Party optimization

[satori01]

Originally Posted by Elder-Basilisk

A few principles to keep in mind:
1. Damage is everyone's job. Don't leave it to the strikers.

I actually disagree with this statement. The key is to understand what type of damage you are supposed to facilitate.

I play a Wizard in a nine party group. Besides myself there is there is a BR Fighter, an Inspiring Warlock, a Bard, 2 Rogues, a Ranger adept at 2 weapon fighting (but mainly a ranged attacker), a Sorcerer, and a Infernal Warlock.

My character is specialized to blow up minions. I chose Destructive Wizardry (to do more damage with multi person effects) and Enlarge Spell (to get more minions). Beyond an AOE.....I have been chosing spells that either control the terrain, or move people.

With 2 Rogues...using the Wizard at will that lets you slide someone 1 square is great for flanking, or for pulling someone 1 square for the Warlock at will that does more damage if something moves closer.

Grasping Shadows does less damage then Burning Hands, but has more control uses and is great for slowing down monsters from escaping.

A wizard is never going to be able to out damage 2 rogues w/ combat advantage...just from sheer design...so yes some dmg is good, but other effects w/ some dmg even better.

[Elder-Basilisk]

Originally Posted by satori01

I actually disagree with this statement. The key is to understand what type of damage you are supposed to facilitate.

I play a Wizard in a nine party group. Besides myself there is there is a BR Fighter, an Inspiring Warlock, a Bard, 2 Rogues, a Ranger adept at 2 weapon fighting (but mainly a ranged attacker), a Sorcerer, and a Infernal Warlock.

My character is specialized to blow up minions. I chose Destructive Wizardry (to do more damage with multi person effects) and Enlarge Spell (to get more minions). Beyond an AOE.....I have been chosing spells that either control the terrain, or move people.

With 2 Rogues...using the Wizard at will that lets you slide someone 1 square is great for flanking, or for pulling someone 1 square for the Warlock at will that does more damage if something moves closer.

Grasping Shadows does less damage then Burning Hands, but has more control uses and is great for slowing down monsters from escaping.

A wizard is never going to be able to out damage 2 rogues w/ combat advantage...just from sheer design...so yes some dmg is good, but other effects w/ some dmg even better.

I'm not advocating the idea that DPR is all that matters. I am arguing that it does matter for leaders, controllers, and defenders as well as strikers. In your case, you took destructive wizardry. Obviously, that's not helping you kill minions--they die if you only deal 1 point to them. But if you catch a real monster in the same blast (which I imagine you generally try to do) it deals more damage to that monster. On the other hand, the target of my discussion is the many people on this and other boards that look at something like dual implement spellcaster and say, "+5 damage for one feat? But why would I want that; damage is the striker's job--I'm going to sit back here and give the monsters -2 to their attacks or slide them one square; that'll win the battle for sure."

The problem that comes up with this is that, while controllers (and defenders and leaders) have a lot of valuable things that they do other than damage, they do make a valuable contribution to the damage output of the party. And in tough battles where the striker might be taken down or otherwise incapacitated (an immobilized barbarian who's not adjacent to the monsters is a pincushion not a striker), it's going to be up to the rest of the party to take the monsters down without help from the striker. Also, if you kill the monster just one round earlier in a five round fight, you have on average prevented as much damage as you would by giving him -2 on every single attack during that fight. (Assuming the monster's base hit chance is 50%, a -2 penalty amounts to about a 20% reduction in his DPR which is what you get if you kill him in round 4 instead of round 5; of course if the monster's hit chance is higher than 50% a -2 penalty is not quite 20% so you come out ahead in the five round fight). If the fight is any shorter, killing the monster earlier is even better.

There are lots of things that characters can do other than direct damage. But when a low opportunity cost to improve their damage comes by and characters do not take it, they are choosing to be less than optimized.

[Dreadite]

My game's party has been finding that a heavy blade opportunist fighter, a daggermaster rogue, and a Bravura Warlord = fun times with Brash Assault.

There's quite a bit of decision making one can make regarding the state of your group that will influence what appears optimal at any given time. I think it's something one has to feel out, though... there's not a great way of saying "this is the best group" unless you know what kinds of threats your DM is going to throw your way.

[OrcCourtesy]

Dreadite, what is it about Brash Strike with those characters that's paying off for you?

Likewise, Elder-Basilisk, what is it about the party of tempest fighter, rageblood barbarian, archer ranger, wizard, inspiring warlord that gives them synergies? (Or, what prevents the first party you sketched from working well together?)

I know I don't have the depth of knowledge necessary for that to jump out at me, and making these things explicit helps at least figure out what combinations will be useful for what kinds of threat even if there's no "best" party.

[Ryndal]

Here's a thought - Instead of min-maxing your way to some type of numerical advantage - try to cover basic roles with a group of characters that would have a reason for working together and a backstory to match that.

