Forked Thread: DM advise for an all-striker party?-Pushing/Forcing players into roles

[Mouseferatu]

My previous 3.5e game had no Cleric, Druid or Bard (or healer of any other type). They muddled through okay.

I'd honestly like to see an all-Striker party, to get an idea of what the other roles bring to the table. I'd like to see an all-Leader party for much the same reason.

IMHO it'd be an educational experience for everyone involved. So yeah, if it happens, I'd run with it. When PCs die, players may decide to change role -- but that's up to them. Having a balanced party isn't a guarantee of survival.

Cheers, -- N

I encourage but do not require balanced parties. I'll tell them that they're responsible for making up for any deficiencies they find in their party composition. I'll usually adjust some challenges for the party's composition so that all classes get a chance to hold the center stage, but will also make sure much of it has its own internal plausibility regardless of the current character composition. If that makes things either particularly easy or hard because of character development choices, then them's the breaks. If they consistently have trouble with those segments, I may suggest but ultimately leave it up to them to decide how they want to deal with it.

These.

I do not ever advocate forcing a player to play a particular class or role. Encourage, yes, but never force.

This sort of thing is what I've long referred to as a "self-correcting problem." If the party is going to suffer more casualties because it lacks, say, a leader or a defender, then so be it. Sooner or later, one of the people who dies will come back in the missing roll, and the problem will cease to exist.

In the meantime, let people play what they want, and if it works out, so much the better.

 

[kerbarian]

The party I'm DMing for started with paladin, ranger, rogue, wizard, and a player who went with warlord because the party needed a leader. After a couple sessions, he decided he really didn't like warlord, and he wasn't at all interested in cleric. He brought in a new character -- a warlock -- and none of the other players were interested in the leader classes, either.

So now we have three strikers, a defender, and a controller. Healing has been a bit rough, but as of second level, three of the characters have multiclassed into cleric or warlord for the daily heal, and the paladin has lay on hands, so they're doing okay.

They understand the need for healing and how useful a leader class would be, but no one wants to play one, and I'm not going to force anyone to play a class they don't want. I can make recommendations, but it's up to them to decide how they'll enjoy the game most. If they'd rather all play classes they're excited about and have to struggle with healing as a party, I think that can be viable in 4e (unlike 3e), so I'll try to help them make it work.

As DM, I've focused on handing out magic items that help with healing -- dwarven armor, a lifedrinker dagger, healing potions, etc. There will probably be a belt of sacrifice in their near future.

OTOH, if they were all strikers and none of them made an effort to help with healing by multiclassing, I would expect them to get frustrated no matter how much I tried to help, so I might be a little more heavy-handed in a case like that. It's probably better to have a little strife upfront than to have characters start dying and have the whole party feel ineffective. However, that's a delicate call -- do I really know the game better than the players to the point that I can make decrees about the party "for their own good"? On one hand, that's pretty presumptuous. On the other, the players are relying on me to make the game fun and work smoothly. If I don't think I can do that with the party they want to play, then it seems reasonable for me to ask them to change it.

 

[JDillard]

So now we have three strikers, a defender, and a controller. Healing has been a bit rough, but as of second level, three of the characters have multiclassed into cleric or warlord for the daily heal, and the paladin has lay on hands, so they're doing okay.

And this is, I believe, the reason they did multiclassing the way they did in 4th. It's not intended as a way to make split classes, it's a way to help fill out situations in which a needed role is empty.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I will echo the sentiment that 'encourage' is the best solution.

I always welcome players with a short comment on what I expect in the game and that I allow them to play pretty much whatever concept they want... with the warning that if certain abilities are missing then it might be more difficult on them.

I do this in all game systems {except Paranoia...for obvious reasons}

 

[Arbitrary]

As DM, I've focused on handing out magic items that help with healing -- dwarven armor, a lifedrinker dagger, healing potions, etc. There will probably be a belt of sacrifice in their near future.

