All Arcane Party has no synergy... should I reroll? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

All Arcane Party has no synergy... should I reroll?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Xanamir
Jul 05, 2010 4:09:58 Hey all. So here's my situation. Normally, I'm my group's DM, but one of my players wanted to start up a side game, which was cool with me, since I don't get a chance to play often and I have a few character concepts that I wanted to try. Now, this game was in planning for about two months, and I made it pretty clear from the beginning that I really had my heart set on playing a sorcerer. I figured this wouldn't be an issue since in our "main group" we don't have ANYBODY playing a ranged character... the team there is rogue, dual wielder ranger, fighter, and a bard.

Well, we've rolled up our party, and played about four encounters over the course of two sessions. The team for this game is the sorcerer (me), a warlock, a ranged bard, and a swordmage. I think you can see where the problem is developing... our party has the synergy and cooperation of a herd of cats. Seriously, the warlock player, who had at first expressed his interest in trying out a battlemind... suddenly decides, on the night of the first game, that he wants to play a dragon magic sorcerer (the same character I was doing; he decided on warlock after I voiced concerns that having two sorcerers would... not be great). As a result, we're all on the fragile side (the swordmage only has about 54 hp or so at level 7, while the rest of us are sitting at about 52ish.) Without any sort of controller or really sticky defender, the monsters just charge into us and administer the severe beatings. Out of four encounters, we've almost TPKed twice and had to blow all of our dailies in order to keep it from being a total massacre.

The point of this thread isn't to whine, however, about my group, but to get a few opinions: is it up to me to make the push and reroll a character that I feel would help the group more? It's not a question of who is better; the warlock in the party and my sorcerer are pretty much even in the DPR race... but we're a pretty much ranged only party with no real front line to speak of and we're getting our butts kicked. I was thinking of bringing in a paladin to ameliorate the fact the fact that we need a tougher front line, and to help out with healing since the bard is having to shoulder the burden of healing our fragile butts (and of course unable to keep up since the DM is beating the tar out of us.) I've explained my concerns to the group, and nobody else really seems interested in budging on the issue of making a more balanced party. Should I consider it my responsibility to patch up the hole's in our team's composition, since I'm this group's "main" DM and smoothing things over is more or less my job, or just let the chips fall where they may. I'm worried about just letting it go, since this is my friend's very first time DMing and I don't want him to get discouraged by the fact that we have a party whose only skills collectively are ranged attacks and dress wearing.

Thoughts or opinions on what I should do?

#2
tiamatdragonwing
Jul 05, 2010 8:41:51 I'm intrigued how the swordmage has such little HP, any defender should not be dumping Con to an 8 which is the only way that such hit points (59HP) can be reached, if what you say is true would seriously suggest trying to get the player to rebuild the character, the shielding build in particular.
The rest of the party classes can easily work well together as is, though if you feel you must change a warlord might work, providing the swordmage and the warlock has decent basic attack options you can set up good attacks at any range along with the usual leader healing which will improve party survivablity.
#3
Neutronium_Dragon
Jul 05, 2010 9:51:58 Several (and possibly all) of those characters have a mild to strong controller minor, so that shouldn't be causing you any problems.

It sounds as though the characters have all taken fragile builds, and that's something that ought to be addressed. The bard might also be better off with a mixed melee/ranged focus, since - sticky defender or not - in a small party he's going to be in melee fairly frequently. In fact, an outright Con/Valorous/melee focus would probably make a huge difference since the main benefit of the ranged builds is mobility-enhancement and the party isn't really in need of that - but lots of temporary hit point generation and a stable melee presence would make a big difference here.

Do keep in mind that a dragon sorcerer is expected to operate on or near the front line himself - they're very much an in-your-face blaster, not a long range one; a melee bard coupled with a dragon sorcerer that coordinate against enemy formations (and the swordmage running some interference) could be very effective.
#4
averagetable
Jul 05, 2010 11:54:51 Also, as an aside, a party's being "all arcane" (or all martial, or all divine, or all whatever) doesn't really mean anything. The so-called "power sources" of 4th Edition are little more than "flavour text" and have almost no practical effect on how classes operate or synergise. A mixture of martial, divine, arcane, and primal classes will typically be no more "synergistic" than a party of five purely divine classes.

What's important is the roles of the classes, not their power sources.

