Playing without a Defender - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Playing without a Defender

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
januvial
Jan 26, 2009 20:02:00 I'm playing with a rather large group of close friends, none of whom have played any variation on D&D until a couple weeks ago, when we picked up 4e. The atmosphere is fairly casual, just another way for us to socialize on the weekend, but at least most of us are looking for a solid gaming experience as well. There are currently 9 of us (8 players and a DM, we'll be rotating this role every couple weeks) and, somehow, not a defender amongst us: 2 rogues, 2 warlocks, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 warlord, 1 ranger.

For some reason paladins have a hugely negative stigma in my group (not in terms of effectiveness, everyone just seems to think paladins are *******s), and I guess the fighter just doesn't entice anyone. As I said we're mostly about having a good time (which explains how we ended up with so many players without any mediation), so no pressure was put on anyone to choose a class that fit the party best, and we just went with what we liked most the first time through.

Anyway, I can already anticipate the answers I'll get, but is this a game-breaking problem? Will this actually be feasible in most combat situations? I'm set to DM next and I definitely wasn't planning on taking it easy on them by any means, and I'd prefer it if I didn't have to tweak the encounters to avoid their weak spots, but... am I going to have a TPK on my hands by the second encounter?
#2
crenshaw13
Jan 26, 2009 20:56:24 With 8 characters you'll be fine. Maybe even a bit overpowered. Keep in mind that 4e is "defaulted" for 5 characters. So the DM may have to tweak a bit.
#3
paradoxic
Jan 26, 2009 22:53:00 You poor DM... I have hell of a time keeping 6 players under control and tracked successfully!

No role is actually required in the game. That's why leaders get healing spells as well as the divine casters (though cleric is, of course, always best at this).

Looking at your class list, you will be fine. Two rogues will just kill anything they tag team. The warlocks will just run around ending the life of anything the others don't kill (and laying down some nasty AOE later on especially with some Hunger of Hadar and wizard thunder push). The wizards will have to be pretty on-top with Crowd Control, but that won't be hard. The cleric will be the hardest set because they don't get a whole lot of healing spells per encounter (lots of second winds I am guessing). The warlord and the Ranger will round out the overall battlefield control.

Infact, with 8 players, one defender will simply not be good enough for holding down the enemies anyway. 8 players will warrant a lot of monsters in each encounter (even solo monsters are only worth 5 normals). So long as powers are chosen with some level of synergy, you will be able to CC/ranged damage quite a few monsters before they get to the squishies. Of course, it wouldn't hurt for some of the melee to glance at the armor proficiency feats just in case.

And durable is a great feat.
#4
JayM
Jan 27, 2009 9:46:29
2 rogues, 2 warlocks, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 warlord, 1 ranger.

As long as you have enough characters who can fight in melee you should be OK. If your looking at all ranged and support leaders then your going to have a problem with monsters swarming the party. Without a defender, your going to need 3 melee characters to form a line and it's still going to be fairly porous.

Jay
#5
aethelas
Jan 27, 2009 12:23:50 Note: I do NOT want to steal this thread. Anyone who's only going to respond to one person, respond to the OP, not me.

however....I actually have the exact same question regarding a party that is starting to assemble. We're looking at a glaive-weilding Tactical Warlord, an offensive-prayer oriented cleric, two Rogues, and an unknown fifth. If the fifth player doesn't pick a defender, will the party work well? It seems to me that it would (we'd just deal an awful lot of damage); though it also seems like my character (as a Taclord, not super-tough, but the toughest member of the party) might be in a bit more danger than I like. I'm just hoping to get some collective wisdom about how well it'll work.
#6
paradoxic
Jan 27, 2009 12:39:02 The point remains the same for you Aethelas. The game does not require any particular class. Some combinations are harder to run with than others, but so long as you have a decent mix of melee and ranged plus a class or two that can heal, you are generally going to be OK. One thing to keep in mind are items to help out on heals (healing potions, dwarven magic armor, belts of sacrifice, etc).