If the players recognize a deficiency and make an effort to shore up that weakness, and the DM is willing to include items also with that goal in mind, there should never be a reason to tell anyone that they have to play X class.

The party I'm DMing for doesn't have a controller but they do have two Dragonborne. After a couple levels they both upgraded their breath weapons to the 5X5, the Warlock multiclassed Wizard for Scorching Burst, and I included a Thunderburst Bow for the Ranger and they just crafted a Wand of Burning Hands for the Warlock.

The problem is essentially solved.

 

[the Jester]

Party composition is something that should generally be discussed when the group first comes together, before or during character creation. There needs to be a consensus about whether the party should be more or less balanced, or whether it is more important to have each player play their favorite class.

Exactly. This is a 'social contract' issue- there is no one right answer, only the answer that is right for your group.

That said, I prefer to let the players play what they'd like and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Iron Sky]

Our group did a dungeon-crawl playtest with 1 of each role. We each felt unique, had varied and variable tactics, and were butt-stomping effective as a group. Only one or two characters were bloodied in any given fight and they never stayed bloodied for more than a round.

Now that we're in the actual campaign, we have 1 of each striker and a leader. The strikers feel and play very similar in spite of their thematic differences, our tactics during each fight are almost cookie-cutter, and our fights are extremely swingy. Most characters are bloodied in each fight, one goes negative every few fights, and we end most fights with a couple of us bloodied and the healer out of healing.

So, in our group's short experience, I'd say having a wide variety of the roles represented is not only great for survivability, it also helps characters feel unique and useful. I knew a balanced group would be better tactically, but not until we started playing did I find that it made it more fun from the combat variety standpoint as well.

 

[doctorhook]

When I started my 4E campaign, I sat my four veteran players down together and said, "Look, I want you guys to go into this campaign with each of you in one of the four roles." Amongst themselves, the Striker (Warlock) and Controller (Wizard) were selected without contest. The other two wanted to be Fighters, but eventually agreed to be a Defender (Paladin) and Leader (Warlord) respectively. Thus, I had my four roles, and therefore allowed my three new players to choose to be whatever they liked.

In my estimation, things sorted themselves out nicely.

 

[Sparky]

A friend at work started running a game just after 4e came out. We're doing KotS. There was a lot of interest in the game and the first session had 6 of the 7 players show up.

Eladrin Cleric
Human Fighter
Tiefling Rogue
Dragonborn Paladin
Tiefling Paladin
Dragonborn Wizard

The next session we added 2 players. The Tiefling Paladin couldn't make it. We were back at 7 players. Session 2's party looked like this:

Eladrin Cleric
Human Fighter
Tiefling Rogue
Dragonborn Paladin
Dragonborn Ranger
Half-Elf Warlock
Dragonborn Wizard

Between this session and the next the Wizard and the Cleric switched players. And the Tiefling Paladin became a Warlord. Also - all 8 players showed up for the third and most recent session. The party now looks like this:

Dragonborn Cleric
Human Fighter
Tiefling Rogue
Dragonborn Paladin
Dragonborn Ranger
Half-Elf Warlock
Tiefling Warlord
Eladrin Wizard

Astute readers will note that we now have one of every class. It's really cool to see all those classes slinging their different powers around. We're pretty settled in now and the DM really let us have it this past session. It was a blast.

So... while as a DM I don't demand roles being filled, I can tell you - from the player's chair and from a mechanics standpoint - the way the different classes and roles interract is just pure solid fun.

It helps that the players (and DM, of course) have good grasps on the mechanics and can help eachother with maximizing eachother's potential. In a happy, friendly way.

 

[Rechan]

Something that is missing in this dialogue si something I've observed:

In many gaming groups, you will likely have at least one guy who will fill any hole the party needs. What class he plays really doesn't matter to him.

If one of these guys is in your group, then there's really no need to tell or force people to play what is needed, just say "Hey Bill, we got no muscle" or "Dang, you guys have no ranged support".