You have a defender, a leader, and two strikers; which is a perfectly functional mix. If you work together properly, you should be fine.
#5
Xanamir
Jul 07, 2010 4:48:47 Thanks for the suggestions. I made some suggestions to the swordmage and the DM allowed him to redistribute his stats, so now he has a far more respectable HP total at 67 (he'd dumped CON; also, I think there was an error in his math, since he didn't use the CharBuilder). I also rearranged my own build a bit with the DM's permission and made myself more durable as well. The bard isn't interested in changing, unfortunately... I'm going to see if in a few more sessions, I can convince her that the valorous option would be more solid, but I won't force the issue too much... she really enjoys shooting arrows into things, so, you know, whatever.
#6
Bill4747
Jul 07, 2010 8:20:20 A swordmage is a Tank, and a Bard is a healer. Does not sound all that bad.

I would expect this party to be fairly powerful but maybe run out of healing surges over many encounters in a row.

If the DM realizes it is not a party of unkillable warriors, it really should be quite fun.
#7
MWSAber
Jul 07, 2010 10:10:25 Sounds more like a planning/initiative issue. Think through the best order of actions and get people to HOLD actions until the flow is right.

If you have the roles covered synergy should be all in the tactics
#8
lionlemur
Jul 07, 2010 15:33:06 Also you might consider asking the DM to let you add a companion character to the party.
#9
Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi
Jul 07, 2010 17:26:15
Also, as an aside, a party's being "all arcane" (or all martial, or all divine, or all whatever) doesn't really mean anything. The so-called "power sources" of 4th Edition are little more than "flavour text" and have almost no practical effect on how classes operate or synergise. A mixture of martial, divine, arcane, and primal classes will typically be no more "synergistic" than a party of five purely divine classes.

What's important is the roles of the classes, not their power sources.

You have a defender, a leader, and two strikers; which is a perfectly functional mix. If you work together properly, you should be fine.

Not entirely. Some power sources have a tendency toward a secondary role - just about arcane class has at least potential to be a secondary controller. Just about every divine class has potential to be a secondary leader. Etc.

As for the original poster, all of the tips thus far seem spot-on. I'd also suggest talking to the DM, see if he or she is willing to tailor encounters to the party a bit better - favor ranged combat with interesting terrain - choke points, cover, etc. But I'm especially going to agree with the comment about dragon sorcerers: they favor close range combat, so you should be near melee much of the time.
#10
averagetable
Jul 08, 2010 11:19:03
Not entirely. Some power sources have a tendency toward a secondary role - just about arcane class has at least potential to be a secondary controller. Just about every divine class has potential to be a secondary leader. Etc.

In practice, this is somewhat true. An all-arcane party, for instance, will, in practice, likely have a lot of classes with controller-leanings.

However, that still has nothing to do with the power sources themselves. The arcane power source doesn't make a "better" controller, nor are arcane classes more "suited" to be controllers. Those aren't the reasons why arcane controllers are prevelent. Conversely, if you designed a controller with the martial power source, it's being martial would not make it any less effective. A lack of effectiveness is not the reason for the lack of martial controllers.

As I said, it all comes down to nothing but "flavour text" and "fluff". The reason there are lots of arcane controller classes is that the "flavour" of "being arcane" allows one to more easily "explain" controller-type effects, such as the creation of walls and the modification of terrain. By that I mean, you can easily come up with "fluffy" descriptions of what is "happening" when a character creates a wall if you're able to describe it as "magic". Conversely, it's very difficult to come up with "mundane" descriptions of how walls could be created or terrain could be modified. No matter how skilled or "heroic" a swordsman may be, it's very difficult to see how a wall could be described or explained without resorting to "magic". There isn't really any mundane, martial-based "fluff" that can be offered for such a fantastical effect. And that's the only reason why there isn't a martial controller class. It has nothing to do with any rule or mechnical complication. They simply haven't found a satisfactory way to "fluff" a controller's effects without veering into talk of "magic".

