[4e] 3 person party

[Kylarra]

So it looks like in about 2 weeks or so I'll be playing 4e with a party of 3. As far as I know, the other two people are playing a Paladin and a Ranger, though I don't know specifics. I'm kind of interested in playing a druid, and I was thinking Elf or Shifter as my race. We're using a pregenerated array of 19, 15, 15, 12, 11, 10 (obviously not necessarily in that order).

Just wondering what people who have actual experience with 4ed would recommend, either in terms of build or what elements are absolutely indispensable since with 3 people we obviously can't have a dedicated striker, defender, leader and controller.


So yeah, build ideas or other suggestions on how best to make this work.

[Townopolis]

This is unfortunate, but:

I once played in a 4e party without a dedicated leader. My paladin was a charismadin with decent wis, and spent every feat on improving his healing ability. Multiclassed into warlord, took healing hands, took Melora's Tide.

We didn't get past level 2.

I now play the leader (Artificer) in our new party. We're level 6.

[Tuataralad]

Currently, I am playing in a party of 4:

Cleric (Laser, also pretty good healing)
Paladin (great defender, bad healing, dies a lot)
Rogue (me, awesome damage output, but die second most)
Ranger (beastmaster, slightly lower damage than me, great for flanking)

I can definitely tell you that you will need a leader or a least somebody with good healing. Striker and defender would be good, but if you have to drop one, I personally would drop the controller, although you could go with a more defendery druid and get the Pally to switch to a leader perhaps? In my current party, our style actually works out pretty well, except for a few issues. Here is a general first few rounds type of thing:

1. I win initiative, go around behind stuff to get flanking.

2. Monsters beat everybody else on init. I am separated from party and beaten horribly for first round.

3. Pally runs in and marks like four things, is soon beaten senseless (usually 3-4 rounds), although he takes the heat off of me.

4. Ranger runs in, does crazy flanking with her beast companion, she and I basically own things one at a time by flanking.

5. Cleric heals Pally, anybody else, tries to use lance of faith and misses most of the time.

Basically that is how it works. Both I and the Pally spend a fair bit of time unconscious, but nobody has ever died so far, and we are at level 5. If I were to have three people, I would just get rid of a striker and do pretty much the same thing, although it obviously varies based on classes and such. In the end it is your party's decision though, although in my opinion I would drop the controller.

[Artanis]

You don't have a controller or primary leader, so I'd suggest either a Cleric or a Bard. Both are leaders and secondary controllers.

[Colmarr]

Dragon Magazine's article on party building recommends multiclassing to cover the party's weaknesses.


Assuming you don't go primary leader, I'd recommend in a party of 3 that at least 2 of the characters multiclass into a leader class (Cleric, Warlord, Bard or Shaman(?)). That'll give you 2 healing/inspiring/etc words per encounter, which is all that a normal party has anyway.

[Dentarthur]

No, multiclassing into Cleric or Warlord gives you one Word per day. Still, you don't really have to play a band-aid dispenser. A controller would be just as beneficial to the party; just be sure everybody has a healing potion or two, and rest long enough to heal up to within 1/4 of full between encounters.

[Asbestos]

I can definitely tell you that you will need a leader or a least somebody with good healing. Striker and defender would be good, but if you have to drop one, I personally would drop the controller, although you could go with a more defendery druid and get the Pally to switch to a leader perhaps?

A leader would be useful, but not needed. The leader-esque druid build should be doable. If people MC into leader it'll make it better, if the Pally is Cha based then they should look into that Ersatz Inspiring Warlord MC so you can get some thp out of your APs. Make sure people stock up on healing potions.



In my current party, our style actually works out pretty well, except for a few issues. Here is a general first few rounds type of thing:

1. I win initiative, go around behind stuff to get flanking.

2. Monsters beat everybody else on init. I am separated from party and beaten horribly for first round.

3. Pally runs in and marks like four things, is soon beaten senseless (usually 3-4 rounds), although he takes the heat off of me.