Also, everyone remember that the one running the monsters, the great and powerful DM, is not actively out to kill everyone. He will find what works and what doesn't with the particular player group and will adjust accordingly. D&D is about the synergy between the party and the DM; it is what makes every game different.
#7
JayM
Jan 27, 2009 12:55:10
We're looking at a glaive-weilding Tactical Warlord, an offensive-prayer oriented cleric, two Rogues, and an unknown fifth. If the fifth player doesn't pick a defender, will the party work well?

I would give you the same advice I gave the OP. A 4e party doesn't need a defender, but it still needs to have members that can stand and fight in melee.

Two melee types works much better then one, because they can make it much harder to flank or go around. Typically, 1/4 to 1/2 of the party will get tied up in melee in most fights even if they are trying to avoid it.

A cleric or warlord (shield and weapon, plus possibly better armor and toughness with melee at-will powers), a rangers (two weapon or melee beast master) or a stand and fight rogue (shield, better armor and toughness are the obvious ways but you can also go two weapon defense and parrying dagger).

Rogues or rangers built to dance through a fight can do a lot of damage but they don't provide much defense for the rest of the party. Melee warlocks, balanced or ranged rangers, gish wizards, and support clerics and warlords can survive in melee, but they are a bit fragile and work best paired with a defender.

Jay
#8
malkav666
Jan 27, 2009 13:39:48 I would design encounters for 8 players and set them loose. To be honest the group would probably do really well with dumb mobs or mobs with animal smarts. But a cunning opponent will go after the squishies and without a defender the parties only real recourse is to kill it before it kills one of them. They may be able to control it a bit with good use of controller abilities or striker ones that apply movement debufs.

But eventually they will need a defender to help them with advanced encounters. My honest advice is to just roll with it. Make the encounters based around the theme of your campaign and don't use any preferential encounter design and let them at it. If they are lucky or smart enough they can go a while with no defender, and when/if it reaches the point where folks are dying because of no defender then someone will probably check it out.

I have found the best way to get a player to try something is to use it against them. If no ones playing a defender then mix a couple of good defenders into the groups they face and show the group what that role can do. Lock on of them down with a fighter once or twice (not telling to specifically kill a certain player, but rather showcase some of the high points of being a defender by making the group struggle against a a defenders strengths).

But all in all I would not force someone to be anything. My general rule is if the character fits into the game from a story standpoint then bring it forth. IF the party is lacking because of everyone choosing similar roles then it will sort it self out. They will do exceptionally well in certain encounters as a result, and do very poorly in others as a result. Don't design every encounter to ignore the weaknesses of your group (on the other side of that coin don't always design encounters that focus on their weaknesses either.) Design balanced encounters and if they want to go outside of the box and attack it from a different angle then let them.

They may or may not ever make a defender, but as long as everyone is having a good time then it does not really matter.

love,

malkav
#9
Alter_Boy
Jan 27, 2009 16:38:13 Have a buddy system. If someone is in trouble, their buddy has to save them using whatever powers they have. If, however, your teammates decide to blast sewer rats while troglodyte slavers carry you off, you'll do poorly without defenders.
#10
Nautilus
Jan 27, 2009 17:02:15 I'm reminded of a snippet from one of the 4e preview booklets, "If the players don't choose a defender, the monsters will choose one for them."

In other words, the party will have to cope with soldiers and brutes having far more freedom to pound whoever they like. This could be exhilirating, and it could also be lethal, especially surprise attacks. Though it sounds to me as though the problem is more a dislike for the current defender classes than the defender role itself.

If the asterisked term for paladins was close to 'goody two shoes', perhaps a Raven Queen paladin could be an option?
#11
Evergreen_Aldaron
Jan 27, 2009 18:41:44
Have a buddy system. If someone is in trouble, their buddy has to save them using whatever powers they have. If, however, your teammates decide to blast sewer rats while troglodyte slavers carry you off, you'll do poorly without defenders.

Although we play with a large party, we use this type of "buddy system".
It works well and seems to keep everybody a little safer.
Until of course my Ranger with Great bow can't hit the broad side of the barn from inside the darn thing!
:D
#12
trismagestus
Jan 27, 2009 19:17:12 The group I run opted not to take a defender; instead we have a Warlord, Warlock, 2WF Ranger, Rogue and Wizard.

