Balanced & Optimised or Not?

[Iron Sky]

I really think it would be hard to play without a leader-type. Not impossible, but darn hard. We played our first game without a striker, and that went fairly well (though fights were long). I also think defenders and controllers are fairly optional (though quite helpful). But not having a leader sucks hard.

Second this ^^

I can't imagine trying to play without a leader, unless everyone had quick-draw and the DM gave out healing pots with every batch of treasure and every town had a potion store.

In our first playtest group we tried had one of each role, and we almost casually mopped our way through 3 1/2 levels of dungeon, regardless of what composition of enemies the DM threw at us. Never even had anyone drop to 0 hp and only once did anyone stay bloodied for more than a round. Was like a well-oiled machine. My favorite part about it, aside from being kick-ass, was that each person had a specific job that was different from everyone elses in significant ways:

Our Paladin was dedicated to getting in the enemies' faces as soon as possible and draw the attention of as many of them as he could, challenging the biggest of them.
Our rogue was dedicated to positioning himself where he could get CA and do as much damage to the biggest enemy he could find, as fast as he could.
Our wizard was focused on looking for how to get the most targets in his AoEs as he could, especially if they were minions.
Our cleric was always watching everyone's health, with healing anyone who was bloodied being his highest priority and distributing buffs being his secondary.

Everyone felt unique.

For our "real" group has no controller, no defender. One of each striker, one cleric. Damage gets spread pretty evenly amongst the ranger, rogue, and cleric (warlock is fey, so can usually teleport to safety or eyebite single targets that are focusing on him). At first, our three strikers felt very similar, especially since we all opened up with ranged attacks. Now at 6th level and we've each become more specialized there's enough diversity in our powers that we feel unique.

Fights can be "spikey" without a defender(anyone might go down if enough enemies focus fire and/or the DM rolls well) and also due to our extreme damage output (a few lucky rolls can drop half the enemies in a round or two, swinging the battle in our favor, while bad rolls can put us on the edge quickly). On the whole though, the group works great - only fights with x2 our "balanced" xp total tend to be at all difficult.

I think as long as you have a leader or two, decent tactics, and every player can take a hit or two before going down, it'll work fine. As long as everyone can adapt and select feats and powers that work to fill the parties' gaps, it should be fine. For example, our warlock selects AoE and controllerish powers whenever he can to help cover our lack of wizard and the rest of us have at least some focus on increasing hp/defenses to help cover our lack of defender.

If the players start without a focus on group balance, it'll probably be ok, but if they continue to disregard it, they'll eventually hit a fight where diversity would keep them alive and over-specialization means they fail. I think that playing well tactically together and making smart personal choices far outweighs having group balance as far as survivability goes. A well-balanced group that has people not playing their roles well will probably do far worse than an "unbalanced" group that use good tactics and makes synergistic power choices (like our current one).

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't actually play WoW, but I have two good friends who do. From what they've told me and from what I've seen, WoW is balanced so that if your team is not on the ball, you won't be able to complete higher-level team-based content. D&D isn't nearly as picky as that.

This isn't entirely true: It's possible to put together an unusual group, think up interesting tactics, pay attention and kick ass, pretty much the same way it is in D&D.

An optimised group will make the tactics of combat easier.

An unusual group will require significantly more tactical knowhow to pull through.

You just have to realise that if you choose to go down the second path, that kick in the door and charge play will be quite heavy on casualties.

Unfortunately the people who are likely to not optimize are also likely to be weak in tactics.

 

[kaomera]

My 20 Int Warlord is not a spazz decision!

I wouldn't think that it was.

Maybe my choice of words was poor. What I mean by "spazzy" is this: I want the other players to have cool characters, that they are enthusiastic about. But a player should be able to explain (in a manner that can be understood by the other players) why their character is cool. I OK with any class maxing out Int if they want a +5 Int bonus, for whatever reasons they choose. But I don't want a player maxing Int "because I want my character to be super-smart" and then avoiding any circumstances where that Int bonus might come into play. A more specific example: I don't want a player to take Hellfire Blood for his Paladin because "the name sounds cool!", and then not take Fearsome Smite as his 1st-level encounter power, and then complain that the feat does nothing for him...

 

[keterys]

When I started a couple games recently, I suggested that people consider having at least a defender and leader in the party because it was my experience that those were most critical for party sanity. Not necessarily success, but otherwise people would stress out far more.

In the game I'm using modules, I also told people I was using modules so I was only going to alter things so much. I don't have a controller in that game, but it's been fine so far.

I do give advice when it seems welcome, like pointing out what I think of powers or how I'd consider spending points - my rogue player and I discuss powers and builds extensively. The warlock not at all, because he wasn't interested in discussing.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Getting to an instance only to find your tank is specced MS and has DPS gear on, or finding your priest is shadow and has zero mana regen or spirit gear, or finding your rogue is lolstep maces, or your hunter has no idea how to trap, etc. is really annoying.

It is almost like you are trying to speak English but.. I... just... can't seem to understand a single part of that sentence!

 

[Kzach]

It is almost like you are trying to speak English but.. I... just... can't seem to understand a single part of that sentence!

I'll rephrase, just for you

Getting to a dungeon only to find that your fighter has a big zonking greataxe and no plate mail, or finding your cleric chose no healing powers and gave himself a low wisdom but really high charisma to maximise his weak carnage skills, or finding your eladrin rogue is using big, heavy, maces that don't work with sneak attack, or your archer ranger chose strength-based, melee powers instead of ranged attacks and can't hit for poop.

Is that better?

 

[zillah]

I'll rephrase, just for you

Getting to a dungeon only to find that your fighter has a big zonking greataxe and no plate mail, or finding your cleric chose no healing powers and gave himself a low wisdom but really high charisma to maximise his weak carnage skills, or finding your eladrin rogue is using big, heavy, maces that don't work with sneak attack, or your archer ranger chose strength-based, melee powers instead of ranged attacks and can't hit for poop.

Is that better?

I really doubt you have experienced this, and guessing from your posts if you have you wouldn't put up with it. There is a difference between non optimized and incompetent. You know what it is. I wouldn't even play with players like that unless they were like 6

 

[Kzach]

I really doubt you have experienced this, and guessing from your posts if you have you wouldn't put up with it. There is a difference between non optimized and incompetent. You know what it is. I wouldn't even play with players like that unless they were like 6

Whooooooosh!

There seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

 

[tanj]

Whooooooosh!

There seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

Well, that's what happens when you have an 8 in your primary ability and roll low.

 

[inati]

I was on the PVP team in WoW, I was a MS specced warrior, and yet I have tanked plenty of the mobs in the game. I had two sets of gear, one for tanking, and one for PVP. Did we win fights I was tanking? Yes and No, but what person in WoW can say they have never wiped before? Did I ever cause the group to go slower because I was the "wrong" spec? Never.

I find that the success and failure of the raid/party is more dependant upon the competence of the player who is playing the character, as opposed to what build the character is. If this were not true, then why is it that you can have two perfectly specced and equipped tanks, but one is clearly better than the other? This train of thought, one of optimisation and specs, discounts the factor that is the player far too much.

Thankfully, D&D is not WoW, and despite the protests from the naysayers, never will be. I say this because D&D is about gathering and playing a game together, but this game is run by another human, not some cold, heartless 1s and 0s hurtling through a silicon wafer in some far off location.

Don't discount the resourcefulness of Humans so readily. It's what makes this game special.