I'm trying to get a sense of which roles are usually missing in your parties.
I'm putting some ideas together based on this simple poll question on Leonine Roar, my D&D blog, and I would love your help.
For us, it's usually Controllers though I might be playing in a game soon without a Defender, so we might be on the lookout for an NPC party ally Fighter, Paladin or something else, depending how things go.
In the games I DM, I enjoy roleplaying NPC party allies or companion characters while the players switch off running them in combat. Win-win!
As for controllers not being as well represented in our parties, I guess my friends assume hordes of minions won't be a problem! But that's not always true, is it?
What about you guys? Which role and why?
Thanks!
As for the big brute type, 4e's got a few good ones in that style, so we usually fill that role easily.
@Salla: Sounds like you do what I do a lot with that 4th and/or 5th party member and go with an NPC party ally. I found some old 2e and 3e session notes this past weekend doing some housecleaning, and I was amazed at the number of party allies I used to include in our games. I just believe they add so much to the atmosphere of the game by interacting with the PCs in all kinds of situations, whether combat, social or whatever else.
I also really like how you choose who does what. Good informal and fun way to build a balanced party. We'll have to try that, thanks for the idea
Really what the type allows me to do more than both disarm traps..and trigger them. Lockpick doors..or just knock them down- its more than that. A half orc rogue/barbarian with a 20 str and a 18 dex. And a 8 wisdom. And a 9 int. What was ultimately added was beyond the class skills, but a willing buttmonkey of jokes and comic relief. Every party needs someone to distract them from the horrors and scars of adventuring, be it a bard or just someone to make them laugh.
@Salla: Sounds like you do what I do a lot with that 4th and/or 5th party member and go with an NPC party ally. I found some old 2e and 3e session notes this past weekend doing some housecleaning, and I was amazed at the number of party allies I used to include in our games. I just believe they add so much to the atmosphere of the game by interacting with the PCs in all kinds of situations, whether combat, social or whatever else.
I also really like how you choose who does what. Good informal and fun way to build a balanced party. We'll have to try that, thanks for the idea
Heh. I'll be honest, I hate it. I'd rather everybody play a character they want than feeling obligated to pick a role just because they feel it's necessary (because it isn't).
@Salla: It's definitely funny how we never really talked about classes in terms of their roles before, but we naturally filled every role anyway quite often. Now that it's defined and encouraged, rather than any mention of "all rogue campaigns" or something similar in older class sourcebooks, everyone kind of feels like it's extremely important. Or rather, for some, required.
You can easily still do thematic campaigns that encourage only a few classes (like that all rogue campaign) in 4e, it's just you have to make some adjustments in your choices and playstyle as the game goes on... just like any edition before it! So, nothing's actually changed much, which is what's funny. Maybe it's the emphasis on tactical encounters and how they're richer and longer, meaning a well-balanced party actually has a bigger upper hand than in prior editions? But how much bigger? What do you think?
By the way guys, thanks for checking out my blog and my poll on this role question, I do appreciate your help as my little research quest continues...
I lplay to have fun, along with others. Some times its comic relief, other times its this:
www.cold-moon.com/images/Motivators/GMs/...
@Salla: It's definitely funny how we never really talked about classes in terms of their roles before, but we naturally filled every role anyway quite often. Now that it's defined and encouraged, rather than any mention of "all rogue campaigns" or something similar in older class sourcebooks, everyone kind of feels like it's extremely important. Or rather, for some, required.
I don't like the idea that any class, role, or skill is required. I think the DM should tailor his encounters and challenges to the capabilities of the PCs so that they're challenges and neither cakewalks nor curbstomps. I am very against the idea that a DM should pull stunts like 'The door's locked ... you can't reach the DC? Not my fault none of you trained in Thievery' or the like.
However, I still believe it's important to have a a tailored vs. status quo encounter feel to the world, even if the encounters don't necessarily always reflect that. I think that sense of believability and much bigger dangers being out there needs to exist in D&D, like it always has, and putting it on display a few times, at least in through narrative tools like a cinematic vignette or roleplay encounter is important.
The same idea and presentation applies for threats that have become inconsequential to them over time - brief storytelling-only mention of how they return home many years later and help stomp out a new tribe of marauding orcs is simple, cool to narrate, and even cooler for the players to hear.
How much value do you personally place on this sort of mood-setting idea?
@Vampire_Bat: ROFL! That is awesome, I love that! I gotta show all my friends that poster. Maybe it really is that simple? Nice. Thanks for that man
P.S. Sorry about the formatting, the boards have been screwy lately, bolding things randomly and not bolding things when they should. Is it just me?
For us, it's usually Controllers though I might be playing in a game soon without a Defender, so we might be on the lookout for an NPC party ally Fighter, Paladin or something else, depending how things go.
I gotta say, to this, avoid having a dm controlled defender of any kind. Either the monsters ignore the defender and thus their turns take longer cause the dm has to have the character respond to his own attacks or the monsters attack the defender and its just the DM playing with himself, no pun intended.
I tried it once in a delve I ran where no one wanted to play a defender. I ran a 2h fighter and it just didnt work out. Maybe playing a paladin like that would work since the mark punishment is automatic, but I still dont think its a good idea.
Companion characters work a lot like summoned monsters from figurines, but they're obviously more "permanent" since they're real people or creatures the party has befriended or allied with on the way. RP-wise, they're there to liven things up banter-wise, not drive the story or decisions.
In that Shadowfell campaign I mentioned my brother DMs, we're lacking a controller right now, but like you said, we're managing. It does seem like controller is easiest to go without - though there will always be fights you wish you had a wizard, druid, invoker, seeker or psion with you.
Beyond that, it gets a bit tougher, but I'd say Defender is the next role to consider removing. Various Leaders and Strikers can fill in adequately as off-tanks.
Leader is a very necessary role, particularly in terms of healing, but you can reasonably easily fill in for it by multiclassing - shaman gets you an encounter heal.
Team Striker is probably the most common unbalanced party, and it can be very effective, but equally it's very swingy. Yopu'll often find that you either absolutely macerate the encounter, or the encounter absolutely macerates you - if you can kill Team Monster faster than they can knock you down, you win. If they can't, you lose. And you find yourselves very vulnerable to conditions and status effects if you're not adequately prepared.
Striker is the least-commonly-missing role in my experience. Most people want to do big damage. I've gotten used to filling in the less-common roles these days, because I'm too nice...
Striker is the least-commonly-missing role in my experience. Most people want to do big damage. I've gotten used to filling in the less-common roles these days, because I'm too nice...
Hah, yeah, I totally understand - been there! In fact, I'd been there so much in the past on the rare occassions I did get to play and not DM, that lately, since our total playgroup size has changed, I've changed my tastes.
Now that we have around 10 total players and 3 different DMs and several campaigns - almost like our growing little friend network of D&D where someone knows somebody even if they haven't sat next to every player yet for a game - I now lean towards strikers these days myself.
I use to always play the leader/healer types myself, to help fill that niche. My last was a dragonborn bard in a Realms campaign. Now I very much do enjoy them, don't get me wrong. The bard's versatility is simply awesome, I love it.
Though it's also just nice to finally take a bit of a break, especially as a mostly-DM, whip out my half-orc ranger or monk or revenant avenger and just, well... kick ass!