They seem to work well, with the Warlord and Ranger keeping the front line, while the rest stay at range. The Wizard has a tendency for recklessness, though, and almost always ends up in melee range. That's fine, since practically everything he has is a 'Close' power, by design. The Feylock, on the other hand, is impossible to keep in one place. Everyone is highly mobile, however, and the Wizard and Warlock are both Eladrin, which helps them to be where they need to be.

All in all, I run 2 groups - one without defenders, one without leaders. Both are brutal and effective. I think the only time I saw a group that wasn't , was when the Eladrin Warlord and Wizard from above had a thing they needed to do. A controller plus a leader? Not so much, but then both are support classes in their most useful applications.
#13
Arbitrary_Aardvark
Jan 28, 2009 13:14:24
I'm playing with a rather large group of close friends, none of whom have played any variation on D&D until a couple weeks ago, when we picked up 4e. The atmosphere is fairly casual, just another way for us to socialize on the weekend, but at least most of us are looking for a solid gaming experience as well. There are currently 9 of us (8 players and a DM, we'll be rotating this role every couple weeks) and, somehow, not a defender amongst us: 2 rogues, 2 warlocks, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 warlord, 1 ranger.

What are the builds? If the rogues are all based on throwing things, the cleric is a devoted type with mostly ranged powers, the warlord is an inspiring one, and the ranger is an archery build, then they are in big trouble. If, on the other hand, the ranger is two-weapon fighting, one of the rogues (at least) is based on using a rapier, and the warlord and cleric are built to use weapon powers, then you should be OK.
#14
innuit
Jan 30, 2009 8:36:39 I say just throw whatever at them. The poorly made characters will die and the group will rebalance itself. I've seen it happen a half a dozen times. If you lack a leader, someone will die and play a leader after realizing that healing is HUGE. It your situation, a striker or two will die, and they will reroll a defender.

One way I taught my group to play balanced was to do a 1-shot. I made 5 encounters by the book. Then the last one, I made a standard "balanced" party, with mobs fitting most PC roles. I whooped the **** out of them. It taught them that each individual role is important in the group perspective.

Also reiterate to your party this fact. 4E is now 2 games: combat and RP. They are 2 separate issues with completely isolated rules and mechanics. Just because you play a "fighter" doesn't mean you have to be a dumb grunt. Classes and Roles are only for combat mechanical purposes only. You can be any class you want and have any persona you want. That's the beauty of 4E RP, there are no restrictions. Paladins can be neutral. You can be a drunk paladin. You could be a chivalrous fighter who is lawful good. Doesn't matter anymore.
#15
aef251
Jan 30, 2009 9:27:42 We had a party of 4 thieves once (2nd ed) and it worked fine. The DM just has to make adjustments and the party has to be smarter about trying frontal assaults.
#16
innuit
Jan 30, 2009 10:07:12
We had a party of 4 thieves once (2nd ed) and it worked fine. The DM just has to make adjustments and the party has to be smarter about trying frontal assaults.

Unfortunately we are now playing 4E and the combat mechanics are quite different. 2nd ed combat and rp were still linked together. 4E has divorced the 2. Now you could play a rogue for it's combat mechanics and then RP a knight. You really couldn't do that in 2nd ed. It was much more stereotypied. If you played 4 rogues in 4E, you'd all die after the 2nd encounter.

