Party of four or five?
- Thread starter vhailor
- Start date
Fundin Strongarm
First Post
For a party of 4, I think one of each role works well, although losing the Wizard for another defender or striker is probably okay.
For 5, again, one of each role is good and then the 5th could be a defender, striker or leader (in that order) without much probem. I probably wouldn't make a laser/ranged cleric in that scenario though. A battle cleric and either warlord would be fine.
For 5, again, one of each role is good and then the 5th could be a defender, striker or leader (in that order) without much probem. I probably wouldn't make a laser/ranged cleric in that scenario though. A battle cleric and either warlord would be fine.
Patlin
Explorer
Our current group of five includes two clerics, a paladin, a melee ranger, and a warlock. I've never been a really big fan of a balanced party, and the most effective group is going to vary encounter by encounter anyway. Holes in the party makeup encourage creative problem solving!
Party of 1-2: Anything (since adventures will have to be very specialized)
Party of 3: Defender (any), Striker, Leader (may be anything if defender is Paladin with good wisdom)
Party of 4: Fighter (or Swordmage), Paladin, Leader (any), Striker (any)
Party of 5: Same as Party of 4 + Controller
In a party of 2-4 with no controller it may be helpful to have a dragonborn, or a Half-elf (warlock or taclord) with diletante Scorching Burst.
These are what I would consider balanced groups, though nothing says you must have a balanced composition. Two Paladins, a Fighter, and a Swordmage can easily make a fun party.
Party of 3: Defender (any), Striker, Leader (may be anything if defender is Paladin with good wisdom)
Party of 4: Fighter (or Swordmage), Paladin, Leader (any), Striker (any)
Party of 5: Same as Party of 4 + Controller
In a party of 2-4 with no controller it may be helpful to have a dragonborn, or a Half-elf (warlock or taclord) with diletante Scorching Burst.
These are what I would consider balanced groups, though nothing says you must have a balanced composition. Two Paladins, a Fighter, and a Swordmage can easily make a fun party.
Victim
First Post
I think it's okay to be missing things as long as you know what you're missing and take that into account with the team's other powers and items. No controller means that you want more AoE and multitarget effects on the other characters. No defender means that all the other characters should probably focus more on their own defenses. Etc.
A cleric/warlord team can be fine.
A cleric/warlord team can be fine.
WalterKovacs
First Post
In a two leader party [warlord and cleric] you can do some out of the ordinary stuff. Since you have two leaders, and the warlord is inspiring, you can probably afford to have the cleric be a battle cleric that goes the defender route. That means that the defender should likely be a fighter or swordmage [since you probably don't need extra healing from the Paladin]. If the cleric is battle, you'll probably want a ranged striker to give the party some ranged attack power in addition to the wizard. So, that would probably mean an archer ranger or warlock.
In general though, party make up will look at having the leader and defender roles locked up, having some ranged power in addition to the melee fighters, choosing the right skills for rituals and skill challenges, and making sure that power selection works well with other members of the party. Powers that give combat advantage are great when a rogue is in the party. Powers that gives a bonus to all attacks, instead of just one attack are great for helping out a ranger. It's also good to avoid overlapping effects that won't benefit each other ... an infernal warlock may not need other characters giving him temporary hitpoints, for example.
In general though, party make up will look at having the leader and defender roles locked up, having some ranged power in addition to the melee fighters, choosing the right skills for rituals and skill challenges, and making sure that power selection works well with other members of the party. Powers that give combat advantage are great when a rogue is in the party. Powers that gives a bonus to all attacks, instead of just one attack are great for helping out a ranger. It's also good to avoid overlapping effects that won't benefit each other ... an infernal warlock may not need other characters giving him temporary hitpoints, for example.
Thanee
First Post
In my experience so far (which is still quite limited), you really want to have a Cleric (any kind) and another character capable of healing (Paladin or Warlord).
As for roles... it's good to have Leader, Defender, and Striker covered. Additional characters can have any role.
Bye
Thanee
As for roles... it's good to have Leader, Defender, and Striker covered. Additional characters can have any role.
Bye
Thanee
Jack99
Adventurer
Controller is the role which is the easiest to do without.
2 defenders, 1 leader and 1 striker works great, but so does 1 defender, 2 leaders and 1 striker.
My group, which is up to 7 players, but lately mostly 4 due to RL stuff, is 1 defender, 1 leader and 2 strikers, and quite okay as well.
Parties without defender and leader will often either have to play it really smart, or have the DM customize the adventures for their party composition.
All above is IMO, and not absolutes.
Cheers
2 defenders, 1 leader and 1 striker works great, but so does 1 defender, 2 leaders and 1 striker.
My group, which is up to 7 players, but lately mostly 4 due to RL stuff, is 1 defender, 1 leader and 2 strikers, and quite okay as well.
Parties without defender and leader will often either have to play it really smart, or have the DM customize the adventures for their party composition.
All above is IMO, and not absolutes.
Cheers
Ltheb Silverfrond
Explorer
Having run for a group of 4-5, I would say that it doesn't matter what roles you have as long as the party's playstyle is appropriate.
My group is 2 strikers(rogue, warlock), a Defender (fighter), and a leader (warlord). The warlord doubles as a defender due to multiclassing in Paladin, and the Fighter can pass for a striker with his ranger multiclass. This group can act as a very offensive-oriented group, but they react poorly on the defensive. They once were totally destroyed by a group of lower level artillery foes because they foolishly tried to lure them into a narrow hall, but the monsters could all focus their attacks on the front character.
As long as the players can form a strategy with the party roles each character fills, and that the DM has encounters that are 'fair' with the parties' setup, it will all work out. A specialized or focused party will be able to perform effectively if allowed to make use of it's specialty. My above party can absolutely crush solo opponents. Standard encounters of 4-5 opponents have caused them the most trouble.
My group is 2 strikers(rogue, warlock), a Defender (fighter), and a leader (warlord). The warlord doubles as a defender due to multiclassing in Paladin, and the Fighter can pass for a striker with his ranger multiclass. This group can act as a very offensive-oriented group, but they react poorly on the defensive. They once were totally destroyed by a group of lower level artillery foes because they foolishly tried to lure them into a narrow hall, but the monsters could all focus their attacks on the front character.
As long as the players can form a strategy with the party roles each character fills, and that the DM has encounters that are 'fair' with the parties' setup, it will all work out. A specialized or focused party will be able to perform effectively if allowed to make use of it's specialty. My above party can absolutely crush solo opponents. Standard encounters of 4-5 opponents have caused them the most trouble.
