What happens when the Defender dies?

[WhimsyTheFae]

In my current campaign I have the following characters:

Ranger
Barbarian/Rogue
Druid
Bard

So by roles:
2 strikers
1 controller?
1 useless

And it is not a problem. As the DM I tailor the campaign to fit the party. It isn't their responsibility to fill roles, it is my responsibility to deliver a fun game for the characters they want to play.

I endorse this opinion.

 

[scrubkai]

Considering my gaming group are all busy people who have family and Job commitments that sometimes get in the way of playing, we have run many 3E games where we were missing a roll.

It normally works out even with published adventures.

Yes the Psion, Warlock, Artificer combo we had one session made some combats hard, but you can adapt. In the case above they figured they were the most deadly at range, so they worked extra hard to take advantage of the terrain to give them the max time before anyone closed on them. (Ambushs from on top of buildings, sniping while hidden, Shoot and Scoot, etc.) It took some creative thinking, but there were strategies that worked.

It's been the same in every edition so far, and I would be very surprised if some creative thinking could not patch most any weakness your group has in 4E.

 

[SSquirrel]

Now, a party with no defenders, three controllers, and a striker is probably going to have some issues.

Oh c'mon, that means you could have a mage, warlock and shadow priest as well as a rogue. Sheep, banish, shackle and everyone follow targets....


Nah, I didn't just finish running Karazhan w/my guild

 

[Evilhalfling]

How necessary will it be that all the roles are filled?
I'm wondering a bit about this, because in my MMO of choice...

the nice thing about having a DM - is that they can make adjustments for a party that is missing a role. For example, the cleric's player is caring for his sick iguanna that night, so the party finds a couple of potions/healing belt/CLW wand for the ranger. One of the lesser guard posts is deserted, and the BBEG memorized a commune instead of a flame strike that day, etc.

Not that I don't enjoy a good MMO, its just different.

 

[Zarithar]

I endorse this opinion.

Me too... a good DM would not find this an issue.

 

[frankthedm]

The sole Defender in the team has just died the final perma-death, and that character's player now wants to play something completely different, as is not too uncommon when a beloved character goes to the big ring-binder in the sky. What do you think happens then?

How necessary will it be that all the roles are filled?

Tankfully, 4E PCs have much more HP than Previous edition PCs. The extra HP kicker means even wizards won't be down after the first hit, a BIG difference from the days of 1d4HP. Plus even if you do drop, the Leader can raise your HP back up faster than most foes can stab it out of your helpless body :\ . Since they system does not apply the bloody pounding into negative HP against healing, even if the goblins drop the mage, unless they grid through ½ his HP a second time, the leader waltzes over and ‘bomphs’ the wizard up to fighting condition, healing some damage and auto-erasing all the damage dealt that caused negative HP :\ .

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Me too... a good DM would not find this an issue.

A good game doesn't make it an issue for any DM.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

A good game doesn't make it an issue for any DM.

I'm not sure that I agree with this, unless you're saying that D&D has never been a good game and really has no hope to be a good game.

D&D has always had classes. The classes have always had certain functions for which they were more suited. Published modules have (almost) always made the assumption that those functions would be covered. A good DM has always had to make judgement calls of some sort when a party is shorthanded at one of those functions...or has created his own adventures, in which case he also takes those functions into consideration.

I think that any iteration of any game that has multiple functions handled by multiple characters and cannot guarantee that each function will be handled, is going to require a DM/GM that is capable of making the proper adjustments in order to maximize everyone's fun.

 

[Zarithar]

I'm not sure that I agree with this, unless you're saying that D&D has never been a good game and really has no hope to be a good game.

D&D has always had classes. The classes have always had certain functions for which they were more suited. Published modules have (almost) always made the assumption that those functions would be covered. A good DM has always had to make judgement calls of some sort when a party is shorthanded at one of those functions...or has created his own adventures, in which case he also takes those functions into consideration.

I think that any iteration of any game that has multiple functions handled by multiple characters and cannot guarantee that each function will be handled, is going to require a DM/GM that is capable of making the proper adjustments in order to maximize everyone's fun.

Back in my DM'ing days I usually dealt with any deficiency by simply introducing an NPC to the group who's goals may or may not have coincided with those of the PCs. Sometimes said NPC became a semi-permanent party member or would have a recurring role in the campaign at a later time.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I'm not sure that I agree with this, unless you're saying that D&D has never been a good game and really has no hope to be a good game.

There is a significant difference between "good" and "good enough". D&D is arguably the most popular RPG - that doesn't mean it is (or has been) good. McDonalds sells more burgers than anyone - I eat them all too often. They are not "good".

D&D has always had classes. The classes have always had certain functions for which they were more suited. Published modules have (almost) always made the assumption that those functions would be covered. A good DM has always had to make judgement calls of some sort when a party is shorthanded at one of those functions...or has created his own adventures, in which case he also takes those functions into consideration.

True, but some class functions were more necessary than others. Their absence affected not just the types of encounters which the DM could reasonably prepare, but also the way the game worked. Having to tone down encounters to account for missing roles means less xp in the CR vs PL xp system.

Without the healing and buff capabilities of the cleric, party efficiency dropped as much as 50% in the mid- to high- levels; a missing wizard could make even more of a difference. And there was one crucial area no DM could reasonably account for - spell selection ("What do you mean you didn't prepare Fireball? You ALWAYS prepare Fireball????")

I think that any iteration of any game that has multiple functions handled by multiple characters and cannot guarantee that each function will be handled, is going to require a DM/GM that is capable of making the proper adjustments in order to maximize everyone's fun.

Absolutely, but good better game-design can mitigate the number and scope of such adjustments.