Also, it's the DM's job to challenge the PCs. By unbalancing your party, you make the threshold between a challenge and a TPK on a razor's edge. Couple bad rolls, and one guy goes down, you're all down. In a balanced party, you won't ever excel in 1 situation, but you will be well versed in every instance. A badly designed encounter is much less fatal.
#17
magodesky
Feb 01, 2009 11:47:25 Page 10 of the DMG talks a little bit about parties that are missing particular roles. But if you really want a defender and it's a matter of your players just not liking those particular classes (which I can understand, even though I personally think paladins are pretty cool), you could also see if anyone wants to try the swordmage defender class from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. They seem to be a little more interesting background-wise than the default fighter.
#18
aethelas
Feb 02, 2009 8:00:02 That's a good thought, Magodesky, but I would add that they should look at the shielding swordmage (which is honestly a cool defender), whereas the other type of swordmage contributes quite a bit less to the party (while, I will admit, looking really damn cool).
#19
Neutronium_Dragon
Feb 02, 2009 9:28:03 My 4E Red Hand of Doom game has faced this same situation: The party consists of an inspiring warlord, an archery ranger, a fey warlock, and a blaster wizard. They did have a fighter to start, but the player retired. They've managed fairly well nonetheless simply because the ranger and (to a lesser extent) the warlock have enough mobility and get-out-of-the-way powers to kite one or two enemies around. They also make reasonable use of terrain features to inhibit the enemy's ability to pin them down or gang up on them.

Would it be easier for them if they had a defender? Almost certainly, yes - the warlord in particular suffers for the lack of a reliable melee partner. They're still able to cope with the absence, though.
#20
jimprofit
Feb 03, 2009 5:24:21 I don't see how not filling a role will somehow doom a party. Is the party so mechanical that they cannot fathom thinking for themselves and rely on the prospect of every machine doing it's assigned task?

I ussually play defenders. Because sense I talk alot of smack, I need the extra HP lol!

I defend who I want, when I want. Which ussually means myself, or a pretty girl. But the girl can quickly be just as suspetable to my blade if she doesn't putout.

Or should I say axe/bludgeon weapon. I don't much care for swords.. And for some reason they designed the fighter to be a melee class only. I mean really, a trained fighter can't use archery?

Not that it matters as the main tactical advantage of archery was poison. And with poison so degraded in fourth edition. "Snipering" isn't really much of an option...

