Your Group is Missing a Role

[UnknownAtThisTime]

It's perhaps telling that our group has gone through 96 permanently dead characters (yes, I keep a record) since 4e began, plus several dozen more killed-and-raised.

My head is spinning at this number. Do you guys play 125 hours per week? When do you take extended rests (err.. sleep)?

Either that are you are just brutal!

 

[LightPhoenix]

Not having a Leader is probably the one that you have to adjust the party for the most, but I don't think they're indispensable. Defenders have lots of ways to mitigate damage (and some healing), and Strikers have lots of ways to avoid getting hit (or for Barbarian, soak up damage). Controllers are the ones that really suffer without Leaders; aside from (IMO) the Wizard, they don't really have any ways to mitigate damage.

Swapping a Leader for an extra Striker means you're (probably) taking down enemies faster. Swapping for a Defender means you (again, probably) have more HP to spend (ie, surges), and that damage is spread out more evenly. Swapping for a Controller means that enemies are (probably) facing twice the penalties, lessening damage output. There are ways to make that trade-off not one-for-one; there's also a good argument to be had that Leaders maximize resources. Still, is a Leader-less party completely hamstrung? I'm not entirely certain of that.

Of course, that also assumes a five-person party. A three-person party is another beast entirely, and suffers from drawbacks beyond roles.

 

[Mengu]

Gotta say, I would not alter my adventure/encounter design in the slightest to cope with party design, most specifically "ill-composed parties". To me, being able to cope with and adapt to situations is part of the game. If the party has left a hole in their composition, and they hit an encounter that is difficult as a result, well, let it be difficult.

Let the party understand that the absence of a certain role needs to be accounted for. Feat picks, gear, whatever. The absence of a controller means get some AOE capability, the absence of a leader means get some healing, the absence of a striker means up your damage e.t.c. e.t.c.

A the end of the day, they party made a decision to omit the role. It was their decision, and (to a degree) they must wear the consequences of that decision. We are their DM's, not their nannies.

I agree that overcoming shortcomings of a lopsided party distribution is sometimes fun, at least for me. But letting players play what they want, and adjusting encounters to fit the party composition seems more fun for some players than one of them having to play a defender even though nobody wants to.

If the players find it fun to make a balanced party, cover missing roles, find what works best with the other PC's, great, but if 2 people want to play wizards, 1 has his heart set on a fey warlock, and 1 player is saying he can play whatever fills a gap, the "whatever" player may decide to go with a paladin to protect these squishies. They end up with no leader, and as DM, I'd just make adjustments to maybe reduce monster damage, and use lots of minions, or hand them an item or two that gives them an in combat way to trigger a surge, or something that makes secondwind more potent like a Cloak of the Walking Wounded.

There is nothing wrong with the DM making adjustments to the game for good challenging encounters. Sometimes a group works like a well oiled machine, and the DM has to take some measures to challenge them at least occasionally. Toning down encounter strength for a less than organized group is no different.

 

[Dungeon Masta]

I agree with most others that the Controller role is the easiest to do without. The AoE damage effects and utility powers for skill challenges are nice, but strikers can easily fill the role.

Strikers are the second less essential, but combats REALLY drag on without them.

Leaders are the second most essential class, as they keep the Defender and squishies alive and kicking, also provide some control as well.

Defenders are the linchpin of any party, to absorb and deal a decent bit of damage. Without a Defender, the DM can just dogpile mobs on any character and take them down one at a time.

As a DM, I dont adjust or water down encounters for unbalanced parties. Feats and power selection can make up even for a no-Defender party.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I agree that controllers can be lost. They are great against minions, but with the monster changes, especially to solos, they have really been gimped. Most solos now can nearly ignore daze and even stun, which is a controller forte. Doing 1d6 + mods dmg is not very much.

Leaders are essential, unless the combats are to easy. In my games, characters go down a lot, and only the leaders keep them getting back up. Of course, we have a 3 person party, so that needs to be taken into consideration.

Strikers are just fun to play. Movement and damage are a cool combination.

Defenders are also pretty important, but it depends on the defender.

 

[Destil]

In my opinion the striker is the easiest role to go without. There are so many options for other classes to dabble into it that it's really easy to simply have everyone bring a bit of a striker to the table.

