Least Essential Party Roll?

[Maho-Tsukai]

I am slowly assembeling a group of players, all of whom are new to PnP RPGs and am starting them on 4e(will teach them 3.5e as well, later on.)...There, however, is one issue I am facting. I want them to know all rolls are important, but as it stands we will most likely end up with two strikers in the party and, counting myself, will only have 4 players.

One of the possible strikers will be so because of his general playstyle in most RPG videogames and TCGs. He's very big into dealing damage and flashy powers. He also would like a controller due to having a like of control powers and if he wanted to play one I would let him, but seeing the way he has handled battelfield control in other games he would most likely not play it well, get frustrated with it and just switch to playing a striker...

The other possible striker is, well, a 12 year old girl. She's a very smart kid and a great RPer to boot, but I just would not feel right handing her something as complex as a controller or leader...

My other friend will play literally anything, and can do reasonably well at everything. He has no one prefered playstyle and can slip into pretty much any class and preform adiquitly. He also has PnP experence(Though not with any forms of D&D) so he can do whatever we need most, but most likely will be our defender since I tend to play leaders and controllers all the time...

So, I have the following questions I must ask..

A) If we end up with 2 strikers, what roll would be best to drop?

B) Would it even be a good idea to drop a roll at all due to them all being new?

C) How complex are Defenders? If they are not controller or leader-level hard to play I could try and convince our older striker candidate to switch to a defender instead and hand the controller or leader to our other player.

D) If nobody wants to be the left over roll, would myself taking a hybrid character be enough to show the group what the leader and controller rolls do?

E) If all else fails, should I just play BOTH the leader and controller, and call it a day?

If anybody can adress these questions I would be very thankful.

[tcrudisi]

A) If we end up with 2 strikers, what roll would be best to drop?

That depends on the other classes. For instance, if you've got a Rageblood Barbarian and Iron Soul Monk as your strikers, well, you could easily do without a defender. But if you've got an Archer Ranger and a Wild Sorcerer as your strikers, you will probably drop a controller. For a new group, do not drop the leader. The easiest thing to say is to just drop the controller. Or, convince the one guy to play a Predator Druid -- good control and good damage in one package. (Also, a genasi blaster wizard would work well.)

B) Would it even be a good idea to drop a roll at all due to them all being new?

Yes. If they are all new, drop the controller. It's the most complicated class to figure out just what they are doing. I don't mean it's extraordinarily tough to play a controller, I mean that it's tough to see what they are doing. The DM knows, but often the players don't see what it's bringing. I always suggest that people play a non-controller first before going into that bag of worms.

C) How complex are Defenders? If they are not controller or leader-level hard to play I could try and convince our older striker candidate to switch to a defender instead and hand the controller or leader to our other player.

Defenders are easy. The toughest part is knowing what monsters you should lock down. It's easier than a controller or leader, but harder than a striker.

D) If nobody wants to be the left over roll, would myself taking a hybrid character be enough to show the group what the leader and controller rolls do?

No, that would likely just confuse them. Don't worry about it if you are missing one role. The most memorable groups are deficient in something anyway. Just make sure they have healing and they'll be okay.

E) If all else fails, should I just play BOTH the leader and controller, and call it a day?

I wouldn't do that either. It might feel like you are overshadowing everyone else and you complicate your RP a lot more.

[Asklepian]

I had a post in mind, but I'd be echoing tcrudisi really. Out of curiosity, are you also planning to run the game?

[Maho-Tsukai]

Yes, though I do hate using DMPCs unless forced, hence why I wanted to play a leader. I was looking to make the DMPC the kind of guy who just sat back and made everybody else better so he dosen't steal attention. However, I am also looking for another person to play in the game instead of me using a DMPC since I find DMPCs to be annoying.... I have sat on the other end of the screen when one was present..so yeah.


Also, to start them off I will be running a pre-made adventure. Only two of us are big time RPers(myself and the 12 year old girl) with one player who likes to RP but is not that great at it and another who flat out dose not care about it at all, so I figured that the "hack and slash" nature of pre-made WOC adventures would not be that big a deal here and they are a good place to start. After running a pre-made or two to get them fammilar with the system I would graduate them to homebrew adventures and slowly ease them into the evil genius encounters I was know for crafting back in the 3.5e days...:smallamused:

[kyoryu]

What level are they starting at? A level 1 controller is a lot different than a level 15 controller.