As opposed to some arbitrary selection based upon the idea that we can "roll through encounters with no challenge"

I guarantee you that as DM - if a party ramps up their killing efficiency, I will ramp up the encounters to make it seriously challenging.

For many - 4th ed still remains a way to tell a story and focus on role-playing, not some game you can "win".

Ryndal

[Prestidigitalis]

If I may second OrcCourtesy, I'd LOVE to hear some more from Elder-Basilisk about how those synergies might work. Though few groups will match the exact combination you described, there are probably some good lessons to be learned that will apply across the boar.d

[Flipguarder]

Originally Posted by Ryndal

Here's a thought - Instead of min-maxing your way to some type of numerical advantage - try to cover basic roles with a group of characters that would have a reason for working together and a backstory to match that.

As opposed to some arbitrary selection based upon the idea that we can "roll through encounters with no challenge"

I guarantee you that as DM - if a party ramps up their killing efficiency, I will ramp up the encounters to make it seriously challenging.

For many - 4th ed still remains a way to tell a story and focus on role-playing, not some game you can "win".

Ryndal

I am a big fan of create your character then make a story that fits. In my mind, there is no reason to make a sub-optimized character to fit an idea rather than make an optimized character and fit an idea to it. The power of your imagination and ability to tell stories should be more than what is allowed in the books anyway. Just because you are making an optimized character doesn't mean that role-playing/story telling goes out the window.

Do you have an evidence to show that 4th ediition cannot be a way to tell a story and focus on roleplaying, while remaining a game that you can "win"?

Of course I have no issue with sub-optimized characters in my campaigns (except for extreme circumstances where they just make terrible choices between two things that are flavor wise the same exact things). I just would like to point out that these philosophies are not mutually exclusive.

[Elder-Basilisk]

Originally Posted by OrcCourtesy

Dreadite, what is it about Brash Strike with those characters that's paying off for you?

Likewise, Elder-Basilisk, what is it about the party of tempest fighter, rageblood barbarian, archer ranger, wizard, inspiring warlord that gives them synergies? (Or, what prevents the first party you sketched from working well together?)

I know I don't have the depth of knowledge necessary for that to jump out at me, and making these things explicit helps at least figure out what combinations will be useful for what kinds of threat even if there's no "best" party.

Probably it's best to first look at why the first party does not work (well).

1. Ensnaring Swordmage, fey-pact warlock, preserving invoker, laser cleric, dark pact warlock.

A. Only one character in the first party has any business near melee. Everyone else is relatively low AC and relatively low hp and will have to either shift or provoke OAs to use most of their powers. And if there is a wall or two enemies, it is quite possible that they will not be able to shift and then use their powers without provoking an OA.
B. Ensnaring swordmages don't prevent damage. They don't damage enemies for hurting party members. They just move enemies around if they ignore the mark. Which really does very little to prevent the enemy from shifting away from the swordmage and charging that same ally again.
C. This is a low damage party. The swordmage is a low damage defender (and ensnaring swordmages are the lowest damage of all). The invoker is a relatively low damage controller, the laser cleric is very low on the damage pole for leaders, and warlocks are the bottom of the pack for strikers (in fact, most aggressive defenders and some leaders can frequently outdamage warlocks--especially fey pact warlocks).
D. No-one in the party has much of anything that is usable beyond range 10. So if it is a ranged duel, the enemy can sit 12 squares away and there's not much the party can do about it. So they're pwned in melee and pwned at long range too.

So, A means that the enemy pretty much has a blank check to go where they want because there aren't any scary OAs out there. A. also means that the enemy can dramatically reduce the party's offensive output or even more dramatically increase their own simply my movement and positioning. (If four foes flank up on, say, the cleric, said cleric is reduced to melee attacks (good luck with that as a laser cleric) or will have to shift and then provoke two OAs in order to attack. If there are five monsters, the cleric switching to ineffective melee mod corresponds to a 15-20% reduction in the party's offensive capacity. Giving two monsters OAs results in a 40% increase in the monsters' offensive capacity. You can't afford to do that as a party.
B. means that the party's defender does not really provide much disincentive so the enemy is able to concentrate their attacks as much as they want.
C. means that the combat is going to drag on which is far more to the advantage of monsters whose powers generally recharge than to the advantage of PCs who have very limited daily powers and will usually be reduced to at-will powers after the first 1-4 rounds of combat.

Now, if you contrast that with the other party I sketched out:
tempest fighter, rageblood barbarian, archer ranger, wizard, inspiring warlord
You will see quite a few differences.

