The New adventuring group Dynamic

[Phasics]

Do you think it will change based on what you've seen ?


I think the most basic 3e party starting from a single character that could survive without equipment and on thier own would be a
1) solo Cleric.
2) Next you'd add in a Fighter,
3)next choice would most liekly be a mage for the AOE attacks,
4)next choice would be another fighter or rogue for traps ,
5th and 6th choice were basically where the flavour was. But 5th or 6th was usaully at least 1-2 more fighter types or some more magic.

How will 4e be different. What would you now expect the common party dynamic to be ?

Is Leader your first choice ? Or are they more useful in larger groups Feather me Yon Oaf in a group of 6 is better than in a group of 4. Are mutiples worth having

Is more than One defender still a smart way to go ?, more wall on the field ?

Will Strikers see some more action , 3-4 strikers could arguably end combat much faster and remove the need of a defender

Is controller still a must for clearing the field? would more than one be overkill since they can no longer "run out". Since they no longer run out would having 3 be even better ?




In my mind a Leader will still Knit a group together and inprove it overall more than having an extra of any of the other 3 roles.
I think Multiple Strikers in a group even without defenders might become popular with a strike first strike hard policy
Multiple defenders could make an extrmely tough nut to crack but overall combat would run longer
Multiple Controllers not "running out" could be more overpowering than a bunch of strikers

 

[Lanefan]

Regardless of the Leader-Striker-Defender gype, any party still needs a front line, a back line, and something in the middle if the party is big enough.

Front line: tanks - Fighters, Paladins, Knights (or whatever they become), War Clerics, etc.

Middle: scouts - Rogues, light Rangers, Bards, etc.

Back line: casters and support - Wizards, healing Clerics, henchmen, etc.

The names may change, but the basic needs remain the same; and a very small amount of play will determine where the non-obvious classes fit in. A small party can get by with 2 front line, 1 mid, and 1 back. A large party ends up with a surprising number of parallels to the offense lineup of an American football team, only with 2 or 3 "quarterbacks" (back-line casters) instead of just one...the linemen are the tanks, the wide receivers are the scouts, and so on.

Lanefan

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think the "solo" character is either the Rogue or the Fighter (depending on whether you avoid fights or survive them). Any "Leader" class would not use most of its class abilities most of the time, without anyone to lead. As a group you probably add Leader third or last, since he becomes more "powerful" as the size of the group increases.

But if I were running a solo-PC and I had the ability to get some hirelings, I'd go with Leader first and Controller second. Meatshields and scouts are cheap.

 

[hopeless]

To solo or not to go on alone

I suspect the Warlord would be the prime choice, the name alone sounds like a class that gets to have its own minions the capabilities so far revealed suggest a mixture of core classes of old, the healing talent (sort of) of the cleric, the fighting skills of the fighter however until I hear more a group I suspect might be composed of a human warlord, a dwarven cleric, an elven rogue and a tiefling warlock not because I'm a fan but it feels like it could be an iconic possibility.

I've been reading a web comic which pretty much defines what a tiefling warlock should be rather than that well irritating take on the tiefling and the gnome but then I'm a bloke so that shouldn't be surprising.

Still an interesting thread nonetheless.

 

[Doug McCrae]

3e:
1 - Druid
2 - Cleric and wizard
3 - Cleric, wizard and druid
4+ - More clerics, wizards and druids, though at a certain point a single bard is advantageous, to buff all the melee guys.

 

[Roger]

Do you think it will change based on what you've seen?

This playtest session report seems to indicate that the players had a viable party consisting (as far as I can tell) of:

* A paladin
* A warlock
* A rogue
* A wizard
* Another warlock
* A fighter

I think that reflects a change between 3.5e and 4e.


Cheers,
Roger