Yeah, I don't care what anybody says. Taking an incubative penalty to attack and damage rolls from -1 to -3 just doesn't seem as threatening to me as a blatant smack to the face of 3d6 constitution damage. When I poison someone, I expect them to foam at the mouth and fall to the ground convulsing.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 januvial Jan 26, 2009 20:02:00	I'm playing with a rather large group of close friends, none of whom have played any variation on D&D until a couple weeks ago, when we picked up 4e. The atmosphere is fairly casual, just another way for us to socialize on the weekend, but at least most of us are looking for a solid gaming experience as well. There are currently 9 of us (8 players and a DM, we'll be rotating this role every couple weeks) and, somehow, not a defender amongst us: 2 rogues, 2 warlocks, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 warlord, 1 ranger. For some reason paladins have a hugely negative stigma in my group (not in terms of effectiveness, everyone just seems to think paladins are *******s), and I guess the fighter just doesn't entice anyone. As I said we're mostly about having a good time (which explains how we ended up with so many players without any mediation), so no pressure was put on anyone to choose a class that fit the party best, and we just went with what we liked most the first time through. Anyway, I can already anticipate the answers I'll get, but is this a game-breaking problem? Will this actually be feasible in most combat situations? I'm set to DM next and I definitely wasn't planning on taking it easy on them by any means, and I'd prefer it if I didn't have to tweak the encounters to avoid their weak spots, but... am I going to have a TPK on my hands by the second encounter?
#2 crenshaw13 Jan 26, 2009 20:56:24	With 8 characters you'll be fine. Maybe even a bit overpowered. Keep in mind that 4e is "defaulted" for 5 characters. So the DM may have to tweak a bit.
#3 paradoxic Jan 26, 2009 22:53:00	You poor DM... I have hell of a time keeping 6 players under control and tracked successfully! No role is actually required in the game. That's why leaders get healing spells as well as the divine casters (though cleric is, of course, always best at this). Looking at your class list, you will be fine. Two rogues will just kill anything they tag team. The warlocks will just run around ending the life of anything the others don't kill (and laying down some nasty AOE later on especially with some Hunger of Hadar and wizard thunder push). The wizards will have to be pretty on-top with Crowd Control, but that won't be hard. The cleric will be the hardest set because they don't get a whole lot of healing spells per encounter (lots of second winds I am guessing). The warlord and the Ranger will round out the overall battlefield control. Infact, with 8 players, one defender will simply not be good enough for holding down the enemies anyway. 8 players will warrant a lot of monsters in each encounter (even solo monsters are only worth 5 normals). So long as powers are chosen with some level of synergy, you will be able to CC/ranged damage quite a few monsters before they get to the squishies. Of course, it wouldn't hurt for some of the melee to glance at the armor proficiency feats just in case. And durable is a great feat.
#4 JayM Jan 27, 2009 9:46:29	2 rogues, 2 warlocks, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 warlord, 1 ranger. As long as you have enough characters who can fight in melee you should be OK. If your looking at all ranged and support leaders then your going to have a problem with monsters swarming the party. Without a defender, your going to need 3 melee characters to form a line and it's still going to be fairly porous. Jay
#5 aethelas Jan 27, 2009 12:23:50	Note: I do NOT want to steal this thread. Anyone who's only going to respond to one person, respond to the OP, not me. however....I actually have the exact same question regarding a party that is starting to assemble. We're looking at a glaive-weilding Tactical Warlord, an offensive-prayer oriented cleric, two Rogues, and an unknown fifth. If the fifth player doesn't pick a defender, will the party work well? It seems to me that it would (we'd just deal an awful lot of damage); though it also seems like my character (as a Taclord, not super-tough, but the toughest member of the party) might be in a bit more danger than I like. I'm just hoping to get some collective wisdom about how well it'll work.
#6 paradoxic Jan 27, 2009 12:39:02	The point remains the same for you Aethelas. The game does not require any particular class. Some combinations are harder to run with than others, but so long as you have a decent mix of melee and ranged plus a class or two that can heal, you are generally going to be OK. One thing to keep in mind are items to help out on heals (healing potions, dwarven magic armor, belts of sacrifice, etc). Also, everyone remember that the one running the monsters, the great and powerful DM, is not actively out to kill everyone. He will find what works and what doesn't with the particular player group and will adjust accordingly. D&D is about the synergy between the party and the DM; it is what makes every game different.