4. Ranger runs in, does crazy flanking with her beast companion, she and I basically own things one at a time by flanking.

5. Cleric heals Pally, anybody else, tries to use lance of faith and misses most of the time.



Uh... ever think of delaying your action so you aren't out there alone getting whupped on? Based on this description it seems, that with a little bit more tactics (you've got the ranger/rogue combo down well enough) you could up your survivability a bit.



Colmarr, that's only 2 healing things per day, not encounter.

Edit: Also, look into items like bracers of respite, battleforged shields, the battle standard of healing (get this!), cloak of the walking wounded, collar of recovery, healer's brooch, lifegiving armor, stanching armor, belt of vigor, dwarven armor, panther spirit armor, etc...

[Colmarr]

No, multiclassing into Cleric or Warlord gives you one Word per day.

Hmm. Guess I was wrong then :smallsmile:

[Sinfire Titan]

Currently, I'm in a very similar party (Paladin with a Ranged-focus Ranger). Our 3rd person is a Swordmage. The worst thing we've encountered so far is a trio of Chokers and 10 Fire Beetles (we were 2nd level!). We've survived each encounter thus far thanks to the Swordmage and my Paladin (the Ranger does very little other than use Twin Strike, as he's very inexperienced with RPGs).

The thing is, we have amazing stats. My lowest stat is a 15, the highest is a 20 (Cha). I have a 18 Con to boot. The Ranger has a 22 Dex (we use a method where you keep 4 of a kind, and he got 4 5's on one stat roll, which means his Dex is obscene), but an 11 Str.

The major problem is the DM is enforcing Crit Fumbles on everything (including Inits). Fumble a skill check, something happens based on the stat keyed to the skill (like you going blind for 2 rounds for fumbling a perception check). Fumble init, and you can't act in the that round of combat (and offer CA). It's very annoying.

[Tengu_temp]

Yeah, I'd suggest a leader here - if you want to keep it druid-like then you might want to be a shaman, otherwise I'm suggesting either a bard or a warlord - clerics are very good healers, but they're kinda bland.



The major problem is the DM is enforcing Crit Fumbles on everything (including Inits). Fumble a skill check, something happens based on the stat keyed to the skill (like you going blind for 2 rounds for fumbling a perception check). Fumble init, and you can't act in the that round of combat (and offer CA). It's very annoying.

Woah, no offense to anyone but this is a really stupid rule. There is a reason why fumbles aren't a part of DND rules anymore since 3.0 came out - the idea that something bad happens when you roll 1 makes no sense at all and serves only to annoy the players!

[Alteran]

I think that out of all the roles, leader is the most important (although defender may be close). If you don't have one, you'd be alright with a paladin and a bunch of people who take leader multiclasses. The main problem in this scenario is that it's the paladin who will be spending the most surges, and he may run out if he doesn't have good con. I'd definitely take a leader of a controller (which I consider the least necessary role), but if you don't want to play a leader then you can function without one. The party won't be quite as tough, but of course you'll have an easier time disabling enemies.



Uh... ever think of delaying your action so you aren't out there alone getting whupped on? Based on this description it seems, that with a little bit more tactics (you've got the ranger/rogue combo down well enough) you could up your survivability a bit.


I am the paladin in this party, and our survivability isn't as low as it may sound. The main reason he runs in alone is to take advantage of First Strike, otherwise it's not likely that he would get sneak attack on the first round. We've only come seriously close to death once, actually. Although I'm in and out of unconsciousness pretty frequently (probably 2/3 of our encounters), I've never come close to dying, and the rest of the party is usually doing pretty well.

And as for the cleric missing a lot, that's really more a case of constant bad luck.

[ocato]

I'd talk to your party members and try to work something out that everyone can enjoy. You're not the anchor. It isn't up to you to make the party work while everyone else plays what they want to play. If you have concerns about party make up, bring them up to the other two players and see if the three of you can come to a compromise or, barring that, talk to the DM.