Greatweapon Fighter, Blaster Wizard, Panther Shaman, for example, will dish out plenty of damage and have decent options to eliminate key opponents (though it will generally require the fighter closing on the other team). Especially since everyone in this group will generally have a way to tie up an opponent for a round or two.

The reason I like keeping the controller over the striker is that debuffs are just too good to go without. Minion popping isn't really the issue, it's that once a controller screws over an opponent you can either ignore them and focus fire someone else down or focus fire them down without much danger of retaliation. It does depend a lot on the DM, but with a tactically minded group I'd take the controller over the striker every time (assuming, again, that everyone knows they're down a striker going in and takes builds that allow them to compensate).

 

[Katana_Geldar]

A group that doesn't have a controller is a lot easier to DM, as I have found that a well-built controller can really stuff up a DM's day. Last encounter I ran the controlled knocked the mooks prone and immobilised them, so they were virtually knocked down and useless even when they made their saving throws.

On the players side, they make encounters easier as controllers can isolate minor enemies so players can focus on the bigger ones doing to more damage.

But leaders are essential, particularly as you go higher levels. My group has a warlord and a cleric that work in tandem, the former just healing, buffing and giving out MBAs to a striker when they flank the same enemy.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think leader is the only invaluable role, but I don't have the authority of experience. My group plays it safe, so I've never played a 4e game that didn't have all the roles covered.

I kinda feel like I'm missing out on a fun experience.

 

[BobTheNob]

I agree that overcoming shortcomings of a lopsided party distribution is sometimes fun, at least for me. But letting players play what they want, and adjusting encounters to fit the party composition seems more fun for some players than one of them having to play a defender even though nobody wants to.

If the players find it fun to make a balanced party, cover missing roles, find what works best with the other PC's, great, but if 2 people want to play wizards, 1 has his heart set on a fey warlock, and 1 player is saying he can play whatever fills a gap, the "whatever" player may decide to go with a paladin to protect these squishies. They end up with no leader, and as DM, I'd just make adjustments to maybe reduce monster damage, and use lots of minions, or hand them an item or two that gives them an in combat way to trigger a surge, or something that makes secondwind more potent like a Cloak of the Walking Wounded.

There is nothing wrong with the DM making adjustments to the game for good challenging encounters. Sometimes a group works like a well oiled machine, and the DM has to take some measures to challenge them at least occasionally. Toning down encounter strength for a less than organized group is no different.

Fully acknowledged. My party is VERY well composed (good choices up front, and been playing same party since 4e came out!) so sometimes creating any form of challenge for them is...well...challenging.

I agree that people should play what they want, and not be railroaded into a role because party balance demanded it. The game has to be fun.

The point about equipment compensating for lack of healer is also a good one. I dont mind that at all and I would be inclined as DM to follow this path to aid in party re-balancing.

My personnel preference though remains with encounter design being party composition independent.

Lets say, for instance, the party didnt have an "artillery piece" (i.e. controller/lots of AOE), that in no way would deter me from using minions any more than the absence of tank would deter me from putting in a hard hitting solo.

Players pick their characters for what they CAN do, but what their characters CANT do is just as much a part of the game experience. If an encounter comes along which is not suited to what they do, I wouldnt deviate the encounter because they are ill-prepared and more than I would alter an an encounter they are well prepared for. If my party finds an encounter a cake walk, I let it be a cake walk. If my party finds an encounter killer difficult, I let it be so. I dont alter encounters to find the happy middle ground.

Dealing with things outside of your characters comfort zone is just as much a part of the game as dealing with encounters in your comfort zone.

 

[Felon]

Since there's something of a lack of consensus on what controllers do--or should do--to be good at controlling things, it doesn't surprise me that they're considered nonessential personnel. Personally, I think the notion that control is about spamming out generic control effects like daze is a rather blah way to approach the concept. Chain-mezzing makes MMO's boring and anticlimactic, why should we have in a tabletop game where there are so many richer possibilities?

I'd say a big part of control should be about having the right tool to deal challenge you're facing. If you're up against trolls, then have some way to cough up fire. If there's a bunch of artillery, have some way to toss up a wall. If you're up against invisible enemies, have some way to expose them. If you've got a dragon dive-bombing you, have a way to ground him. The 4e design, however, has been averse to providing an extensive suite of tools (what we used to blithely call a spellbook). The essentials books did a good job of paring classes down for the guy who "just wants to roll to hit", so maybe it's time to consider going the other way for the guy who wants the challenge trying to be ready for anything.