Do you believe in a balanced party?

[Falkus]

I tend to discourage newcomers from playing already established archetypes in my d20 Modern campaign. We already have a sniper, so a second one would be redundant, but I don't stop them if they really want to play one.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Yes, the group knows what we need and tries to cover the bases. I'd consider it a must - though that does not mean it's a must from a player perspective. If the players are not going to do it, I try to fill in with either an NPC to fill the role or an item (for healing) which can mimmick the missing element.

It's all about adventure design, really.

The iconic four work best because they each fulfill a basic role during game play that accommodates general adventure design.

Can you get by without one of those roles being filled by something *like* the iconic 4? Absolutely. But from a DM perspective, your adventure will have to deal with the lack of a core group of skills in the party.

Because the iconic four are assumed by virtually every module designer, if you don't have them present in either PC or NPC form, you will certainly have to make changes.

 

[Remathilis]

Our group (6 players) usually fills the four basic food groups: tank, healer, nuker, trapsguy. Sneak and Socialite are both seconday and useful, but we've learned to adapt.

 

[Crothian]

Because the iconic four are assumed by virtually every module designer, if you don't have them present in either PC or NPC form, you will certainly have to make changes.

I don't think changes need to be made unless the modules requires a very specific solution to a bottleneck part of the adventure. Sometimes, designers have a room that can only get by if a 9th level druid casts warp wood to get past the magical invicible guardian. In that case things might need changed if the party has no Druid. But in most other cases I've found players get really creative for getting past things or dealing with suituations that are a challenge for them.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Well, there are many modules where a rogue is simply *required*; similarly, others where a Wizard is *necessary*.

I would agree that there is some flexibility form module to module - and even group to group I guess. But many modules have bottlenecks by design. As a DM, you should be able to identify the bottleneck, if one exists, and deal with it ahead of time.

I never run a module RAW, so I make the necessary changes for my players (if I am using a published advanture for more than a map) well ahead of time.

 

[Falkus]

Yes, the group knows what we need and tries to cover the bases. I'd consider it a must - though that does not mean it's a must from a player perspective. If the players are not going to do it, I try to fill in with either an NPC to fill the role or an item (for healing) which can mimmick the missing element.

Ditto. In my d20 Modern campaign, my current party has a NPC hacker who goes with them to handle the computer work, and an acoylte who, while doesn't go on assignments with them most of the time, is willing to provide healing for them.

 

[nameless]

I think covering multiple bases is important, but it's not hard for players who are on their toes. In the Eberron game I've bene playing in for about a year, my character has gone from level 3 to level 12 and there's never been a cleric or wizard in the party. My character took a dip of ranger at the beginning, so he can use wands of cure light (and now uses cure moderate) wounds very easily. A couple potions of lesser restoration and the biggest long-term threats are covered.

We don't get to deal with the damage in combat, but any fight we can walk away from is a fight we can heal up from afterwards. Our strategy is really to never walk into a fight in the first place unless we're going to win. You'd be surprised at how often you can avoid being hurt if you treat dangerous situations as dangerous.

 

[Quickbeam]

Party balance is completely overrated IMHO. What's more important is party synergy, cohesiveness and a sense of unified purpose when the going gets tough.

One of my favorite PC groups of all time consists of three fighter-types in Josh Dyal's Dark Heritage campaign. Our party lacks many of the skills and abilities commonly perceived as vital to success (and survival), but we make do and have a boatload of fun in the process .

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I'll DM for anything and play with anything. I prefer to have at least 1 guy who can use wands of cure X but we've even gone with out that before.

 

[IronWolf]

As a DM, any combination will work. I'm not necessarily going to change up encounters to account for the difference, but neither am I going to go out of my way to exploit a potential weakness.

Besides, I've seen the dwarven fighter in the group I currently DM trip the spear trap, get hit and then proceed to take the said spear as a weapon, set off the poison gas trap and breathe deeply to enjoy the aroma and set off the poison needle trap wondering what fly just bit him. Rogue? We don't need no stinking rogue!