A 3 person group is small by 4e standards, and it probably wouldn't be out of the question for the DM to give you a cleric DMNPC (or maybe a shaman or something so that it isn't overly powerful, just a back-up). Druid, Ranger, and Paladin is actually a nice little group, and an NPC leader to cover you until you can find another player isn't unreasonable.

Now, my DM ruled that leader multiclassing (cleric, warlord, etc) gives the class's heal (inspiring word, healing word) 2/day. This may be debatable, but he made his ruling and that's how it goes (in our group). If you're trying to sneak by without a leader, you could suggest such a ruling to your DM. Take Brew Potion (Ritual errata'd to Level 1) and then you and the Paladin both multiclass cleric/warlord/whatever and bam, you have 4 healing words per diem and the ability to churn out potions. Ideal? Not particularly, but neither is not having a leader.

[Sinfire Titan]

Woah, no offense to anyone but this is a really stupid rule. There is a reason why fumbles aren't a part of DND rules anymore since 3.0 came out - the idea that something bad happens when you roll 1 makes no sense at all and serves only to annoy the players!

I've told him that, and yet he said we will be keeping it for the full 30 levels!


At the very least, he enforces it on our enemies. But even then...

[Asbestos]

I am the paladin in this party, and our survivability isn't as low as it may sound. The main reason he runs in alone is to take advantage of First Strike, otherwise it's not likely that he would get sneak attack on the first round. We've only come seriously close to death once, actually. Although I'm in and out of unconsciousness pretty frequently (probably 2/3 of our encounters), I've never come close to dying, and the rest of the party is usually doing pretty well.

And as for the cleric missing a lot, that's really more a case of constant bad luck.

Right, first strike. Um... use a hand crossbow? Is the bonus to attack from the dagger (guessing that's what is used) really worth the getting stabbed/punched/clawed/bit after the surprise round?

The cleric... should think about getting Distant Advantage, that way they too will be able to benefit from the rogue/companion flanking going on. Yes, in terms of theoretical optimization it is a suboptimal choice for a cleric, but it seems like it might work well for your party.

[Colmarr]

Right, first strike. Um... use a hand crossbow? Is the bonus to attack from the dagger (guessing that's what is used) really worth the getting stabbed/punched/clawed/bit after the surprise round?

Not to mention that (unless we've been playing this wrong for 6 months), you can throw a dagger and still get the bonus to attack rolls.

[ocato]

Just to chime in, any weapon +1 or better that has the thrown property automatically returns to the thrower's hand, which is also nice for first strike.

[Reverent-One]

Or you could just carry two daggers, one to throw at the beginning, another to use in close combat after that.

[Tengu_temp]

I've told him that, and yet he said we will be keeping it for the full 30 levels!

At the very least, he enforces it on our enemies. But even then...

If you ask me, a DM who purposely keeps a rule that does nothing but annoys the players, even after they point it out to him, is not a very good DM.

[JaxGaret]

I'm going to recommend that if you do play a Druid, for everyone in the party to strongly consider multiclassing into Leader (Paladin into Cleric, Druid into Shaman, Ranger into whatever fits best, if you don't want to mess with the character's flavors too much). That should cover healing decently enough, along with the Paladin's already extant limited healing.

[Asbestos]

Not to mention that (unless we've been playing this wrong for 6 months), you can throw a dagger and still get the bonus to attack rolls.

Yeah, but I figured he'd be doing that if he were in range, that's why I suggested hand crossbow.

[Asbestos]

If you ask me, a DM who purposely keeps a rule that does nothing but annoys the players, even after they point it out to him, is not a very good DM.

Maybe he thinks its entertaining? *shrug* It is weak, I mean, failing a perception check blinds you? Are the characters in this party Larry, Moe, and Curly?

[Kylarra]

Thanks for the opinions guys. I was thinking of multiclassing shaman already.
I only found out about it today, so we may completely change our chars around once we actually get a chance to sit down together and talk about this.