So again, there's normally no need to worry about the power sources of a group - those don't typically mean anything. They're nothing but the "fluff" used to "explain" how (in narrative terms) controllers go about creating walls and leaders go about restoring hit points. Yet the "how" is, from a gameplay perspective, never actually important - it's "for entertainment purposes only".
#11
Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi
Jul 08, 2010 19:13:10 You know, Average Table, I was going to respond with a counterpoint or two, because you seem to slightly misunderstand or overextend my point, but I decided not to - what you've said is too true to fight against, even if I think it shouldn't have been in response to my last post. Though FYI, if you check the controllers forum, you'll see that I'm currently working on a martial controller: the bounty hunter. General agreement is that I found a unique niche to fill, and it actually fits the controller role (albeit in an odd way). Tends to favor close bursts and blasts (so can't stay out of the fray), and is especially good at single-target debuffs. Not a striker because it doesn't actually take the target out of the fight quickly. Just takes the fight out of the enemy.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xanamir Jul 05, 2010 4:09:58	Hey all. So here's my situation. Normally, I'm my group's DM, but one of my players wanted to start up a side game, which was cool with me, since I don't get a chance to play often and I have a few character concepts that I wanted to try. Now, this game was in planning for about two months, and I made it pretty clear from the beginning that I really had my heart set on playing a sorcerer. I figured this wouldn't be an issue since in our "main group" we don't have ANYBODY playing a ranged character... the team there is rogue, dual wielder ranger, fighter, and a bard. Well, we've rolled up our party, and played about four encounters over the course of two sessions. The team for this game is the sorcerer (me), a warlock, a ranged bard, and a swordmage. I think you can see where the problem is developing... our party has the synergy and cooperation of a herd of cats. Seriously, the warlock player, who had at first expressed his interest in trying out a battlemind... suddenly decides, on the night of the first game, that he wants to play a dragon magic sorcerer (the same character I was doing; he decided on warlock after I voiced concerns that having two sorcerers would... not be great). As a result, we're all on the fragile side (the swordmage only has about 54 hp or so at level 7, while the rest of us are sitting at about 52ish.) Without any sort of controller or really sticky defender, the monsters just charge into us and administer the severe beatings. Out of four encounters, we've almost TPKed twice and had to blow all of our dailies in order to keep it from being a total massacre. The point of this thread isn't to whine, however, about my group, but to get a few opinions: is it up to me to make the push and reroll a character that I feel would help the group more? It's not a question of who is better; the warlock in the party and my sorcerer are pretty much even in the DPR race... but we're a pretty much ranged only party with no real front line to speak of and we're getting our butts kicked. I was thinking of bringing in a paladin to ameliorate the fact the fact that we need a tougher front line, and to help out with healing since the bard is having to shoulder the burden of healing our fragile butts (and of course unable to keep up since the DM is beating the tar out of us.) I've explained my concerns to the group, and nobody else really seems interested in budging on the issue of making a more balanced party. Should I consider it my responsibility to patch up the hole's in our team's composition, since I'm this group's "main" DM and smoothing things over is more or less my job, or just let the chips fall where they may. I'm worried about just letting it go, since this is my friend's very first time DMing and I don't want him to get discouraged by the fact that we have a party whose only skills collectively are ranged attacks and dress wearing. Thoughts or opinions on what I should do?
#2 tiamatdragonwing Jul 05, 2010 8:41:51	I'm intrigued how the swordmage has such little HP, any defender should not be dumping Con to an 8 which is the only way that such hit points (59HP) can be reached, if what you say is true would seriously suggest trying to get the player to rebuild the character, the shielding build in particular. The rest of the party classes can easily work well together as is, though if you feel you must change a warlord might work, providing the swordmage and the warlock has decent basic attack options you can set up good attacks at any range along with the usual leader healing which will improve party survivablity.
#3 Neutronium_Dragon Jul 05, 2010 9:51:58	Several (and possibly all) of those characters have a mild to strong controller minor, so that shouldn't be causing you any problems. It sounds as though the characters have all taken fragile builds, and that's something that ought to be addressed. The bard might also be better off with a mixed melee/ranged focus, since - sticky defender or not - in a small party he's going to be in melee fairly frequently. In fact, an outright Con/Valorous/melee focus would probably make a huge difference since the main benefit of the ranged builds is mobility-enhancement and the party isn't really in need of that - but lots of temporary hit point generation and a stable melee presence would make a big difference here. Do keep in mind that a dragon sorcerer is expected to operate on or near the front line himself - they're very much an in-your-face blaster, not a long range one; a melee bard coupled with a dragon sorcerer that coordinate against enemy formations (and the swordmage running some interference) could be very effective.
