PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Optimized Three Person Party



Moff Chumley
2010-09-23, 10:33 PM
Alright, my friend is starting a new 4e campaign, and I've decided to screw with him. There's only gonna be two other players, so my friend is scaling down the challenges. We want to make him reconsider that decision. I'm not very good at optimization, and even worse at optimizing a party. Which is why I turn to you, playground. I don't know what level we're starting on, so builds that work at ever, or most, levels, would be ideal. Thanks. :smallsmile:

mobdrazhar
2010-09-23, 10:38 PM
i would probably suggest Rageblood Barbarian, Taclord and Orbizard.

DragonBaneDM
2010-09-24, 12:18 AM
I suggest Shielding Swordmage, Cleric, but Rageblood Barbarian's also got my vote for favorite striker in a small party.

cupkeyk
2010-09-24, 12:22 AM
My suggestion is Ranger (choosing the beast master class feature but selecting two weapon powers), a cunning bard and a polearm fighter.

1) The fighter is good at lockdown and serves to back up the
2) bard, who also serves as the controller
3) the ranger deals good damage and comes with his own defender.

Sir Homeslice
2010-09-24, 12:23 AM
Three Dragonborn Bravura Warlords.

Jaidu
2010-09-24, 12:32 AM
Artificer, Two-Weapon Ranger, Tempest Fighter.

Artificer uses Magic Weapon often, which is double effective with Ranger and Fighter often attacking twice per round. Fighter can often mark multiple targets, and Ranger is a ranger. Not necessarily the most optimized, but it would probably work pretty well.

dsmiles
2010-09-24, 04:40 AM
I don't know all of the available builds, but a Taclord or Cleric for a leader, a Ranger or Barbarian for a striker, and an orbizard for a controller would be my suggestions.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-24, 04:47 AM
Alright, my friend is starting a new 4e campaign, and I've decided to screw with him. There's only gonna be two other players, so my friend is scaling down the challenges. We want to make him reconsider that decision.

Well...

The best striker is the ranger. The best defender is either the fighter or the warden. The best leader is the tactical warlord. And the best controller is the wizard. Pick any three from this list and go from there.

Hzurr
2010-09-24, 02:12 PM
Well...

The best striker is the ranger. The best defender is either the fighter or the warden. The best leader is the tactical warlord. And the best controller is the wizard. Pick any three from this list and go from there.

hmm...I'd argue that this is only true in a 3 person party. I've DMd games where the PCs were taking so much damage that only ridiuclous amount of HP generated by a cleric was enough to keep them alive. Rangers are only the best strikers if you're sticking with the archery ranger (which isn't always going to be your best option in a certain party). As far as defenders go, occationally a Paladin is better, simply because you need someone else to be able to throw around some healing when your leader isn't up to snuff.

(sorry, this is a bit off-track. For a 3-man party, this is a very good combo)

In general, I'd say any combo of Defender-leader-striker would be best, and if one of those builds has some controlleryness to them, you'll be doing great. (The exception to that rule is the swordmage. I really like the class, but in a three-man party they aren't the best defenders. They tend to thrive as the 5th party member)

DragonBaneDM
2010-09-24, 02:27 PM
Rangers are only the best strikers if you're sticking with the archery ranger

I play an Archery Ranger, and every time I level up and check the new powers I wish I was a melee ranger.

They have better damage due to their Immediate Actions and Minor attacks, also they have a five hit daily at 15 whereas I have to wait till 29 for that.

The higher HP is also valuable in this type of party.

Surrealistik
2010-09-24, 03:09 PM
hmm...I'd argue that this is only true in a 3 person party. I've DMd games where the PCs were taking so much damage that only ridiuclous amount of HP generated by a cleric was enough to keep them alive. Rangers are only the best strikers if you're sticking with the archery ranger (which isn't always going to be your best option in a certain party). As far as defenders go, occationally a Paladin is better, simply because you need someone else to be able to throw around some healing when your leader isn't up to snuff.

(sorry, this is a bit off-track. For a 3-man party, this is a very good combo)

In general, I'd say any combo of Defender-leader-striker would be best, and if one of those builds has some controlleryness to them, you'll be doing great. (The exception to that rule is the swordmage. I really like the class, but in a three-man party they aren't the best defenders. They tend to thrive as the 5th party member)

Yeah, overall the Tac-Warlord is the best leader, but if the campaign warrants/demands a more conservative line up, pacifist healbot cleric all the way.

Hzurr
2010-09-24, 03:17 PM
I play an Archery Ranger, and every time I level up and check the new powers I wish I was a melee ranger.