I'll definitely try to see if the DM will houserule some of the healing stuff to be usable more times per day if we end up going leaderless overall though. :smallcool:

[Colmarr]

Thanks for the opinions guys. I was thinking of multiclassing shaman already.

If you do multiclass, keep an eye out for multiclass powers that heal.

For example Healing Strike (cleric encounter 1) allows an ally to spend a healing surge if it hits.

Cure Light Wounds (cleric utility 2) heals an ally without them having to spend a surge.

Having either greatly increases your ability to fulfil the "healer" role.

[tcrudisi]

The least important role in the party is the striker. However, the two most important are the Defender and Leader. A paladin is a primary Defender and secondary Leader. As such, if I were going to create a character for that party, I would go with either a Bard (great skills, solid healer, minor controllery powers), another Paladin (insane? Sure, but it's two more Lay on Hands and another Defender), or even a Druid (Controller = important, plus it's a secondary Leader, so you can throw out some small heals).

I certainly would not consider a striker. Also, regardless of what I played (even if it was the healing Bard), I would make sure that all players have two healing potions on them at all times in case of emergencies. It may not be much, but 10hp can save someone's life, and you are running with only 3 players.

[Mando Knight]

I don't think the least valuable role is Striker. Rangers have insane DPR, as does a well-played Rogue, a Barbarian, or a Sorcerer against sufficiently large groups of enemies. The only good enemy is a dead enemy.

[Totally Guy]

My group of 3 decided that leaders were the worst role out there.

We started off with
Warlord
Warlock
and Paladin

But the warlord had 18 int and 14 in strength. He couldn't hit very frequently and thus Leaders = Very Bad.:smallfrown:

The warlord was retired and we got a Rogue instead which gratified the players need to kill things.

The Paladin now suffers more than anyone as he's over relied on. With the PHB 2 out I suspect that player is considering changing to one of the new striker combos.

[potatocubed]

The thing about the roles is that, in theory, you should be able to adapt to most situations even if you're missing one. This idea gets a bit screwy sometimes, like if your party are all members of the same role, but mostly it holds true.

If you go with druid, you're going to need to control the hell out of those monsters: without a leader you have fewer options for repairing damage done, so your job is to prevent that damage from ever happening in the first place. I've never played a druid, so I can't give you much advice beyond that.

[Kurald Galain]

The major problem is the DM is enforcing Crit Fumbles on everything (including Inits). Fumble a skill check, something happens based on the stat keyed to the skill (like you going blind for 2 rounds for fumbling a perception check). Fumble init, and you can't act in the that round of combat (and offer CA). It's very annoying.

This is a really big problem.

See, adding fumbles to rolls is fun if done for flavor, and can lead to very funny descriptions of your character making some kind of blunder. If a character rolls a 1, I can tell him that he throws himself way off balance and as a result the orc hits him painfully in the side - but that's just flavor, I'd roll a regular attack for the orc and just describe it that way.

Fumbles get stupid really quickly if the DM rules that you stab yourself with your own sword, and nonsense like that. As anyone who has ever used a sword in real life, you do not have a one-in-twenty chance of stabbing yourself with it.

Going blind when fumbling a perception check is just as nonsensical. It's much more fun if the character badly missing the check e.g. overlooks a cow turd and steps in it.

[Artanis]

The major problem is the DM is enforcing Crit Fumbles on everything (including Inits).

Does he realize that this makes it effectively impossible to Take 20?

The entire point of a Take 20 is that if you roll 20 times, odds are that you'll roll a natural 20 at some point along the way. So instead of rolling twenty times, you just say "I Take 20" and get on with the game. However, if you roll twenty times, odds are you'll ALSO get a natural 1 at some point along the way. That's why you can't use a Take 20 on anything where a failed roll has consequences worse than having to try again. However, with this critical fumble rule, EVERY skill check is like that. Every. Single. One. So you can't Take 20 anymore ever.

[Tengu_temp]

A minor nitpick, but you can't take 20 in 4e anymore. You can only take 10.


