How to fill out this party - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

How to fill out this party

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
emelar
Nov 26, 2008 1:27:21 A swordmage, a wizard, and a rogue.

I will be the fourth (and probably final) member.
Obviously there is a hole in our leader slot, but I am also thinking that a little more shoring up of the front line might be nice.
It will be my first time actually playing 4E, so even though I have read up on stuff it isn't the same as experience.

My thoughts are:

A warlord. I could help the swordmage hold the front while the wizard did their thing. I am leaning tactical but hesitate because of group dynamics, but I don't think a charismatic warlord will work out as well.

A cleric. Again I fill the leader slot. A little more straight forward with heals and buffs this time. I figure a battle cleric, but I will at least splash some of the other stuff in.

A paladin. Some real help with aggro management and creating a real front line. I just wonder if their leader-y aspects will be enough, or does the party need a dedicated leader?

A ranger. Maybe the party just needs to kill stuff faster. If I go TWF, I can try to use positioning to keep stuff off the wizard. I think this is a reach, though.

The race doesn't matter. If I want to optimize, I can look elsewhere for that. I just want some opinions about what the best class choice would be given what we have, and which specialization within that class I should probably favor.

Also, no martial power. Just the PHB classes and options. I have more options when it comes to powers, feats, and races, but again, I will make that choice when I arrive at my class decision.

Thanks.
#2
kron_hammerall
Nov 26, 2008 4:24:56 I think the ranger is a nice way to help hold the front line as well as have some spells at your disposal(This would be my choice). But a Cleric or paladin fills that needed healer spot, and might even lead or co-lead the party. Those are the classes I would be considering.
#3
cifer
Nov 26, 2008 6:04:35 I'd go for the warlord, for the reasons you explained - he's better at holding the line than most other non-defenders and your squishies will appreciate the healing.
#4
drmorganes
Nov 26, 2008 9:03:19 Second vote for Warlord.

Their initiative bonus is not to be overlooked, they can hold their own in melee to give your rogue another person to play off for Combat Advantage, and healing is always welcome. Further, their powers play nicely with both the rogue and the swordmage.
#5
boj0
Nov 27, 2008 5:24:51 Paladin, fufill your needs, and to an extent, your allies; group dynamics is great, but I don't think anyone will kill you for playing an up-and-front kind of character.
#6
Hibiki54
Nov 27, 2008 12:21:45 Inspiring Warlord with Wolf Pack Tactics. If you go with a Human Warlord use the feat from Martial Power that adds Cha bonus to healing.
#7
Novacat
Nov 27, 2008 21:40:53 I also say Warlord would probably by best for this party, because 2 of the 3 other members are melee combatants, with which the Warlord best synergizes. The difference between Inspiring and Tactical is largely one of style-preference, so you could probably go Tactical and be just fine.
#8
emelar
Nov 28, 2008 3:52:58 Well, I'll take it under advisement.
The tactical warlord is a possible issue because of the shifts and the like. I do not want to "push anyone around", as it were, and don't want anyone to feel like I am "telling them what to do", both of which the warlord seems to do rather well.
A less experienced group, and I would rather they not feel like I am telling them what to do. That is the problem with the warlord, and the tactical warlord in particular.
Anyway, I think I smell a cleric in my future.

Thanks for the input.
#9
vestax
Nov 28, 2008 4:07:49 Cleric - Best healer IMO and it isn't like past editions where if you heal that is your turn. So if you'd like to help increase your parties DPR you can hold a executioners axe and still be smacking some enemies and your presence in melee will hold the front line. Plus flanking for rogue

Warlord - Second best healer and having a main line healer is strong advised. He can also manage the battlefield a little better for the rogue to sneak attack which is important becuase he's going to be your damage. Same as cleric too, frontline presence and flanking.

Paladin - Probably better added damage for yor party and also serves for presence / flanking. However, he has very limited heals and is a secondary healer best used if your party already has 1 defender and 1 healer becuase he can secondary each role.

Ranger - frontline presence and flanking best DPR better then the rogue if built right. However, no heals I def wouldn't take this unless every other member of the party agrees to multiclass some into cleric / warlord.

Personally I would choose the Cleric but thats preference only you should choose either the Warlord or Cleric unless you really don't want to play one then you will have to dicuss it with your party on how to compensate for that role (generally everyone multiclass into a healer).

On a side note you really don't need a wizard with a swordmage. The swordmage has enough controller in him to manage.
#10
Novacat
Nov 28, 2008 11:41:30
Well, I'll take it under advisement.
The tactical warlord is a possible issue because of the shifts and the like. I do not want to "push anyone around", as it were, and don't want anyone to feel like I am "telling them what to do", both of which the warlord seems to do rather well.
A less experienced group, and I would rather they not feel like I am telling them what to do. That is the problem with the warlord, and the tactical warlord in particular.
Anyway, I think I smell a cleric in my future.

Thanks for the input.

You never NEED to tell your party members what to do, though out of combat you may offer tactical advice such as "When I use Wolf Pack Tactics, look for a way to flank the target."

In combat, your tactical advice may take the form of "I move up to the enemy and ready an action to attack as soon as I have flank." That's a nice sly way to tell your party you want flank without telling them to give you flank.

Most of a warlord's abilities that affect party members are optional anyways, and almost never will the subject of such an ability want to ignore it.

"Free attack? With a bonus to damage? Certainly!" or...
"OK, I'm using Wolf Pack Tactics, so........ YOU get to shift 1 in any direction." (My personal policy with this is to not tell them where I want them to shift.)
"Knight's Move. You get a free move action to spend however you want. Have fun with that."

