Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rechan" data-source="post: 4295186" data-attributes="member: 54846">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.</blockquote>