4 roles - why 5 players?

[Gloombunny]

Exactly like the title. If there are 4 roles to be covered, why will 4e expect 5 players?

I think they'll write to expect 5 players because market research tells them that 5-player tables more common and/or because they think the game plays better that way, and they'll write for 4 roles because that's how many strong but flexible roles they came up with.

I think the lack of symmetry is a really good sign. It shows that they're not assuming that every party will have one of each role. If "at least two players will be playing characters of the same role" is an implicit assumption of the design, then they're definitely going to go to some effort to make sure that different characters can perform the same role in interestingly different ways.

 

[Oligopsony]

Because the roles are designed to be synergetic (and that's, more or less, their purpose) a 3-member party is going to differ from a 4-member party more so than a 5-member party will, since the 3-member party is the only one that hasn't satiated all its slots. Additonal PCs past four are gravy; additional PCs up to four are essential.

Since the variance in group size is greater than zero, it makes sense to place the number of core roles below that of the mean number of players. Otherwise a substantial number of groups would be operating with non-role-satiated parties, which would screw up the math (although not as much as the party size-indifferent ECLs of 3e.)

 

[Cam Banks]

Fire! Earth! Wind! Water! Heart!

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Vigilance]

Exactly like the title. If there are 4 roles to be covered, why will 4e expect 5 players?

They probably have market research data telling them most parties are 5 players, so they decided to balance the game with the average party size in mind.

 

[Mark]

Meet the newest iconic - Gary Gestalt the Ettin!

 

[Rechan]

I'm curious about something.

If encounters are balanced by the number of PCs (Number of PCs is equal to number of monsters per encounter, unless you add minions or elites/boss), then what is the system balancing when it balances for 5 man party?

I just hope that the game is balanced so you can function without one of the roles. If you have no defender, controller or leader, I hope your party doesn't fall apart as easily as it does in 3e.

If they can balance the game so no one has to go "I guess I'll have to play x since no one else is", I'll be happy.

 

[Mad Mac]

then what is the system balancing when it balances for 5 man party?

Well, there's the "one big monster vs 5 PCs" angle. And their adventure design will probably assume 5 players in the number of monsters and such they include.

 

[Lanefan]

The number of character "roles" and the number of PCs in a party would, in an ideal situation, not relate to each other at all. The number of players is also somewhat irrelevant as there's nothing anywhere saying a player can only play one PC at a time. I'm glad to see they're at least trying to acknowledge this.

I do hope the DMG gives some space as to how to best adjust things for parties that are much larger or smaller than the 5 PC design parameter, however...for example, how to work with a "party" of 2, or a party of 15+...as an inexperienced DM could easily run aground on this otherwise.

Lanefan

 

[Nyaricus]

Exactly like the title. If there are 4 roles to be covered, why will 4e expect 5 players?

For number of players, it's because most groups, as polled, have 5 players in 3e, thus WotC is re-calibrating the system in 4e to reflect that.

For number of roles, it's because that's something which has been around for years, and I guess they're sticking with it. 4 roles with 5 players also has the nice effect of letting that 5th player "try something new", which can be switched up campaign-to-campaign, or by TPK - whichever comes first .

cheers,
--N

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

It's a spare.