If you join a group with 4 players alread?

[Desdichado]

When I GM I take it as my responsibility to let the players play what they want, and I adjust the campaign to work around that.

Without a cue from the DM that he thinks you need something to balance out the party against something specific he has planned, I generally presume that other DMs would do the same for me and adjust their campaign to work around my choices.

 

[Arnwyn]

I chose Bard, for the support role - but it's equal with my other choice: Cleric.

You can never have too many clerics.

 

[Arnwyn]

When I GM I take it as my responsibility to let the players play what they want, and I adjust the campaign to work around that.

I kind of agree with this - as long as the players are all on board and understand the consequences of their decisions.

If the players decide to make 4 wizard characters, for instance, they had better clearly understand that the type of campaign that will be run will be entirely different than if they decided to create a Clr, Ftr, Rog, Wiz party.

If, however, they are expecting to still do "standard" adventuring things like raid dungeons with their 4 wizards - well, IMC they'd be in for quite a bit of a shock.

(Yet another reason to have the lines of communication open both ways, and if in doubt - always talk to the DM!)

 

[Darklone]

Tough choice between Bard and Cleric. Neither are a bad choice.

I went with Cleric because

1) You never can have TOO much healing in a party'
...

Did it ever occur to you that parties with two clerics NEED more healing ?

 

[trollwad]

Why dont you simply play what you want to play rather than try to powergame your way into what you perceive to be an "optimal" party configuration?

 

[CrimsonTemplar]

I'd go with Ranger. He's almost as beefy as the fighter & is well positioned to be a good twink archer. He can do some healing with a CLW wand & take some of the burden off the Cleric. He can scout ahead for the party (tho he's gonna have problems with traps over a DC 20). Tracking is always useful.

 

[Kalendraf]

I voted Bard, but also could have gone with Ranger. IMHO, bards are the perfect 5th or 6th character in any party, usually rounding it out and providing a lot of help with their bard songs. Ranger would be good to give this specific party some tracking and another warrior type. Unless one of the other characters was a ranged specialist, I'd opt to make the ranger an archer.

 

[Gez]

Paladin, followed by Druid, Sorcerer, and Monk, I would say.

 

[LeifVignirsson]

I voted Bard because that is one of my more favorite classes to play. Usually I don't have that luxury since my party usually waits for me to make the decision first... I don't know why...

Too bad this isn't including some of the other base classes... Anything out of MERCENARIES would be wonderful in this situation... and you can really play off the merc angle well... "Well, you see... Your INSERT CLASS HERE has a rare foot fungus that prevents him from planting his foot properly. If you want, I can stick around for... say... 100 gps a day?"

 

[rln]

I'd go for a half-elf bard, with the longbow as his weapon of choice. Partly because of the support role, and partly because that's the character I'd want to play.

And for those who say "you can't have too much healing", think again! Our party consists of the following:

Elf Wiz 9
Human Wiz 7
Half-Orc Brb 8
Human Mnk 8
Gnome Ftr4/Clr4
Dwarf Clr9
Gnome Ftr3/Rog3/Wiz(Ill)1/Gnomish Artificer 1 (yes, weird dude
Dwarf Rog 9 (Coming soon!)

Now, the wizards aren't in play at the same time, being the respective characters of the two DM's (one of whom is me). However, the clerics are both in play at the same time. Often, we've managed to reach the Big Baddie just in time as the other characters spells run out, magic effects disappear and so on. Had we had less healing, we would've been more careful.