Viable Party?

[Artoomis]

Personally, I think you should play what you want to play. You can make it work.

Worst case is that you need to hire an NPC to fill a critical role, but no player (IMHO) should have to play some particular type of character if they do not really want to do so.

Sure, the party makeup may be sub-optimal for toe-to-toe combat, but you can adjust tactics accordingly and do just fine, most likely.

 

[Smeelbo]

I think 4E is more flexible regarding group structure than it might initially appear. I play in a campaign at the local comic book store where the group is whoever shows up that Wednesday night. Only my dwarven ranger and his "lad," a halfling Artful Dodger, are reliable. There may or may not be a human wizard, dwarven or teifling fighter, half-elf warlock, and/or dragonborn warlord. Often we are without either a leader or a defender.

My impression so far is that if you are adaptable, almost any party will work. I do feel the absence of the defender more keenly than the absence of a leader.

Smeelbo

 

[mlund]

[Edit - I managed to confuse to OP and the second post for some reason.]

- Marty Lund

 

[Skallgrim]

Right now in the party is a barbaria orc, a human ranger (balanced), human wizard. I ws going to take a shadar-kai swordmage, but now I don't know. Without a healer, or at least a leader, will this party be able to succeed? It seems very difficult to me. If anyone has played in a party like this please tell me.

I think that you can probably survive without a leader, though I would strongly consider playing either a paladin, a warlord, or a STR cleric if I were you (that's either a healing defender, or a leader with some melee ability) instead of the swordmage.

My concern isn't with viability, but I really feel that without one player of each role, you don't get to see the "whole system". This is probably romanticized, but I think that each of the roles adds something to the combats, and you don't see the elegance unless there is one of each there.

In terms of viability, I think that you will regret not having a cleric or warlord more than you will, if you play a cleric or warlord, think "boy, I wish we had a swordmage here".

 

[Black Knight Irios]

I think you can make (m)any party(-ies) work.

But the less bases are covered rolewise the more tactics needs the party to get well through an encounter.

And the question is are all players in rolewise handycapped party good tacticians? Or do the tacticapped players like the others to tell them the action they should take?

 

[kenmarable]

For what it's worth, my advice is play what you want. That's the Rule 0 for players.

Like others have said, if you play smart and have potions, then it's no big deal at all. If it fits someone's concept, multiclass into a leader. But even still, a multiclass cleric just gets Healing Word as a daily - not exactly a ton more healing.

A factor at least as important is to have a decent DM. If your DM is aware of this "imbalance", and pays attention to encounters and tweaks encounters to maximize fun as time goes on, then you could play with nothing but controllers if you really wanted.

Which seems like more fun:
A) Playing the swordmage you want to play and having combat be more challenging, or
B) Being "stuck playing the healer" as so many other players have been over the decades so that combat is easier and the party more "balanced"?

Yeah, the PCs may be balanced mechanically, but the players aren't balanced in their enjoyment.

 

[Fede]

For what it's worth, my advice is play what you want. That's the Rule 0 for players.

This sentence sums exactly what i'm thinking. Thank you kenmarable for writing my post!