If you help her create the character, I think the 12 year old would probably be okay with a leader, especially if you orient it towards the type of roles that you think the player may also enjoy.

To answer your questions, and this will mostly mirror tcrudisi:

A) If we end up with 2 strikers, what roll would be best to drop?

Depends entirely on what the secondary roles the rest of the party are. If you've got a bunch of secondary defender going on, drop the defender. Same with controller. I'd probably avoid dropping the leader, especially with new players.

B) Would it even be a good idea to drop a roll at all due to them all being new?

Sure. Controller stands out as most-likely-to-be-dropped.

C) How complex are Defenders?

Not complex at all, but it depends on the Defender. Knights are pretty simple. Knight is also a reasonable choice for one of the Striker players, as they do decent-but-not-great damage, but your players may enjoy the "no matter what you do, I HIT YOU" aspect of it. If you're DMing, you can play this up by having enemies violate the Defender Aura.

D) If nobody wants to be the left over roll, would myself taking a hybrid character be enough to show the group what the leader and controller rolls do?

I wouldn't recommend this. The hybrid character will probably confuse them, and make them want hybrids (which I definitely don't recommend for newbies)

E) If all else fails, should I just play BOTH the leader and controller, and call it a day?

Yeah, no. It sounds like you're the DM, and having one DMPC is bad enough without having two (I speak from experience, here.) If anything, there's some rules in one of the DMGs for companion characters - if you can, build the leader (if anything) as a companion and play the controller - what might be even better is playing the controller, giving the experienced player a leader, and having a companion defender type.

[Suedars]

A) If we end up with 2 strikers, what roll would be best to drop?

Controller, not even close.



B) Would it even be a good idea to drop a roll at all due to them all being new?

It shouldn't be that big a deal if you drop a controller. Dropping any of the others might make things a bit weird.


C) How complex are Defenders? If they are not controller or leader-level hard to play I could try and convince our older striker candidate to switch to a defender instead and hand the controller or leader to our other player.

It depends on the defender. Once you understand their central conceit (mark a guy then avoid him and fight someone else), Shielding Swordmages are quite simple. Paladins are pretty easy too, since they can just challenge one guy and sanction a bunch and just automatically deter them without having to worry about positioning too much. Plus you can always Lay Hands allies if you do mess up.

I'm not too familiar with Battleminds so can't speak too much to them, but my impression is they can be a bit tricky with positioning. Fighters are probably a middle ground. They're definitely more complicated than Paladins. Wardens are definitely the most complicated since they're more like melee controllers than defenders. Their mark punishment is weak and easy to avoid, so they end up relying on positioning and zones to do the work for them.

Also as a side note, leaders can be pretty simple. I wouldn't hand a beginning player a lazy warlord, but a basic healbot cleric shouldn't be too complex (though a lot of people might not like being handed a healbot).


D) If nobody wants to be the left over roll, would myself taking a hybrid character be enough to show the group what the leader and controller rolls do?

I'd recommend against hybrids in general with beginners. They're too easy to build into uselessness unless you know exactly what you're doing.


E) If all else fails, should I just play BOTH the leader and controller, and call it a day?

Just drop the controller. Make sure you've got at least 1-2 ae effects and 1-2 forced movement effects across the party and you should be fine.

[TheEmerged]

The other possible striker is, well, a 12 year old girl. She's a very smart kid and a great RPer to boot, but I just would not feel right handing her something as complex as a controller or leader...

The wizard\controller in the party I DM is a 9-year old girl who started at the age of 7. Admittedly she started out needing help, but now she's a full-blown, fully capable player of her own. She actually got after her dad for trying to pick out a paragon path for her :smallbiggrin: She's a joy to watch role-play too, since she's young enough that "playing pretend" still comes naturally to her.

