Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 DMsDeath Sep 21, 2009 11:38:54	We're starting our second go-round with the 4E rules. The first is going well, but I (the DM) need a break and want to actually game instead of run. The person that will be DMing just doesn't think that a party of four is going to be enough (Spellgard). I disagree, but, alas.... Anyway, we're now going to run a party of six. Any suggestions of the party composition? I'm sort of looking at this so far: Warlock Rogue Warlord (Tactical) Fighter Cleric Wizard Any thoughts? Thanks, Paul
#2 kratch Sep 21, 2009 11:41:40	PArty of 4 works fine so long as the DM makes sure his encounters are built for 4 (not 5+), the DMG gives plenty of info on the subject. As to party composition, whatever you fancy works best. Never liked the idea of pigeon holing the poor sod who got there last into playing a role he didn't want to play cause all the others were already taken.
#3 Awesomeocalypse Sep 21, 2009 11:54:16	I would say that, as a rule of thumb, you definitely want at least 1 striker, leader and defender. a controller is handy but not essential--but if you do have a controller you probably only want 1, because they can eat up a lot of time at the gaming table. multiple strikers will make combat go faster, and if you have 6 or more people you probably need at least 2 leaders. I would say that your current party makeup is pretty much ideal for 6 people: 1 defender, 2 strikers, 1 controller, 2 leaders. If you add another he should be a defender or a striker.
#4 Tony_Vargas Sep 21, 2009 15:08:22	If it's designed for the standard party of 5, then running with either 4 or 6 would require some adjustment. I see nothing wrong with your party composition.  We had an even larger party through most of it:  Inspiring Warlord, War Cleric, Shield Fighter, Brutal Rogue, TWF Ranger, Warlock & Wizard.   As the Wizard, I did manage to find some interesting things to do, but I didn't feel my role as a controller was ever that critical.  The biggest challenge we found in Spellgaurd was actually just finding something to do.  Once it get's started, though, it's fine.
#5 sockmonkey66 Sep 21, 2009 15:25:17	My three person party has been doing just fine with just a rogue, cleric, and pally.
#6 Duke5150 Sep 21, 2009 15:46:23	I just started a game with 3 defenders and a striker. Should be interesting.
#7 DevoDog Sep 21, 2009 19:00:27	Any suggestions of the party composition? I'm sort of looking at this so far: Warlock Rogue Warlord (Tactical) Fighter Cleric Wizard Any thoughts? That looks pretty good to me.  The DMG (?) suggests a 2nd Defender before a 2nd Leader. I think a lot of it, though, has to do with each player being able to make a useful contribution to the party (during combat encounters) without stepping on each other's toes too much.
#8 mb_webguy Sep 21, 2009 20:26:52	Your party looks more or less fine to me.  You have two strikers, two leaders, a defender, and a controller, so all of the roles are covered.  You might be a tiny bit better off with a second defender in place of one of the leaders, but the warlord can pick up some of the slack with his ability to shift allies and enemies around.  He might not be drawing attacks like a true defender, but cleverly played he can at least corral the enemies away from the wizard and prevent enemies from flanking the strikers.  As the lone true defender, the fighter will be taking a lot of hits, so he should ideally be high Con and as heavily armored as possible.
#9 Kensan_Oni Sep 21, 2009 20:30:13	We're starting our second go-round with the 4E rules. The first is going well, but I (the DM) need a break and want to actually game instead of run. The person that will be DMing just doesn't think that a party of four is going to be enough (Spellgard). I disagree, but, alas.... Anyway, we're now going to run a party of six. Any suggestions of the party composition? I'm sort of looking at this so far: Warlock Rogue Warlord (Tactical) Fighter Cleric Wizard Any thoughts? Thanks, Paul Party of Five probably is Ideal for Spellguard, and even then, there are places where it is really cramped. Part of me hopes you are running with a Battle Cleric, instead of a Pacifist or Laser one... but outside of that, I think it's an okay composition. You'll do fine, I am sure. ... but did I miss the boat somewhere? I thought Spellguard was a bit of a cake walk early in the adventure. I've recently been hearing about TPK's and about how it's been difficult for parties. Did I miss something? I mean, the Tower is tough... but that's about it, in my opinion.
#10 Tony_Vargas Sep 21, 2009 21:56:19	The early part is certainly a cakewalk - without the cake.  It seems like there's a lot of hooks that go nowhere.  Nothing challenging, but nothing really interesting, either.
#11 Svempa Sep 22, 2009 9:30:20	We're starting our second go-round with the 4E rules. The first is going well, but I (the DM) need a break and want to actually game instead of run. The person that will be DMing just doesn't think that a party of four is going to be enough (Spellgard). I disagree, but, alas.... Anyway, we're now going to run a party of six. Any suggestions of the party composition? I'm sort of looking at this so far: Warlock Rogue Warlord (Tactical) Fighter Cleric Wizard Any thoughts? Thanks, Paul Well you have two leaders and a defender. Should be no problem at all.