A. This party has a front line. The tempest fighter, rageblood barbarian, and inspiring warlord all have solid ACs and have powers that work fine in melee. Consequently, a foe wishing to move around them to attack the wizard or the archer will have to incurr OAs and the fighter's OA will also stop the movement.
B. The party's defender has the ability to mark multiple foes and provides the foes he has marked with a hefty disincentive to attack anyone else. This will enable the party to keep the monsters from ganging up on anyone but the fighter.
C. This is a relatively high damage party. Tempest fighters do quite a bit of damage (though less single target damage than they did pre-errata). Rageblood barbarians do a lot of damage too. Inspiring warlords also do good damage for leaders. And rangers are pretty much the gold standard for dealing damage. What is more, the best inspiring warlord powers focus and increase the party's damage. Inspired Belligerence+warlord's strike = +1+2x cha damage to the target until the warlord's next turn and hammer and anvil will give the barbarian or fighter an extra swing with that bonus damage (and another Cha mod of damage tossed in for kicks).
D. Everyone in the party has attacks that are usable beyond range 10 (while a bunch of javalins may not be much, the fighter's javalin at least amounts to -2 to the opponent's attacks against the people it should be concentrating on and having those javalins is a lot better than having nothing), one party member (the archery ranger) probably has a close range of 25 (greatbow) and many wizard encounter and daily powers are range 20. If the wizard selected magic missile (and she probably did because the inspiring warlord will be picking up quite a few "everyone makes a basic attack" powers throughout paragon), she also has a range 20 at-will power.

Now this is not an ideal party, but it is a very solid one. And it serves well to illustrate the difference between actually being a balanced party and having merely checked off all of the boxes next to each of WotC's dedicated party role labels.

The third party goes further in the illustration:
Two blade ranger, thaneborn barbarian, chaos sorcerer, star-pact warlock, tactical warlord. No defender and no controller, just four strikers and a leader.

So, why is this a better party than the first one? Well, we'll start out with those same categories.
A. This party has a front line. A foe can shift+charge or risk OAs to get to the people they want to attack but they can't just waltz up to whoever they want to without fear of OAs. They will take damage if they want to achieve the positioning they want to get. Additionally, this party has 60% of it melee capable. So, while the enemy can shut down the warlock or the sorcerer with positioning just like they would shut down the characters in party #1, they can't do it to anyone and three party members should be able to pay in through OAs if they try. (Plus the warlord can wolf-pack tactics the surrounded ally to a position where a shift will enable ranged or area attacks without OAs).
B. This party has no defender and the lack of aggression control doesn't help them out. On the other hand, a weak defender like the ensnaring swordmage doesn't help out there either. It's a weakness that will be overcome.
C. This party can bring the damage. The barbarian is a good ally for commander's strike and the sorcerer has lots of area attacks that can take advantage of adaptive stratagem and tactical assault. The ranger likewise can take advantage of warlord's favor and tactical assault. Dead monsters don't hit back. While it is not immediately obvious, it is also likely that the party can provide some serious debuffs to enable the entire party to go to town on a foe. The thaneborn barbarian's roar of triumph and shatterbone strike and the warlock's frigid darkness as well as lead the attack and warlord's favor can ensure that a couple of foes go from the standard 50% hit rate to an 80 or 90% hit chance for a couple rounds. When all of your attacks land and you can time some damage boosts (encounters, dailies, action points, adaptive stratagem, etc) to coincide with the defense debuffs, you can dish out a lot of targeted damage quickly.
D. This party is also reasonably competent at range (though the warlock's limitation to range 10 is unfortunate, quite a few sorcerer powers have longer range and the melee characters can all use javalins. Many melee rangers are also competent archers).
E. The absence of a controller is illusory. Warlocks are labeled strikers, but the majority of their better powers give up damage in order to inflict status conditions like immobilize or prone or to push foes. Con based warlocks also have a lot of wizard-style zone attacks as daily powers. Sorcerers bring the area attack portion of the controller portfolio to the table and have a few zone powers of their own. Essentially, the star-pact warlock and the sorcerer in this party killed a wizard and each of them took half of the wizard's stuff. Thus the entire controller role is filled in this party even though none of the members of the party fit into one of WotC's controller boxes.

Addressing the party Mengu provided to buttress my point:

Originally Posted by Mengu

Just to add an example to Elder Basilisk's examples, consider the following party: Half-orc Tempest Fighter, Fire Genasi Assault Swordmage, Longtooth Shifter Avenging Paladin, Elf Predator Druid, Goliath Battle Cleric.

Again, if you look at this party, you see that it has a front line. It also has plenty of aggression control in the various defenders. While it appears to lack strikers, Mengu is absolutely correct when he points out that every member of this party is doing near striker level damage. In fact, if we speculate a bit on the characters:
Half orc tempest fighter: 18 strength, urgrosh and chain mail: basic attack 1d12+6 (avg 12.5); 1d12+2/ 1d8+2 dual strike
Fire Genasi assault swordmage: 18 Int, 1d10+4 plus white lotus Riposte (4) or triggered mark (1d10+4)
Longtooth shifter avenging paladin: 18 str, 18 Wis, fullblade 1d12+8 holy strike
elf predator druid: at least as much as a wizard
Goliath battle cleric: 18 str, greatsword 1d10+6

Compare that to a standard warlock (eldritch blast 1d10+4 +1d6 curse) and every member of the party (except for maybe the druid) is at the same level. If everyone in the party is doing at least low-striker level damage, then you've got that aspect of the striker role covered.

