Do you believe in a balanced party?

[Crothian]

Do you feel that there needs to be at least one character to cover the combat, one to cover the healing, one to covert the arcane magic, and one to cover the skills/traps ? It most cases it is Fighter, cleric, Wizard, and rogue but with many new core classes out there it is still possible to fill the basic roles with different classes. Do you feel that some need to always be in a party? Or perhaps a party can consist of any class combination or even all the characters are of the same class and still be okay?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I've long been an opponent of this sort of thinking -- usual group makeups are fun, and always having the cannonical 4 streches my credibility -- but my players stick pretty close to it nontheless.

 

[Arnwyn]

I voted no, with a caveat.

Any character combo is fine - but the players must be prepared and willing for a certain kind of campaign. For other types of campaigns, then the "4 basic roles" have to be filled for any hope of survival.

If the players want to play any class they want in any combo they want, then they must make very clear to the DM what kind of campaign they want to play in, and what goals and situations they expect for their characters (and then the DM must decide whether he/she is willing to DM such a campaign).

 

[orsal]

It helps. If you are missing any of the basic types, you'll wish you had it covered. But you can still adventure without them all. The only thing I consider an absolute necessity is the healer, and that only if you're away from civilization for a significant time (like a typical dungeon crawl) -- for short vignettes even the healer is dispensible.

 

[Thanee]

Well, you do not really need them. A group of four wizards can certainly work well and be a lot of fun, but in general and in a typical adventure environment, it's good to have at least some of the roles covered, tho that depends a bit on which you have, so the actual combinations can vary and also depend on campaign style and whatnot.

Bye
Thanee

 

[azmodean]

I actively discourage my players from playing a class, including a healer, just because the party "needs" one. I want everyone to have the most fun possible, and unless someone WANTS to play a certain class, I don't want it in my game. I can work around this stuff, I can be a pretty creative guy

It also helps that I don't necessarily run "by the book". If something is detracting from the fun, I change it (with due caution and making sure the players would actually like it changed)

So for instance if there wasn't a cleric, I might buff the heal skill or provide special magical healing items that can be used to recover party hp out of combat, but remain affordable.

I'd have to put more thought into it if I start running modules instead of my homebrew, which I am considering.

 

[billd91]

I'll let my players show up with anything that fits the campaign, though I do encourage them to try to be relatively self-sufficient or pay the price. Usually that means that they have to cover fighting and healing reasonably well at the very least. If they don't provide it themselves, they'll have to find it in-game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I voted no. Party balance is often a good thing, but any combination can work. The first campaign I ran had no true melee fighter (a high-level rogue did that), and no cleric, druid, or other good healer. The second had no rogue and only a druid for occasional divine magic, and was mostly fighters and casters. The third was a large group, but also never had any sort of rogue.

OTOH, when playing and not DMing, I always ask other people what they're playing, and try to choose something that fills a role no one else has touched.

I prefer a group with a variety of different characters, which will inherently result in many roles being filled. Certainly, I do not think the four-character archetype group is necessary.

 

[jrients]

As a player I find it useful but not necessary to have all 4 traditional roles filled. As a DM I don't really care what the players choose to play, but I won't change any encounters because they lack a cleric or whatever.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Not really. I encourage my players to try different things and not think "We need a ...".
I run the campaign based off of their character choices so not picking the classics will not hurt them.