The warlord in no way assumes that you'll be "commanding" your party, just enhancing them. Besides, if you're the experienced player in a group of less experienced players, you'll probably end up the party leader anyways.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 emelar Nov 26, 2008 1:27:21	A swordmage, a wizard, and a rogue. I will be the fourth (and probably final) member. Obviously there is a hole in our leader slot, but I am also thinking that a little more shoring up of the front line might be nice. It will be my first time actually playing 4E, so even though I have read up on stuff it isn't the same as experience. My thoughts are: A warlord. I could help the swordmage hold the front while the wizard did their thing. I am leaning tactical but hesitate because of group dynamics, but I don't think a charismatic warlord will work out as well. A cleric. Again I fill the leader slot. A little more straight forward with heals and buffs this time. I figure a battle cleric, but I will at least splash some of the other stuff in. A paladin. Some real help with aggro management and creating a real front line. I just wonder if their leader-y aspects will be enough, or does the party need a dedicated leader? A ranger. Maybe the party just needs to kill stuff faster. If I go TWF, I can try to use positioning to keep stuff off the wizard. I think this is a reach, though. The race doesn't matter. If I want to optimize, I can look elsewhere for that. I just want some opinions about what the best class choice would be given what we have, and which specialization within that class I should probably favor. Also, no martial power. Just the PHB classes and options. I have more options when it comes to powers, feats, and races, but again, I will make that choice when I arrive at my class decision. Thanks.
#2 kron_hammerall Nov 26, 2008 4:24:56	I think the ranger is a nice way to help hold the front line as well as have some spells at your disposal(This would be my choice). But a Cleric or paladin fills that needed healer spot, and might even lead or co-lead the party. Those are the classes I would be considering.
#3 cifer Nov 26, 2008 6:04:35	I'd go for the warlord, for the reasons you explained - he's better at holding the line than most other non-defenders and your squishies will appreciate the healing.
#4 drmorganes Nov 26, 2008 9:03:19	Second vote for Warlord. Their initiative bonus is not to be overlooked, they can hold their own in melee to give your rogue another person to play off for Combat Advantage, and healing is always welcome. Further, their powers play nicely with both the rogue and the swordmage.
#5 boj0 Nov 27, 2008 5:24:51	Paladin, fufill your needs, and to an extent, your allies; group dynamics is great, but I don't think anyone will kill you for playing an up-and-front kind of character.
#6 Hibiki54 Nov 27, 2008 12:21:45	Inspiring Warlord with Wolf Pack Tactics. If you go with a Human Warlord use the feat from Martial Power that adds Cha bonus to healing.
#7 Novacat Nov 27, 2008 21:40:53	I also say Warlord would probably by best for this party, because 2 of the 3 other members are melee combatants, with which the Warlord best synergizes. The difference between Inspiring and Tactical is largely one of style-preference, so you could probably go Tactical and be just fine.
#8 emelar Nov 28, 2008 3:52:58	Well, I'll take it under advisement. The tactical warlord is a possible issue because of the shifts and the like. I do not want to "push anyone around", as it were, and don't want anyone to feel like I am "telling them what to do", both of which the warlord seems to do rather well. A less experienced group, and I would rather they not feel like I am telling them what to do. That is the problem with the warlord, and the tactical warlord in particular. Anyway, I think I smell a cleric in my future. Thanks for the input.
#9 vestax Nov 28, 2008 4:07:49	Cleric - Best healer IMO and it isn't like past editions where if you heal that is your turn. So if you'd like to help increase your parties DPR you can hold a executioners axe and still be smacking some enemies and your presence in melee will hold the front line. Plus flanking for rogue Warlord - Second best healer and having a main line healer is strong advised. He can also manage the battlefield a little better for the rogue to sneak attack which is important becuase he's going to be your damage. Same as cleric too, frontline presence and flanking. Paladin - Probably better added damage for yor party and also serves for presence / flanking. However, he has very limited heals and is a secondary healer best used if your party already has 1 defender and 1 healer becuase he can secondary each role. Ranger - frontline presence and flanking best DPR better then the rogue if built right. However, no heals I def wouldn't take this unless every other member of the party agrees to multiclass some into cleric / warlord. Personally I would choose the Cleric but thats preference only you should choose either the Warlord or Cleric unless you really don't want to play one then you will have to dicuss it with your party on how to compensate for that role (generally everyone multiclass into a healer). On a side note you really don't need a wizard with a swordmage. The swordmage has enough controller in him to manage.
#10 Novacat Nov 28, 2008 11:41:30	Well, I'll take it under advisement. The tactical warlord is a possible issue because of the shifts and the like. I do not want to "push anyone around", as it were, and don't want anyone to feel like I am "telling them what to do", both of which the warlord seems to do rather well. A less experienced group, and I would rather they not feel like I am telling them what to do. That is the problem with the warlord, and the tactical warlord in particular. Anyway, I think I smell a cleric in my future. Thanks for the input. You never NEED to tell your party members what to do, though out of combat you may offer tactical advice such as "When I use Wolf Pack Tactics, look for a way to flank the target." In combat, your tactical advice may take the form of "I move up to the enemy and ready an action to attack as soon as I have flank." That's a nice sly way to tell your party you want flank without telling them to give you flank. Most of a warlord's abilities that affect party members are optional anyways, and almost never will the subject of such an ability want to ignore it. "Free attack? With a bonus to damage? Certainly!" or... "OK, I'm using Wolf Pack Tactics, so........ YOU get to shift 1 in any direction." (My personal policy with this is to not tell them where I want them to shift.) "Knight's Move. You get a free move action to spend however you want. Have fun with that." The warlord in no way assumes that you'll be "commanding" your party, just enhancing them. Besides, if you're the experienced player in a group of less experienced players, you'll probably end up the party leader anyways.