Now, I think this party has some serious weaknesses in the ranged area--only the druid has anything better than a javalin, but it serves well to illustrate that the presence or absence of the WotC approved roles do not define a balanced party, let alone an optimized one.

[interwyrm]

Elder-Basilisk, it seems like you're mostly saying that party A is inferior because you find the individual classes to be inferior.

What I'd be interested in is whether any of those classes have any synergy with any other classes. What *does* an ensnaring swordmage work well with?

[Elder-Basilisk]

Originally Posted by interwyrm

Elder-Basilisk, it seems like you're mostly saying that party A is inferior because you find the individual classes to be inferior.

What I'd be interested in is whether any of those classes have any synergy with any other classes. What *does* an ensnaring swordmage work well with?

That is certainly a part of it. My goal, after all, was to describe a party that is horribly balanced despite having every role covered. However, choosing weaker builds for most roles is not the reason that the party doesn't work. Party A doesn't work mostly because it has 4 ranged characters trying to hide behind one defender, every character is a low damage build, and while nearly everyone is a ranged character, no one has much that is usable beyond range 10. A party can do just fine with a couple characters that have nothing to do in melee but if the majority of the party is that way, they're going to be in trouble. Likewise, a party can do fine with a character who is a low-damage build. But if all the characters are low-damage then there's a problem. And a character doesn't need many characters with long-range attacks. But IMO they want at least one character with a range 20 attack that is better than a javalin.

As for ensnaring swordmage, my opinion is that ensnaring swordmages don't work well with anything--they should just be shielding swordmages and be done with it.

[interwyrm]

It seems to me that an all ranged party could work well if they are all highly mobile and focus on powers that push/slide/slow enemies. On the other hand, small rooms would be difficult.

[Eric Finley]

Small rooms, foggy swamps, twisty tunnels... there are lots of places where such a party would be suboptimal. Keeping both ranged and melee capability around is definitely very important to any party, just because the counters to all-melee and all-ranged are so readily available. (For example, our party is now hitting the third encounter in Storm Tower, and it's the first one where all-ranged wouldn't have been pretty heavily screwed... and even this one is a smallish room where we're certainly not more than a move+charge away from anything, even corner-to-corner.)

[Nifft]

Originally Posted by Elder-Basilisk

As for ensnaring swordmage, my opinion is that ensnaring swordmages don't work well with anything--they should just be shielding swordmages and be done with it.

I could see them being good with a party that laid down a lot of zones.

Cheers, -- N

[Thundershield]

I'm personally fond of the combination of a Battlerager and an Artificer using Resistive Formula.

Especially since Battleragers tend to have a good amount of HP and a high healing surge value, making the Enhanced Resistive Formula feat even more appealing and a splendid way for the Battlerager to indirectly defend the party via the Artificer's temp HP buff (it's a free action to activate, so you can use it the moment an ally is hit to let the temp HP granted rebuff the attack).

[SigmaX0]

Our party for our new campaign was chosen largely based on what people thought was 'cool', we have:

-Deva Retriubtion Avenger
-Razorclaw Shifter Predator Druid
-Deva Tactical Warlord
-Goliath Rageblood Barbarian

Think it should be a fun party, with me (barbarian) and warlord holding the front line, the avenger taking out artillery and the druid filling in the gaps where needed.

Think we'll suffer without a pure defender? Also, the druid plans to spend almost all of his time in beast form, meaning we may lack some AoE control.

[Nifft]

Originally Posted by SigmaX0

Think we'll suffer without a pure defender?

The answer to this is, IMHO: is anyone squishy?

If every PC has an AC that can handle melee combat, Defenders are a luxury.

Cheers, -- N

[Elder-Basilisk]

Originally Posted by Nifft

The answer to this is, IMHO: is anyone squishy?

If every PC has an AC that can handle melee combat, Defenders are a luxury.

Cheers, -- N

One caveat to that. If everyone has an AC and hit points that can handle melee combat and has effective attacks that will not provoke opportunity attacks then you can do without a defender. What you don't want is a situation where three bad guys around a character means that the bad guys get three OAs if he makes a single attack.

[Nifft]

Originally Posted by Elder-Basilisk

If everyone has an AC and hit points that can handle melee combat and has effective attacks that will not provoke opportunity attacks then you can do without a defender.

Right. Squishy means more than just "low AC". It means unable to thrive as a target in melee combat.

Cheers, -- N