I've been reading through the PHB4 and DMG4. I'm wondering your take on the 'necessary' party composition. In 3.5, the ideal party had a toughie, a caster, a healer, and a rogue. But realistically, you could do fine with less players or with some gaps on roles. As long as you had a cleric (for a variety of things besides healing), nearly any party could have a decent change of success.
How 'necessary' is party composition in 4th ed? Which classes are 'essential,' and which ones are 'should-haves?' Obviously, the ideal is that every party should have at least one defender, one leader, one striker, and one controller (wizard).
If this perfect balance isn't struck, which imbalances are ok and which ones will do you in? For my money, it seems like the least crucial class is striker. Controller is handy but can be skipped in a pinch. The two most 'crucial' seem to be defender and/or leader. It almost seems like if you don't have at least one of them (preferably both), the paty is in very dire straits. Much more so than if they lack a striker.
So basically: Which roles do you never, ever, want to do without. I can see maybe having a ranger and a warlock instead of a warlock and a wizard, or maybe a paladin and a fighter instead of a paladin and a rogue... but will skipping the leader in favor of another striker do you in?
Which roles are 'essential?'
Then for the other 2 slots you can go striker + controller, 2xstriker, striker+defender, defender + controller.
A party with 1 defender and 3 strikers is gonna lead to a lot of swingy combats, where the DM has to balance heavily between a TPK and a cakewalk.
the game I've just started to run has Paladin, Ranger, Warlock, the 4th player wanted to play a Rogue but I told him i'd much rather we have a leader role in the party so he changed that to Warlord.
As always, diversity helps, and the classes have their "defender" or "leader" tags for convenient group composition. You can run a party without a leader type, but it will make most encounters tougher. Just like if you skipped a controller, striker or defender. Don't forget anyone can heal in a pinch, second wind and the heal skill both work quite nice.
The DM can also overcome a leader shortage ;) you can always hand out more healing pots, i mean after all this is supposed to be fun, and if no one likes to play a cleric or warlord, then they should not be forced to.
Then there is multiclassing, and the cleric multiclass power is a daily use of healing word, wich grants two healing spells per usage. The character taking the feat can later on also chose clerical powers as power swap feats.
Or you use the Paladin as the defender class, he has quite a few healing powers as well. A group with a paladin, even a melee focused one, can hold itself quite well in absence of a leader class.
Theres lots of ways to do this, and 4E does it much better than previous versions.
Also, the heal skill triggers the characters' second wind, which is still 1/encounter (and triggering it through the Heal skill doesnt grant you the defense bonuses either).
So yes, a party with a cleric/warlord has quite a lot more staying power than one without.
I'd be willing to let them play one without if they were all experienced RPGers and everyone knew the system well. But half of them are new to d&d and everyone is still learning 4e (including myself) so i'd rather be on the safe side and get those inspiring words some use
The group I'm currently playing just forced the DM to run an NPC healer for us. Seems to work pretty well for us, as the DM can give us some guidance and tie that NPC to the plot, and how the party met up.
Wow! Write the adventure, come up with rewards, run the game, track initiative, resolve disputes....hmmm... he just doesn't have enough to do. Let's assign him the responsibility of being a character in the group as well. In fact, let's make him the healer since it "stinks" and no one wants to play one.
That sounds fair (thoughts of a perturbed DM.)
For party roles, I think the striker is the role that can be discarded easiest from the group make up. Strikers dish out damage pretty readily, but without a defender to assist, strikers go down fast. The defender and leader are key imho. That's right, the cleric is good for something other than just healing now in 4e.
For example, I read a thread on 8 PC's with no leaders, I recommended more battles with lower challenges, so injured PC"s could rest after combat. I also recommended putting ways in the terrain to control how many foes could get at them, so if you have 20 undead (mostly minions) put 4-5 each in 4-5 rooms, and let the party shut doors to get 1-3 rounds safety from other rooms (depending on undead intelligence and locks).
No contollers? avoid minions, use smaller groups, and again, give the party other ways to control their enviornment.
No defenders? slow foes, and lots of options for the party to flee/reposition.
No strikers? this could be tough. I know the common wisdom says it is no big deal, but it could be. I would avoid elites (the double HP and higher AC make life tough for others to take them down), also avoid using too much artillery, or give the party some other way to get past the brutes and soldiers. Without a striker a good artillery plus soldiers combo can pound the party without the party being able to respond.
In pretty much all cases, you are looking at lower challenge encounters if you don't have at least one of each role.
just my two cents.
I don't think the Leader is a must. Warlords are defender buffers and Clerics are utility semi-healers. Buffers just make the party a little better overall in any fight, and thanks to healing surges the cleric is somewhat superfluous - a good Pally can fill both roles.
If you run with a Pally in the Leader spot, you should have another Defender and a Ranger or Rogue, and then a caster - either Warlock for more direct effects or a Wizard for control, but with how gimped Wiz's are now, I hesitate to recommend them for anything (and their ability to control is minimized by the grouping comments for monsters in the MM).
Thanks for the advice. It's more-or-less what I figured; a party will have an easier time lacking a controller or striker than a leader or defender (with some debate on whether leader or defender is more crucial).
When I DM, if I don't have a large group, I'll always provide them with a free NPC. I tell my players to make a character that will be enjoyable to play, and that I myself will handle party balance. If there's a fighter, paladin, rogue, and wizard, I'll make a cleric. If there are two sorcerers, a cleric, and a druid, I'll make a tank.
The only things I won't make are a rogue or a social character. A rogue just means I'm rolling dice against myself or trying to solve my own puzzles. A diplomat means that I'm talking to myself in different voices.
But other than that, I try as a DM to balance the party so the players can just play a character they can sink their teeth into.
Side note: I'm often welcome in groups since I tend to play clerics most of the time. Not due to power-mongering; I just like the idea.
We're going to run a quick series of one-shots. One DM, 2 players. There's no plot, just a few encounters.
My friend will play a warlock (arcane striker) and fighter (martial defender).
I'll take the Cleric (divine leader) and wizard (Arcane Controller).
I was originally going to be a warlord instead of cleric, but I think the cleric is a bit more enjoyable/suited to my style/better.
This way, each of our 2 characters is separate from the other in both power source and party role. It'll hopefully give us a reasonably broad sampling.
I'm just mad that he yoinked the Warlock. Of all the classes, they seem to intrigue me the most.
Fairly soon, I'll likely be posting to the CharOps board with my build ideas.