• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Party Roles and PC Death

SableWyvern

Adventurer
So, I wasn't really even cognisant of the fact that 4E was coming out until a couple of weeks ago, but since discovering it and doing plenty of research, I'm really, really fired up to run a game.

Overall, I'm really happy with how 4E has turned out, but I've run into one stumbling block that I can't see any way around.

In a party with a good balance of roles, if a PC is irrevocably killed, it seems to me that the player of that character is going to be very restricted when it comes to making a new character. If he is the group's only controller or only leader, then the party as a whole will be significantly hindered if the player doesn't make another character who fills the same role.

In my last D&D campaign, one of my players enjoyed being a little reckless and pushing the limits, and ended up going through a large number of characters. While he never tried to get himself killed, he was prepared to take signficiant risks on a regular basis, and his characters, one after the other, paid the price. He enjoyed the game despite his relatively high character turnover, and eventually he decided, only slightly tongue in cheek, that he was aiming to try every class in the PHB (in reality, I think he ended playing about 4 different characters over about two years).

Anyway, it's clear enough that this kind of "go-it-alone" recklessness isn't nearly as sustainable in 4E, as the party is going to be relying on every PC to be pulling his weight. That's not the issue.

The problem is that, at some point, one or more PCs probably will die, and if the player mentioned above is one who loses a character, then his ability to roll with the punches is going to be significantly diminished if he has to make a new character designed to fill the exact same role. The same will be potentially be true to some extent for the rest of the group as well.

So, to get to the point: The (only) party leader dies, and cannot be resurrected. The player of that character wants to make a wizard as his new character. What do you do?

...

Edit to point out that eliminating character death entirely is not a suitable answer in this situation. I have no in-principle objections to PCs that can't ever die (in fact, the PCs in my current Fantasty Hero game are immortal in the most literal sense of the word), but I want death to be a real possibility in my 4E game.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Rechan

Adventurer
I think it's easier with 4e to run a party who are missing one of the roles, while having two of another. It's not optimal, but the DM can go lighter or change encounters a little.

The party though, has to be very aware of this and adjust their tactics. A party with two strikers are better off teaming up against one foe at a time, killing them faster than everyone picking a monster and going. A party with two defenders can control the field (and really, defenders have good staying power). A party with two leaders can just keep on truckin'. A party with two controllers... well, that's a bit of a hairy situation. :)

I think the easiest role to be without is the controller, and the hardest is the leader. But it's doable. If your party lacks a healer, you need to understand the meaning of retreat when you're out of healing and potions.
 
Last edited:

SableWyvern said:
So, to get to the point: The (only) party leader dies, and cannot be resurrected. The player of that character wants to make a wizard as his new character. What do you do?

Let him make a wizard. :)

While a party certainly runs more smoothly if all the roles are filled, it's not at all a requirement. Just like a 1E party was better off with a cleric, a fighter, a magic-user, and a thief, but didn't have to, a 4E party is better with at least one of every role, but doesn't need them.

But more to the point, this is something that I've seen come up in earlier games. We didn't talk about roles in 3E, of course, but the same question came up. "The guy playing the cleric just died, and doesn't want to play another one. What do we do without a cleric?"

It's a self-correcting problem. ;) What I mean by that is, if it turns out that the group really is weaker without Class X or Role Y, then sooner or later someone will die who's actually willing to play Class X or Role Y. Until and unless that happens, the party chugs along without. :)
 

SableWyvern

Adventurer
Well, that is reassuring.

It also occurs to me now that multiclassing may be able to go some way to providing a limited stop-gap solution if filling the missing role is considered vital.
 

Rechan

Adventurer
SableWyvern said:
Well, that is reassuring.

It also occurs to me now that multiclassing may be able to go some way to providing a limited stop-gap solution if filling the missing role is considered vital.
Yeah.

A paladin and a player who takes "Initiate of the Faith" or multi's into Warlord should go a long way to covering things.

Or a half-elf who picks up Scorching Burst can definitely help things out, if you lack a controller. Same with a Dragonborn and their breath.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Besides, if there really is a gaping hole in the party's lineup, the DM can always chuck an NPC into the party...

Lanefan
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top