#4 averagetable Jul 05, 2010 11:54:51	Also, as an aside, a party's being "all arcane" (or all martial, or all divine, or all whatever) doesn't really mean anything. The so-called "power sources" of 4th Edition are little more than "flavour text" and have almost no practical effect on how classes operate or synergise. A mixture of martial, divine, arcane, and primal classes will typically be no more "synergistic" than a party of five purely divine classes. What's important is the roles of the classes, not their power sources. You have a defender, a leader, and two strikers; which is a perfectly functional mix. If you work together properly, you should be fine.
#5 Xanamir Jul 07, 2010 4:48:47	Thanks for the suggestions. I made some suggestions to the swordmage and the DM allowed him to redistribute his stats, so now he has a far more respectable HP total at 67 (he'd dumped CON; also, I think there was an error in his math, since he didn't use the CharBuilder). I also rearranged my own build a bit with the DM's permission and made myself more durable as well. The bard isn't interested in changing, unfortunately... I'm going to see if in a few more sessions, I can convince her that the valorous option would be more solid, but I won't force the issue too much... she really enjoys shooting arrows into things, so, you know, whatever.
#6 Bill4747 Jul 07, 2010 8:20:20	A swordmage is a Tank, and a Bard is a healer. Does not sound all that bad. I would expect this party to be fairly powerful but maybe run out of healing surges over many encounters in a row. If the DM realizes it is not a party of unkillable warriors, it really should be quite fun.
#7 MWSAber Jul 07, 2010 10:10:25	Sounds more like a planning/initiative issue. Think through the best order of actions and get people to HOLD actions until the flow is right. If you have the roles covered synergy should be all in the tactics
#8 lionlemur Jul 07, 2010 15:33:06	Also you might consider asking the DM to let you add a companion character to the party.
#9 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jul 07, 2010 17:26:15	Also, as an aside, a party's being "all arcane" (or all martial, or all divine, or all whatever) doesn't really mean anything. The so-called "power sources" of 4th Edition are little more than "flavour text" and have almost no practical effect on how classes operate or synergise. A mixture of martial, divine, arcane, and primal classes will typically be no more "synergistic" than a party of five purely divine classes. What's important is the roles of the classes, not their power sources. You have a defender, a leader, and two strikers; which is a perfectly functional mix. If you work together properly, you should be fine. Not entirely. Some power sources have a tendency toward a secondary role - just about arcane class has at least potential to be a secondary controller. Just about every divine class has potential to be a secondary leader. Etc. As for the original poster, all of the tips thus far seem spot-on. I'd also suggest talking to the DM, see if he or she is willing to tailor encounters to the party a bit better - favor ranged combat with interesting terrain - choke points, cover, etc. But I'm especially going to agree with the comment about dragon sorcerers: they favor close range combat, so you should be near melee much of the time.
#10 averagetable Jul 08, 2010 11:19:03	Not entirely. Some power sources have a tendency toward a secondary role - just about arcane class has at least potential to be a secondary controller. Just about every divine class has potential to be a secondary leader. Etc. In practice, this is somewhat true. An all-arcane party, for instance, will, in practice, likely have a lot of classes with controller-leanings. However, that still has nothing to do with the power sources themselves. The arcane power source doesn't make a "better" controller, nor are arcane classes more "suited" to be controllers. Those aren't the reasons why arcane controllers are prevelent. Conversely, if you designed a controller with the martial power source, it's being martial would not make it any less effective. A lack of effectiveness is not the reason for the lack of martial controllers. As I said, it all comes down to nothing but "flavour text" and "fluff". The reason there are lots of arcane controller classes is that the "flavour" of "being arcane" allows one to more easily "explain" controller-type effects, such as the creation of walls and the modification of terrain. By that I mean, you can easily come up with "fluffy" descriptions of what is "happening" when a character creates a wall if you're able to describe it as "magic". Conversely, it's very difficult to come up with "mundane" descriptions of how walls could be created or terrain could be modified. No matter how skilled or "heroic" a swordsman may be, it's very difficult to see how a wall could be described or explained without resorting to "magic". There isn't really any mundane, martial-based "fluff" that can be offered for such a fantastical effect. And that's the only reason why there isn't a martial controller class. It has nothing to do with any rule or mechnical complication. They simply haven't found a satisfactory way to "fluff" a controller's effects without veering into talk of "magic". So again, there's normally no need to worry about the power sources of a group - those don't typically mean anything. They're nothing but the "fluff" used to "explain" how (in narrative terms) controllers go about creating walls and leaders go about restoring hit points. Yet the "how" is, from a gameplay perspective, never actually important - it's "for entertainment purposes only".
#11 Omnirahk_half-Rahkshi Jul 08, 2010 19:13:10	You know, Average Table, I was going to respond with a counterpoint or two, because you seem to slightly misunderstand or overextend my point, but I decided not to - what you've said is too true to fight against, even if I think it shouldn't have been in response to my last post. Though FYI, if you check the controllers forum, you'll see that I'm currently working on a martial controller: the bounty hunter. General agreement is that I found a unique niche to fill, and it actually fits the controller role (albeit in an odd way). Tends to favor close bursts and blasts (so can't stay out of the fray), and is especially good at single-target debuffs. Not a striker because it doesn't actually take the target out of the fight quickly. Just takes the fight out of the enemy.