Classes and Roles: supply and demand

I've been looking at making a character for a 4E game; the group needs a defender. I already play a fighter in another game and I don't really want to play a paladin which leaves warden as the only choice and unfortunately the concept doesn't grab me - the game is core only so the swordmage is not an option.

That got me thinking about the breakdown of classes and roles in the core rulebooks.

Player's Handbook I
Defender: 2, 25%; Fighter, Paladin
Leader: 2, 25%; Cleric, Warlord
Striker: 3, 37.5%; Ranger, Rogue, Warlock
Controller: 1, 12.5%; Wizard

Player's Handbook II
Defender: 1, 12.5%; Warden
Leader: 2, 25%; Bard, Shaman
Striker: 3, 37.5%; Avenger, Barbarian, Sorcerer
Controller: 2, 25%; Druid, Invoker

Overall
Defender: 3, 18.75%; Fighter, Paladin, Warden
Leader: 4, 25%; Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Shaman
Striker: 6, 37.5%; Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Avenger, Barbarian, Sorcerer
Controller: 3, 18.75%; Wizard, Druid, Invoker

At first glance it seems like WotC is not writing enough defender or controller classes, about the right amount of leader classes, and too many striker classes. Then I looked at the breakdown of classes across the three groups I'm playing in.

Group 1
Defender: 2, 28.6%; Fighter, Paladin
Leader: 1, 14.3%; Cleric
Striker: 4, 57.1%; Ranger (bow), Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock
Controller: 0

Group 2
Defender: 1, 16.7%; Fighter
Leader: 1, 16.7%; Cleric
Striker: 4, 66.6%; Avenger, Ranger (bow), Rogue, Sorcerer
Controller: 0 (was 1 until the player of the wizard retired it for the sorcerer)

Group 3
Defender: 1, 16.7%; ? (this will be my character)
Leader: 2, 33.3%; Cleric, Warlord
Striker: 2, 33.3%; Barbarian, Ranger (bow)
Controller: 1, 16.7%; Wizard

Overall
Defender: 4, 21.05%; Fighter x2, Paladin, ?
Leader: 4, 21.05%; Cleric x3, Warlord
Striker: 10, 52.6%; Avenger, Barbarian, Ranger (bow) x3, Rogue x2, Sorcerer x2, Warlock
Controller: 1, 5.3%; Wizard

So looking at the - admittedly limited - data from these three groups it would seem that WotC could have done with another defender class, they got the amount of leader classes about right, they could have included more striker classes, and could almost have dropped the controller role altogether.

It's also interesting to consider how much this distribution is influenced by the proportions provided in the rulebooks and how much by player preferences independent of the rulebooks; the preponderance of damage dealers compared to tanks or healers in the population of the average World of Warcraft server comes to mind - players like to see the big damage numbers floating over the heads of mobs.

How does your group compare in class and role composition? Why do you think your group has the mix of classes and roles that it does? Do you think the supply of classes in each role is matching the demand in your group?

(I've entered the responses into a spreadsheet and attached a couple of charts from that sheet. I'll update the charts if there are sufficient additional responses.)

Current data set
Groups: 22
Characters: 121
Average Group: 5.5

They did make another defender class. It's the swordmage. Just because your group doesn't want to use it doesn't mean it's not there.

If you don't want to play a Paladin because of the "goody two-shoes" thing, 4e paladins can be otherwise aligned (just find a god that matches the ethos you want and you are golden). Furthermore, you don't even have to stick to it - you keep your powers (you may piss off the god, and the other followers of that god, but you can take the heat right?).

Another option: Don't play a defender. Go the ye olde D&D route and hire some mercenaries to be the party meat shields.

Particle_Man said:

Another option: Don't play a defender. Go the ye olde D&D route and hire some mercenaries to be the party meat shields.

Click to expand...

Or as my group put it, "Play russian roulette: next person that dies (because someone will) has to play the defender."

Not to threadjack, but I do think that "getting one guy in each role" isn't necessary. That a good DM can accommodate a missing role. It's harder, but it can be done, and one shouldn't force the players to play roles they don't want. But that's a side thing to the question the OP poses.

Very few controllers in any of these groups. The wizard layer in my group switched to Swordmage and felt it was a big Win - maybe Controllers are teh suckz in 4E?

My group consists of a Fighter, a Ranger, a Rogue and a Warlock. And the Fighter is a Greatweapon one. Go figure.

However, what the game really needs isn't more Striker classes. It's more traps/hazards/terrain for us DMs!

It's the "sexy angle" that people wanted.

I mean, when I started playing 1e, the ranger was the popular class since that tended to have the "sexy appeal" going on there....

Throw in that you don't have to be a controller to use game changing rituals and the sexy is even more apparently lacking in controllers.

Boringly one of each role, but if things don't improve for the Wiz I reckon he'll swap PC to another striker, sorcerer probably....he likes to hand out 'teh pwnage' damage rather than 'teh inconvenience' effects to the baddies!

Also, many classes have secondary roles. You can build an Avenger who can act as a secondary defender, a Sorcerer can replace a non-controller-built Wizard, etc. I played in a game with three wizards, two defenders and a Bard and it worked because the wizards generally took turns taking a couple of hits and with six dailies to trot out damage wasn't too shabby.

In my group the role we can do well enough without is the controller. Striker for damage, defender to take hits and miscellaneous to do weird stuff and things work out. Our defender is a quasi striker and our striker is a quasi defender. Our leader is leader through and through.

Works well.