My group of 3 decided that leaders were the worst role out there.

We started off with
Warlord
Warlock
and Paladin

But the warlord had 18 int and 14 in strength. He couldn't hit very frequently and thus Leaders = Very Bad.:smallfrown:

The warlord was retired and we got a Rogue instead which gratified the players need to kill things.

The Paladin now suffers more than anyone as he's over relied on. With the PHB 2 out I suspect that player is considering changing to one of the new striker combos.

Judging from the tone of your post you know this already, but the problem here is that the warlord had such pitiful strength - if he was built correctly, he could do respectable damage. Also, I find it facepalm-worthy that first they decide that leaders suck based only on one badly-built character, and later have trouble fighting things because they lack a leader. These people also seem to possess a "lots of damage = good, nothing else matters lol" mindset, which does not work very well in 4e - this game promotes team play and tactics.

[Mordar]

Hi all -

First off, a disclaimer: We play 90% non-optimized, characters-as-heroes-of-the-story first, and crunchy DnD second. Not to say death doesn't come knocking or that risk is absent...just that the DM's not going to rush out to exploit every weakness possible.

So, we're playing a 3-player (plus DM) 4e campaign and have just reached level 3. There has been one death which was the result of unfortunate rolls, a PC taking 1 point of damage too much...and then the inability to make even one death save. What three characters, you ask?

The three Palamigos! Okay, so, they'll hit me if they see me using that reference again...after all, it is a serious game, not a spoof. We are all playing a paladin, each of a different god, and it's been good fun so far.

There is a Dragonborn paladin of a Bahamut-like god, a human paladin of a war god more akin to Athena than Ares and my half-elf paladin of the life/love gods (twin gods). We chose powers and builds completely independently and achieved a nice mix, covering all the powers.

In effect, the Dragonborn is a striker/leader, the human a defender/leader and I'm kind of a cross of striker/defender/leader. Right, I know - we're not optimized so we can't win DnD :)

The human took multiclass - Warlord (fitting with the background), as the charismatic love-loving paladin I took multi-class Bard...80% because it fit and 20% because it gives us some heal/slide ability (okay, maybe 70/30). Combined with all of our Lay on Hands we're in decent shape...come level 4 it'll be even better with me finally getting a second LoH use ("Pretty, but not too bright") and Healing Hands to add a nice healing bonus.

So, what's the point of my post? Well, it's that there's flexability enough in 4e to allow a group of 3 paladins to be reasonably effective as long as everyone's on the same page. Well, that and to get to say "Let me tell you about our characters".

So, chat with the DM and other players. Will there be allowances or tailored adventures/encounters, or is it "straight" DnD with a little PCs vs. the DM friendly competition? If the shifter Druid calls to you, play it and don't worry about optimization...but do so with an eye towards at least being effective.

There's enough roll-over between the paladin, ranger and druid to handle solid encounters if the DM avoids building them to wipe you out - you've got a Defender/Leader (if he makes certain to have nice LoH and I'd root for feats that go along with the mixed role), a Striker and you...capable of dishing damage or controller/leader roles. Sounds like a good mix. If the Paladin follows a nature-y god it even sounds like a great cohesive group espirit/rationale. I look forward to hearing more about it!

- M

[Totally Guy]

There is a Dragonborn paladin of a Bahamut-like god, a human paladin of a war god more akin to Athena than Ares and my half-elf paladin of the life/love gods (twin gods). We chose powers and builds completely independently and achieved a nice mix, covering all the powers.

That's actually quite cool. And it's probably the best class to choose to do that.

[Numinous]

Re: non-leader healing

I've found Raven Queen's Blessing to be really nice with my Avenger. I've had a chance to use it every combat so far. It'd work just as well with any other divinity-channelling class (eg Paladin or Invoker) of course.

While I haven't seen it in action, the multiclass shaman healing looks better than most because it's potentially usable several times per encounter, instead of once per day.

Chris