NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord_Blacksteel" data-source="post: 7652279" data-attributes="member: 53082">Within the framework of D&D 4E, “success” is achieved by having the appropriate mix of classes. Wait, what? I do not see how this is "success" - success comes from playing the game, not from setting up the party.Assuming the right number of players, you need at least one leader, one striker, one defender, and one controller, with additional characters expanding the striker or defender role. As mentioned above this is guidance, not a hard formula. People have been playing with all kinds of mixed up parties since the game came out. It can certainly change the flavor of the game, but it has nothing to do with success/failure.Leave out one of the roles, and an “appropriately constructed” encounter can become much more difficult than the math suggests. Well I suppose it "can" but I don't know about "much more difficult". It can also become easier. The "double solo" encounter that might be a serious challenge for a party with a single defender and no controller could be a cakewalk for the party with two controllers and extra strikers. Very often, a campaign starts with players lobbying for their favorite role, with some having to settle for a second or third choice in order to maintain party balance.Why? Who are they lobbying? Why would they settle for a second or third choice? If a party ends up with some odd mix of roles it is not a gamebreaker! Who does this?As a fellow mostly-DMs-rarely-plays guy, let me share this thought if you need something to push against:1) Pick something you have never seen played in your own campaign. New can be fun.2) Pick something you thought was played poorly but had a lot of potential if they just did this one thing different. Do that one thing. See if it makes for a "better" character than what you saw.</blockquote>

Verification