#7 JayM Jan 27, 2009 12:55:10	We're looking at a glaive-weilding Tactical Warlord, an offensive-prayer oriented cleric, two Rogues, and an unknown fifth. If the fifth player doesn't pick a defender, will the party work well? I would give you the same advice I gave the OP. A 4e party doesn't need a defender, but it still needs to have members that can stand and fight in melee. Two melee types works much better then one, because they can make it much harder to flank or go around. Typically, 1/4 to 1/2 of the party will get tied up in melee in most fights even if they are trying to avoid it. A cleric or warlord (shield and weapon, plus possibly better armor and toughness with melee at-will powers), a rangers (two weapon or melee beast master) or a stand and fight rogue (shield, better armor and toughness are the obvious ways but you can also go two weapon defense and parrying dagger). Rogues or rangers built to dance through a fight can do a lot of damage but they don't provide much defense for the rest of the party. Melee warlocks, balanced or ranged rangers, gish wizards, and support clerics and warlords can survive in melee, but they are a bit fragile and work best paired with a defender. Jay
#8 malkav666 Jan 27, 2009 13:39:48	I would design encounters for 8 players and set them loose. To be honest the group would probably do really well with dumb mobs or mobs with animal smarts. But a cunning opponent will go after the squishies and without a defender the parties only real recourse is to kill it before it kills one of them. They may be able to control it a bit with good use of controller abilities or striker ones that apply movement debufs. But eventually they will need a defender to help them with advanced encounters. My honest advice is to just roll with it. Make the encounters based around the theme of your campaign and don't use any preferential encounter design and let them at it. If they are lucky or smart enough they can go a while with no defender, and when/if it reaches the point where folks are dying because of no defender then someone will probably check it out. I have found the best way to get a player to try something is to use it against them. If no ones playing a defender then mix a couple of good defenders into the groups they face and show the group what that role can do. Lock on of them down with a fighter once or twice (not telling to specifically kill a certain player, but rather showcase some of the high points of being a defender by making the group struggle against a a defenders strengths). But all in all I would not force someone to be anything. My general rule is if the character fits into the game from a story standpoint then bring it forth. IF the party is lacking because of everyone choosing similar roles then it will sort it self out. They will do exceptionally well in certain encounters as a result, and do very poorly in others as a result. Don't design every encounter to ignore the weaknesses of your group (on the other side of that coin don't always design encounters that focus on their weaknesses either.) Design balanced encounters and if they want to go outside of the box and attack it from a different angle then let them. They may or may not ever make a defender, but as long as everyone is having a good time then it does not really matter. love, malkav
#9 Alter_Boy Jan 27, 2009 16:38:13	Have a buddy system. If someone is in trouble, their buddy has to save them using whatever powers they have. If, however, your teammates decide to blast sewer rats while troglodyte slavers carry you off, you'll do poorly without defenders.
#10 Nautilus Jan 27, 2009 17:02:15	I'm reminded of a snippet from one of the 4e preview booklets, "If the players don't choose a defender, the monsters will choose one for them." In other words, the party will have to cope with soldiers and brutes having far more freedom to pound whoever they like. This could be exhilirating, and it could also be lethal, especially surprise attacks. Though it sounds to me as though the problem is more a dislike for the current defender classes than the defender role itself. If the asterisked term for paladins was close to 'goody two shoes', perhaps a Raven Queen paladin could be an option?
#11 Evergreen_Aldaron Jan 27, 2009 18:41:44	Have a buddy system. If someone is in trouble, their buddy has to save them using whatever powers they have. If, however, your teammates decide to blast sewer rats while troglodyte slavers carry you off, you'll do poorly without defenders. Although we play with a large party, we use this type of "buddy system". It works well and seems to keep everybody a little safer. Until of course my Ranger with Great bow can't hit the broad side of the barn from inside the darn thing! :D
#12 trismagestus Jan 27, 2009 19:17:12	The group I run opted not to take a defender; instead we have a Warlord, Warlock, 2WF Ranger, Rogue and Wizard. They seem to work well, with the Warlord and Ranger keeping the front line, while the rest stay at range. The Wizard has a tendency for recklessness, though, and almost always ends up in melee range. That's fine, since practically everything he has is a 'Close' power, by design. The Feylock, on the other hand, is impossible to keep in one place. Everyone is highly mobile, however, and the Wizard and Warlock are both Eladrin, which helps them to be where they need to be. All in all, I run 2 groups - one without defenders, one without leaders. Both are brutal and effective. I think the only time I saw a group that wasn't , was when the Eladrin Warlord and Wizard from above had a thing they needed to do. A controller plus a leader? Not so much, but then both are support classes in their most useful applications.
