PDA

View Full Version : 4e Party Composition Troubles



Squark
2011-01-19, 10:21 AM
Alright, I've started getting my player's characters together. However, I'm starting to run into a problem- With only 4 players, this is what the party looks like at the moment.

Elf Ranger
Deva Wizard
? Druid
?

Does anyone have any reccomendation for helping the party work cohesively without hurting anyone's feelings?

Kurald Galain
2011-01-19, 10:25 AM
Does anyone have any reccomendation for helping the party work cohesively without hurting anyone's feelings?

I don't understand what your problem is.

Your party needs a healer, which means that either the druid should be a 4.4 Sentinel Druid (which gets healing word twice per encounter), or the fourth player should play whatever leader he likes. The druid can be any race you like; for example, dwarves make very good druids.

The party can work just fine without a defender, although this means that the characters should give a higher priority to defensive feats or powers (e.g. the Shield spell).

Squark
2011-01-19, 10:30 AM
I don't have essentials, and, frankly, I've never understood what essentials actually is.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-19, 10:33 AM
I don't have essentials, and, frankly, I've never understood what essentials actually is.

In that case, ignore that part, and just suggest that the fourth party member should be a cleric, warlord, bard, shaman, ardent, runepriest, or artificer.

Loren
2011-01-19, 10:37 AM
Essentials is basically new versions of some of the basic elements of 4E. Consider it an update, designed for new players. Some of the versions of the classes take different roles than those previously published, such as a striker fighter.

The full compliment of roles is not necessary in a successful party. In fact, you may find some of the most creative solutions coming from an unbalanced party. As previously said, more healing would be the only real issue with the party above. I'm partial to warlords myself, but it might be nice to have someone else upfront, like a cleric.

Squark
2011-01-19, 10:39 AM
Ok, so if I guide the remaining player towards a leader of some kind, I should be alright. Are there any monster types I should go light on with this party, though (especially since they're newbies).

Grogmir
2011-01-19, 10:40 AM
agree with other replies. Would be good to get a healer in there - and a front line one too. Cleric or Warlord. but at the end of the day - its the group's choice.

As they are doing it individually there is no extra pressure on the final person to choose what they want. They should have discussed beforehand.

Its easier if the DM plans this - but the party make up buck stops with the players.

Happy Rollin'

IdleMuse
2011-01-19, 10:52 AM
TBH The only party composition problems I've ever had with 4e have revolved around too many Defenders, not enough Strikers. The worst example of this was a game I played, that only lasted two sessions, where I played a fairly standard Ranger, but alongside two Swordmages and a HalfElf Bard who ended up being something like a fairly inefficient Controller/Leader JoaT. Encounters just lasted sooo long, since I was basically the only one doing any damage. No-one really got hurt much, but it just took forever.

Sipex
2011-01-19, 11:07 AM
Ok, so if I guide the remaining player towards a leader of some kind, I should be alright. Are there any monster types I should go light on with this party, though (especially since they're newbies).

If you're not using errata I would advise avoiding using too many Swarm monsters at first (ie: Needlefang drake swarm, avoid those) otherwise you're fine.

Also, don't feel compelled to push the last member to be a Leader class, let them choose. If nobody chooses a leader just make sure that the party has, on average, 2 potions on it at all times (ie: give them a few to start off with, maybe one each then slot more potions into the treasure they find).

Beyond that you should be ok.

Squark
2011-01-19, 12:29 PM
Well, as luck would have it, another guy was interested in playing, and he wanted to be a healer anyway, so we ended up with a Dwarf Cleric.

Hzurr
2011-01-19, 01:58 PM
Dwarf Cleric is a good call. That way he can help the druid on the front lines, and keep the healing going to the rest of the party

tcrudisi
2011-01-19, 02:00 PM
Dwarf Cleric is a good call. That way he can help the druid on the front lines, and keep the healing going to the rest of the party

Well, we have been making the assumption that the Ranger is an archer. He could very well be melee. If that's the case, it might be better for the Cleric to go a bit more ranged.

(Yes, I realize the Ranger is an elf which strongly implies archer, but that doesn't have to be the case.)

Mando Knight
2011-01-19, 02:02 PM
Ok, so if I guide the remaining player towards a leader of some kind, I should be alright. Are there any monster types I should go light on with this party, though (especially since they're newbies).

Soldiers. You've got a party of hyper-death archer, squishy tac-nuke magician, not-quite-as-squishy werewolf wannabe, and a dwarf. Everyone but the Druid and the Dwarf has reason to fear the Soldiers.