They have better damage due to their Immediate Actions and Minor attacks, also they have a five hit daily at 15 whereas I have to wait till 29 for that.

The higher HP is also valuable in this type of party.

Ah, right, I meant in pure damage output, they're the best strikers. Sometimes having an extra man on the front lines who can take a few hits can sometimes be invaluable, especially if you're in a larger party with a weak front line.


Depending on level, another leader to consider (especially if the defender is something like a Paladin that can throw around some healing) is the Artificer, one focused on summoning (or creating constructs, or whatever it's called). Once you get to the level where you can summon 2 or 3 of them a day, you can have one in just about every encounter to fill in other party roles, and they also have the feat that lets 2 people gain temp HP = healing surge+whatever. It gets nuts when you have a defender running into battle with 140% health.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-24, 04:00 PM
hmm...I'd argue that this is only true in a 3 person party. I've DMd games where the PCs were taking so much damage that only ridiuclous amount of HP generated by a cleric was enough to keep them alive.
Well, I did not mean to imply that the other classes were weak... :smallwink: except for the Seeker.



In general, I'd say any combo of Defender-leader-striker would be best, and if one of those builds has some controlleryness to them, you'll be doing great.
Hm, I'm not sure. I would really like a solid controller in my ranks regardless of party lineup ("Okay, I'll stall and hold off these three monsters while you guys cut up the other three"). And since it's generally accepted that every party needs a leader, the one role I'd do without is probably defender.

Hzurr
2010-09-24, 05:08 PM
Aye, a good controller is invaluable.


That being said, in my near constant DMing of 4E since it was first released, I've only seen one really good controller. I feel that controllers are the hardest PCs to play, because it takes a very tactical/creative mind to really make them shine. That being said, if you're a good controller, you'll make your DM pull out his hair in frustration. Trust me, I have chunks of hair missing to prove it:smallamused:

Surrealistik
2010-09-24, 06:32 PM
What I love about controllers is how they can more or less singlehandedly shut down bosses by Paragon.

dsmiles
2010-09-24, 08:54 PM
Hm, I'm not sure. I would really like a solid controller in my ranks regardless of party lineup ("Okay, I'll stall and hold off these three monsters while you guys cut up the other three"). And since it's generally accepted that every party needs a leader, the one role I'd do without is probably defender.

Absolutely. I even think the PHB recommends Striker-Controller-Leader as the preferred 3-person party, IIRC.

Draz74
2010-09-24, 09:47 PM
I'm no expert, but it seems like it would be really terrible to lack a Defender if the whole party has, say, mostly Area and Ranged powers. A Feylock, a Psion, and an implement-based Bard seems like a poor choice.

On the other hand, going without a Defender seems pretty sensible if you have, say, a melee Striker (TWF Ranger or Barbarian) and a melee Leader (Warlord or melee Bard).

Moff Chumley
2010-09-24, 10:16 PM
Thanks for the suggestions.

However, the players have decided that I'm DMing.

So I need to ensure that they never see this thread, ever.

I hate my players. :smallannoyed:

Meta
2010-09-24, 10:17 PM
I play an Archery Ranger, and every time I level up and check the new powers I wish I was a melee ranger.

They have better damage due to their Immediate Actions and Minor attacks, also they have a five hit daily at 15 whereas I have to wait till 29 for that.

The higher HP is also valuable in this type of party.

To be fair, your five hit is strictly better :P.

I'd recommend something more gimmicky for a 3 man. If you're given the chance to optimize a party, it's better to focus on synergy rather than slapping together what ya think are the strongest individual builds.

Cleric/Morninglord that worships Sehanine to use a bow implement well. This sets up a radiant damage spam.
Then maybe a tiefling paladin/warlock for some melee presence if needed.
A good ranged striker like a radiant toting archer ranger.

you've good debuff, damage, heals/saving throws, and mobility

NineThePuma
2010-09-24, 10:52 PM
I hate my players. :smallannoyed:
QFT. Seriously.

DragonBaneDM
2010-09-24, 11:01 PM
Thanks for the suggestions.

However, the players have decided that I'm DMing.

So I need to ensure that they never see this thread, ever.

I hate my players. :smallannoyed:

Hahaha! I feel like if you had this thread as a resource for trying to take down your friend as a DM, they should get the same oppurtunity to optimize their part. :smallsmile:

Only seems fair, after all!

EDIT:

Also,
Never venture from the house
Never get misunderstood
By the non-player-characters inhabiting Earth
None of whom are too concerned about Nord and Bert