#13 Arbitrary_Aardvark Jan 28, 2009 13:14:24	I'm playing with a rather large group of close friends, none of whom have played any variation on D&D until a couple weeks ago, when we picked up 4e. The atmosphere is fairly casual, just another way for us to socialize on the weekend, but at least most of us are looking for a solid gaming experience as well. There are currently 9 of us (8 players and a DM, we'll be rotating this role every couple weeks) and, somehow, not a defender amongst us: 2 rogues, 2 warlocks, 2 wizards, 1 cleric, 1 warlord, 1 ranger. What are the builds? If the rogues are all based on throwing things, the cleric is a devoted type with mostly ranged powers, the warlord is an inspiring one, and the ranger is an archery build, then they are in big trouble. If, on the other hand, the ranger is two-weapon fighting, one of the rogues (at least) is based on using a rapier, and the warlord and cleric are built to use weapon powers, then you should be OK.
#14 innuit Jan 30, 2009 8:36:39	I say just throw whatever at them. The poorly made characters will die and the group will rebalance itself. I've seen it happen a half a dozen times. If you lack a leader, someone will die and play a leader after realizing that healing is HUGE. It your situation, a striker or two will die, and they will reroll a defender. One way I taught my group to play balanced was to do a 1-shot. I made 5 encounters by the book. Then the last one, I made a standard "balanced" party, with mobs fitting most PC roles. I whooped the **** out of them. It taught them that each individual role is important in the group perspective. Also reiterate to your party this fact. 4E is now 2 games: combat and RP. They are 2 separate issues with completely isolated rules and mechanics. Just because you play a "fighter" doesn't mean you have to be a dumb grunt. Classes and Roles are only for combat mechanical purposes only. You can be any class you want and have any persona you want. That's the beauty of 4E RP, there are no restrictions. Paladins can be neutral. You can be a drunk paladin. You could be a chivalrous fighter who is lawful good. Doesn't matter anymore.
#15 aef251 Jan 30, 2009 9:27:42	We had a party of 4 thieves once (2nd ed) and it worked fine. The DM just has to make adjustments and the party has to be smarter about trying frontal assaults.
#16 innuit Jan 30, 2009 10:07:12	We had a party of 4 thieves once (2nd ed) and it worked fine. The DM just has to make adjustments and the party has to be smarter about trying frontal assaults. Unfortunately we are now playing 4E and the combat mechanics are quite different. 2nd ed combat and rp were still linked together. 4E has divorced the 2. Now you could play a rogue for it's combat mechanics and then RP a knight. You really couldn't do that in 2nd ed. It was much more stereotypied. If you played 4 rogues in 4E, you'd all die after the 2nd encounter. Also, it's the DM's job to challenge the PCs. By unbalancing your party, you make the threshold between a challenge and a TPK on a razor's edge. Couple bad rolls, and one guy goes down, you're all down. In a balanced party, you won't ever excel in 1 situation, but you will be well versed in every instance. A badly designed encounter is much less fatal.
#17 magodesky Feb 01, 2009 11:47:25	Page 10 of the DMG talks a little bit about parties that are missing particular roles. But if you really want a defender and it's a matter of your players just not liking those particular classes (which I can understand, even though I personally think paladins are pretty cool), you could also see if anyone wants to try the swordmage defender class from the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. They seem to be a little more interesting background-wise than the default fighter.
#18 aethelas Feb 02, 2009 8:00:02	That's a good thought, Magodesky, but I would add that they should look at the shielding swordmage (which is honestly a cool defender), whereas the other type of swordmage contributes quite a bit less to the party (while, I will admit, looking really damn cool).
#19 Neutronium_Dragon Feb 02, 2009 9:28:03	My 4E Red Hand of Doom game has faced this same situation: The party consists of an inspiring warlord, an archery ranger, a fey warlock, and a blaster wizard. They did have a fighter to start, but the player retired. They've managed fairly well nonetheless simply because the ranger and (to a lesser extent) the warlock have enough mobility and get-out-of-the-way powers to kite one or two enemies around. They also make reasonable use of terrain features to inhibit the enemy's ability to pin them down or gang up on them. Would it be easier for them if they had a defender? Almost certainly, yes - the warlord in particular suffers for the lack of a reliable melee partner. They're still able to cope with the absence, though.
#20 jimprofit Feb 03, 2009 5:24:21	I don't see how not filling a role will somehow doom a party. Is the party so mechanical that they cannot fathom thinking for themselves and rely on the prospect of every machine doing it's assigned task? I ussually play defenders. Because sense I talk alot of smack, I need the extra HP lol! I defend who I want, when I want. Which ussually means myself, or a pretty girl. But the girl can quickly be just as suspetable to my blade if she doesn't putout. Or should I say axe/bludgeon weapon. I don't much care for swords.. And for some reason they designed the fighter to be a melee class only. I mean really, a trained fighter can't use archery? Not that it matters as the main tactical advantage of archery was poison. And with poison so degraded in fourth edition. "Snipering" isn't really much of an option... Yeah, I don't care what anybody says. Taking an incubative penalty to attack and damage rolls from -1 to -3 just doesn't seem as threatening to me as a blatant smack to the face of 3d6 constitution damage. When I poison someone, I expect them to foam at the mouth and fall to the ground convulsing.