3 Leaders in a group - too many?

[fba827]

About how many encounters do you often get before the party gets an extended rest? If only a couple then the party will basically have constantly replenished healing surges and therefore almost always be healed.

But if the party gets in 5-6 encounters before an extended rest then they'll run out of healing surges if they spend them frivolously and it is a problem that controlls itself.

The group I play with doesn't often get that many encounters between extended rests (and it works for our particular story reasons, so it's fine) but i have to say, if we had 3 leaders -i- woud be bored as a player or dm. there would be no threat to our hit points, and we'd have few potential for damage output spikes and so on..

I think a good question was raised above -- -why- does the player want to be a bard, what about the class appeals to him/her? Could the same thing be accomplished by some multiclassing or simple reflavoring of abilities? Or (if you're comfortable with it) some house-rule modifying to make a custom sort of class that is mostly bard (minus the 2/encounter heal replaced with something else)?

of just ask that none of them focus on healing abilities other than the default inspiring word/healing spirits/etc. the shaman and warlord type that you mention don't see to be the build that gets the stronger healing focus, but they could always still be picking powers that do so.

But bottom line - no, he/she shouldn't have to play a PC that he/she is unhappy with.


Is there another class that she wants to play (that isn't a leader) ?

 

[Obryn]

I've found that a leader-heavy, striker-light party will result in grind, sure as the sun rises in the east.

Plus, I guarantee that you will get frustrated with your inability to ever knock a party member out for any length of time. I speak from experience.

-O

 

[Evilhalfling]

hybrid bards/sorcerers work really well.
Just focus on the Sorcerer/damage dealing side.
It might not work as the primary leader, but in your group it should be fine.

 

[Nymrohd]

I've found that a leader-heavy, striker-light party will result in grind, sure as the sun rises in the east.

Plus, I guarantee that you will get frustrated with your inability to ever knock a party member out for any length of time. I speak from experience.

-O

Very much agreed. After the first four you want to consider a second striker (heck as soon as you have defender and leader you could just start adding strikers.)
But anyway this really depends on what type of bard your friend is interested in. If he is interested on inspiration heavy bard, or a weapon user then you you really cannot keep Wizard on your class mix. But if she wants to be savvy and cunning, or focus on illusions and charms, bard+wizard is a great combo since that type of a bard is more controller than leader anyway.
As far as group synergy is concerned, you should do your best to increase damage of the group (pick powers that create vulnerabilities.)

 

[Piratecat]

I've found that a leader-heavy, striker-light party will result in grind, sure as the sun rises in the east.

Plus, I guarantee that you will get frustrated with your inability to ever knock a party member out for any length of time. I speak from experience.

-O

I agree! If you want to go this route it's easy to adjust, though; use the traditional trick of increasing monster damage by +5/tier (or even +1/level), and reduce monster hit points to 60-75%. Then see how that feels.

 

[Gothire]

Thanks for all the suggestions, particularly the ones regarding asking her why she wants to play a bard. I think that's the place to start; if she really is interested in the class for its mechanics, then I may have no choice but to have her switch and just compensate in the ways you guys suggested. If she just wants the singing, the rogue or one of the hybrid options may be the way to go.

 

[JohnSnow]

There was a great article in Dragon a while back on using bard as the basis for an arcane archer character. Basically, do a Cha/Dex build, multiclass Ranger and aim mostly for powers that hex and control. If your player really likes the bard, that might be one option.

Alternatively, if your player is just bored with her wizard, maybe she'd get a kick out of one of the other controllers with a totally different "feel," like the druid or seeker (PHB3).

I've often found that letting a player play what they want is usually the best way to keep them happy. My groups usually have some odd combos, but everyone's enjoying the game. 4e seems to be a lot more forgiving on this level than 3e was, in my experience. A leader is still pretty useful, but even that isn't strictly essential. Just as a full disclosure, here's the two groups I'm running:

Group A
Tiefling hybrid rogue/bard
Human paladin (of the Raven Queen)
Half-elf swordmage (multiclass warlock)
Elf ranger (archer build)
Human cleric (of Bahamut)

Group B
Halfling rogue
Human cleric (of Bahamut)
Elf ranger (archer build)
Gnome wizard (illusionist)
Human fighter (tempest build)

A is currently going through Keep on the Shadowfell, and B just started Rescue at Rivenroar. A lot of the characters in A changed in the first few sessions. For instance, the swordmage was originally a warlock, and liked the flavor but not the way it was playing, hence the switch and the multiclassing. The ranger started as a tiefling warlord, but the player decided it wasn't to his taste, so we just retconned his character. And the tiefling was straight rogue at first - but was rebuilt when her player found out that the hybrid bard thing was possible.

And despite the two similar characters, none of the characters are actually in both groups, although most of the players are. The player of the elf ranger from group A isn't in Group B, but he's the only one. The swordmage from A is B's cleric, A's cleric plays B's wizard, A's rogue/bard plays B's ranger, and the player of the moody paladin stepped into the role of the goofy halfling. B's fighter is an NPC I slipped to give the group a little more backup for their adventure, but I'm pretty sure he isn't necessary. On the other hand, if we pick up another player, maybe they'll want to take him on.

I guess the whole point of that was that oddball group mixes work just fine. And it pays to be flexible and work to give your players what they want (within reason, obviously).

 

[mkill]

I'd say the issue isn't so much the healing, you can never really have enough of that. People always forget that leaders also buff. And that's where the issue is.

Most of a leader's powers aren't great on their own, they need another character to take the bonus and smash with it. With 3 leaders, one striker, one defender, I just don't see where this is heading. Sure, the leaders can buff each other to some extend, but it's not effective to buff to get a higher chance of getting the next buff.

This *may* work if the bard is built in a way to deemphasize the buffing aspect. Bards also have powers to debuff enemies, and the character can reduce friction with other leaders if she concentrates on those.

Still, the party would be better off with another controller or a melee striker (rogue, avenger, ranger, barbarian...).
Talk to the player. If it's just the style of the bard she likes, she could try to recreate the wizard as an illusionist. Or she could go rogue. Or try something completely different and shelf the bard idea until your party builds a new group. Or maybe the warlord or shaman player wants to switch classes too?

The main thing I would want to avoid as DM is that the player is unhappy with the new PC too, because she can't contribute and always steps on someone's toes.