...No, wait. Even the Dwarf and Druid will fear a Soldier after a single encounter with 'em. They're meant for going toe-to-toe with Defenders, not off-tanks like melee Druids and Clerics.

Sipex
2011-01-19, 02:05 PM
Well that's fortunate.

Just make sure to let your healer know that he's not just the guy who sits back and waits for someone to need a buff or a heal, he's also going to be a fairly capable fighter as well.

Squark
2011-01-19, 04:05 PM
Yeah, the Elf ranger uses a bow.


It looks like we'll be picking up a bard or a sorcerer, too, as the fifth character. I have a hunch we'll need to keep the soldiers and skirmishers to a minimum.

Sipex
2011-01-19, 04:20 PM
Remember, as you play, try new things. Don't fully count out soldiers. Try one after a few sessions and see how well your party copes and go from what you learn.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-19, 05:31 PM
Encounter Design
Start with Brute & Melee Minion Encounters to feel out your Players' abilities.

Begin mixing in Skirmishers next, with a Controller-Leader added in after they get comfortable with that level of play. Use Ranged Minions if your Players get contemptuous of Melee Minions.

Save Soldiers for "boss" types at first; use them before you start using Elites, but not until you get to that point.

Avoid Solos until you feel comfortable with the system as whole.

kyoryu
2011-01-19, 08:06 PM
TBH The only party composition problems I've ever had with 4e have revolved around too many Defenders, not enough Strikers. The worst example of this was a game I played, that only lasted two sessions, where I played a fairly standard Ranger, but alongside two Swordmages and a HalfElf Bard who ended up being something like a fairly inefficient Controller/Leader JoaT. Encounters just lasted sooo long, since I was basically the only one doing any damage. No-one really got hurt much, but it just took forever.

Actually, I see the issue with that group not being too many Defenders, but just waaaaaay too much Controller ability - which sounds odd without an actual Controller. But, you've got 3 of 4 characters that have pretty strong Controller secondaries.

Swap out one or both of the Swordmages for Fighters (or a Straladin, etc.), or swap the Bard for a more offensively-minded leader (Taclord, possibly a Runesmith, melee cleric, etc.) and you'd have a very different situation.

But 3 of 4 characters spending a lot of their time pushing enemies around isn't going to help you very much.


Alright, I've started getting my player's characters together. However, I'm starting to run into a problem- With only 4 players, this is what the party looks like at the moment.

Elf Ranger
Deva Wizard
? Druid
?

Does anyone have any reccomendation for helping the party work cohesively without hurting anyone's feelings?

Depending on your build, you could run into similar problems. Out of the gate, both Wizards and Druids act primarily as Controllers. A lot of Wizard players seem to make more Striker-like Wizards, and if that's the case, you're probably okay.

Tactically, the one thing you're missing is a Defender. This means that someone will have to do a bit of playing speed bump. The likely candidates are the Ranger of the Cleric. Both have their pluses and minuses - sticking a bow Ranger up front is taking away from the potential damage they can do, but the Cleric can heal them. If you put the Cleric up front, the Ranger can pump out damage, but if the Cleric goes down you have a big problem. A lot will depend on the specific builds of the characters - melee Cleric vs. laser Cleric, etc.

With that general makeup (two controllers, striker, leader), their overall battle strategy is going to have to revolve around slowing down their opponents and whittling them away before they get close.

As others have said, start out with some easier brute/minion encounters, see how things shake out, and how people learn their characters and how to effectively use their powers. Players come up with surprising things :)

rayne_dragon
2011-01-19, 08:57 PM
Ok, so if I guide the remaining player towards a leader of some kind, I should be alright. Are there any monster types I should go light on with this party, though (especially since they're newbies).

4e parties tend to be fairly resilient if they have a healer and half-smart players. I had a group of three pcs I sent up against encounters designed for a party of four and they managed just fine. If you want to go easy on them cut monster's HP by 25-50% as that will make fights go quicker as well and thus be more fun. If it ends up being too easy up their damage by 25-100% or just use normal hit points.

Squark
2011-01-21, 01:35 PM
Currently, it looks like we have an Archery focused Elf Ranger, a melee focused Dwarven Cleric*, a Deva Wizard who seems to be mixed between Controller and striker, the aforementioned druid (Not sure which way he'll go, melee wild shaped or a more ranged build), and the fifth player wants to be either a Bard or a Wild magic using sorcerer.