4 roles - why 5 players?


log in or register to remove this ad

Someone has to carry the gold.

comics_nodwick.jpg
 

Aust Diamondew said:
Hmm. I'd guess for two reasons.
1) D&D groups typically have 5 players (don't know if this is true or not).
2) There were 4 traditional roles, warrior, thief, mage, priest. While 4e changes these roles, I guess they want to stick at least somewhat with the old way.

I know I aim for 5 players, that way if someone can't make it, the other four are likely to, and thus less cancelled sessions due to insufficient numbers of players.
 

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

Because with the average of D&D players increasing, you have to anticipate at least one person being missing for every session due to RL issues.
 

Ryan Stoughton said:
Exactly like the title. If there are 4 roles to be covered, why will 4e expect 5 players?
Because there are NOT 4 roles to be covered. That is the main issue. There are four roles that each class is one of, but the important thing is that a party in 4e does not need to have those roles covered, so it currently seems. A party might consist of all strikers and defenders or some other combo and still be roughly able to handle the things a party with all four roles covered.
 
Last edited:

Because they think that the butche...err simplified rules will add 1 casual gamer to every party of 4.

Someway it's a strategic decision: start the game with 5 PCs, and when one will leave you remain with all roles covered :D
 


Variant roles?

backup?

Multiclassed guy?

That could be anything... and in anyway... The size of parties in the d&d videogames always was 4-6, as far I know. There was 'duplicates' - with variations, and multiclassed guys.

Who never had put a second warrior as a barb or paladin maybe, or a fighter/cleric, or... etc...
 


Remove ads

Top