NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cerebral Paladin" data-source="post: 5402499" data-attributes="member: 3448">A lot depends on what you're trying to achieve.  It's probably true that a striker-less party can take on a lot of challenges very successfully, but it will be much more grindy without the high damage dealing of the strikers.  Conversely, leader-less parties are squishy and vulnerable, but they can be lots of fun to play, because they reduce grind.Controllers are really dependent on situation.  If you face lots of minions with decent damage production, lacking a controller can really hurt.  Which gets to the other question--what the best party combination is depends on the sort of game the DM runs.  Does the DM cater to the party composition?  Run the same mix of encounters they would see with a different party?  Attack the weak points of the party?Because I find that 4e combat often drags, I'd rather give up the defender or the leader than a striker, or even than a controller if the DM uses substantial numbers of minions.  I would then probably adjust the builds of the characters that are present to patch the hole--if you don't have a defender, a defender-y striker (barbarian, slayer-build fighter, etc.) becomes more valuable.  If you don't have a leader, leader-y characters (paladins, etc.) move up in priority.  But I think that a party that can implode messily but that has less grind will be more fun to play in than a tougher party.  (At the extreme, I could imagine having a lot of fun with an all striker and controller party.  It would be dangerous, for sure, but they would cut through the opposition in no time flat.)</blockquote>

Verification