERY much welcomed. Once he got in there I could disengage myself from the frontline and make better use of my implement powers to the point of thinking about switching to all implement with time. With the Avenger joining the group I also have further incentive to go more implement based. What I'm saying is that its not ESSENTIAL to have a defender, but it sure is welcomed and it really opens up options for classes that have both ranged and melee options. If you lean more toward Beast Form Druid your party should do find, as long as you are all mindful of the cleric. the ideal solution would off course be to find a new player! Rope in a newbie or something. Build them a strikerish defender and tell them "stand there and kick butt!".
#15 lostdwarf Mar 29, 2009 23:19:09	I think the optimal route would be to play a defender. However, Its not a game breaker to not have one. Both your strikers are melee capable. The avenger potentially has a very nice armor class once he gets a few feats focused on it, and the beastmaster ranger can pick a nice tanky bear or buffalo or rhino or something similar to help hold the line. Now, if your strikers were say a feylock and a sorcerer, then you might want to reconsider things a bit. But as it stands you would do OK, as long as you work together and use good tactics. Focus fire to bring things down quickly, and If you go druid you might focus more on beast form fto make you better in melee. Should go ok.
#16 atrius2006 Mar 30, 2009 3:03:11	I have a similar predicament, I am currently DMing a campaign with the following characters: Shifter Two-Weapon Ranger Elf Cleric/Ranger Drow Rogue Dwarf Battlerager Fighter Human Rogue (may be Human Wizard as player could not make last session and has only played in one session) Half-Orc Inspiring Warlord Now, once this module ends, the player running the Elf Cleric will be DMing and removing his character from the story, at least until he is a player again. Also, the Fighter was only introduced last session, at the beginning of the module since the person playing was the previous DM. He is doing his job as a defender very well. So, I keep thinking that this party needs a dedicated healer. I could play a Cleric, and I have no issue with the class. I was originally going to play one at the beginning of the campaign (as I wasn't DM then), but ran a Swordmage instead. When he died, I ran a playtest version Barbarian who only got two sessions as the updated PHB2 before I took over as DM. When I end the module, I plan for the party to be level 8. My current character ideas are: 1. Dwarf Protector Shaman 2. Gnome Cunning Bard/Invoker/Druid 3. Halfling Wild Magic Sorcerer (mainly for fun, most probably would scrap) Which do you think is the better choice? or do you think I should play another class?
#17 tcg_researcher Mar 30, 2009 3:26:58	So, I keep thinking that this party needs a dedicated healer. I could play a Cleric, and I have no issue with the class. I was originally going to play one at the beginning of the campaign (as I wasn't DM then), but ran a Swordmage instead. When he died, I ran a playtest version Barbarian who only got two sessions as the updated PHB2 before I took over as DM. When I end the module, I plan for the party to be level 8. My current character ideas are: 1. Dwarf Protector Shaman 2. Gnome Cunning Bard/Invoker/Druid 3. Halfling Wild Magic Sorcerer (mainly for fun, most probably would scrap) Which do you think is the better choice? or do you think I should play another class? So let me get this straight...your group rotates the DMing duties around, when you become DM your character leaves the party, and when you are no longer DM you don't want to continue with your previous character. What's wrong with the Inspiring Warlord as a "dedicated healer"? In any case, if you like the three ideas equally, I'd go with the bard. You have no controller and if the monsters manage to ignore the battlerager, the rogues will need the backup healing.
#18 atrius2006 Mar 30, 2009 3:45:30	So let me get this straight...your group rotates the DMing duties around, when you become DM your character leaves the party, and when you are no longer DM you don't want to continue with your previous character. What's wrong with the Inspiring Warlord as a "dedicated healer"? In any case, if you like the three ideas equally, I'd go with the bard. You have no controller and if the monsters manage to ignore the battlerager, the rogues will need the backup healing. Ordinarily, I would continue with the Barbarian. However, with the amount of strikers in the party, continuing with one more seems boring to me. I know you don't need to cover all four roles, the party is doing just fine as it is, but I am sucker for trying new things. I just think the party is more dynamic if as many roles are covered as possible. Thanks for your opinion, I will stick with the Bard. I can always remove the multiclasses if the Human Rogue's player decides to play a Wizard instead.
#19 Samthere Mar 30, 2009 15:22:57	In one campaign I play in, we're a party of five with a controller (wizard), two strikers (ranger and rogue) and two leaders (cleric and warlord). We previously had an extra striker (warlock) and, with good tactics, we've had a pretty sweet time of it. Even without a defender, we haven't had too much hurt. The rogue, the warlord and myself (the cleric) tend to rush in and take the brunt of the attacks, and the ranger shoots from the back. For a while, the wizard was at odds with the group, doing a lot of area spells where we were fighting, but our teamwork has generally improved wherever there isn't a clash of interests (faction-based setting).