Of course, part of that is that she roleplays her eladrin wizard as a kind of G-rated Samuel Jackson, including the immortal line "Don't MAKE me come over there and find out how many experience points you're worth!" Had us all gasping for breath from laughing, she did :smallcool:

[INDYSTAR188]

Considering your description of your players I would suggest letting the 12 year old play a defender. I would suggest fighter, they're easy to handle and understand and lots of fun to play. I would drop controller and have a defender, a ranged striker (like sorcerer), and finally I would have your most experienced person play a leader.

This way you could hopefully have a fighter and warlord/cleric to form a line and a sorcerer type striker to do massive damage.

- INDYSTAR

[huttj509]

A 1, I could do without rolling those.

Oh, role, never mind.

Quickly Nitpicker, to the Pedantmobile, I'm needed elsewhere!

*zoom*

[Blazen]

I would say give the flashy player either a Sorceror, or Warlock. They have quite a bit of potential as sub controllers. Like other people have said though the controller is the class that you should worry the least about filling.

[Vknight]

Though Controllers are amazing and can be masters by pinning down enemies in this case a controller would be sub-optimal.

The younger player probably is not ready for the complexity. Go melee defender Fighter, Paladin, maybe Swordmage
The Flashy player will only like it with the proper burst power of a wizard so its better to give him a sorcerer or rogue for the damage.

Without a 4players and 2strikers you should bring a Warlord or Shaman for the ability to let allies attack again.

[skywalker]

Our weekly D&D Encounters group includes a 12 year-old girl who makes a fabulous leader. She's played two over three seasons, and whatever she played the other season bored her. Sometimes she needs a nudge from mom to remember to throw somebody a heal, but sometimes she out-thinks 50 years of roleplaying experience tactically.

Conversely, it also includes a 13 year-old who continually plays the knight and continually needs to be vigorously cajoled to even turn on his defender aura, let alone "think like a defender."

My point is that all people are unique, and whatever stereotypes you want to have about young roleplayers can be spot on or dead wrong. It's hard to tell you which role is least essential or "the one to leave out" because your group and party make-up are unknown.

I will say, no hybrids. Hybrids are just silly.

If you go into Essentials, the Hunter is a pretty easy controller to play, especially for the first few levels. It's not exactly a good controller overall, but get yourself a greatbow and the right feat or two and you do pretty damned respectable damage and retain the nuker/single-target aspects of the controller in a striker-styled package.

[Blazen]

Conversely, it also includes a 13 year-old who continually plays the knight and continually needs to be vigorously cajoled to even turn on his defender aura, let alone "think like a defender."


Ugh you just reminded me of the most hated person from my old LFR group. He was a little snot who came in with his dad. He played a fighter, but refused to use his mark because he didn't want his character to get attacked. Whenever he got hit he would whine about it. Add to this the fact that him and his dad were known to fudge die rolls. Eventually they got caught doing it and were kicked from the meetup. There was joyous celebration.

[Sol]

If you go into Essentials, the Hunter is a pretty easy controller to play, especially for the first few levels. It's not exactly a good controller overall, but get yourself a greatbow and the right feat or two and you do pretty damned respectable damage and retain the nuker/single-target aspects of the controller in a striker-styled package.

This is pretty much what I came here to say as well.

Even if you don't "go essentials," as long as you allow essentials, the hunter is a perfectly decent choice for either the 12 year old or the guy that thinks more like a striker.

Hunter "control" is decidedly weaker, but also decidedly less subtle than most controllers. Instead of setting up catch-22s, hit penalties, dangerous zones, and stunning en masse, hunters are designed around picking out one, maybe two melee targets at the beginning of the fight, and preventing them from ever entering the battle at all, through immobilization, slow, and prone. While it's certainly hard for new players to see the effect of a -2 to hit penalty (especially if the DM hides his rolls), a hunter will show off the value of a controller expertly, even if his control is weaker, because even new players will note the benefit of watching an orc brute stuck immobilized at range 15, when he'd like to be beating them up in melee.

If stuff does get into the fight, they have fewer options, but can still aid the party while dealing respectable damage, largely by causing targets to grant combat advantage, either via prone or daze (or, in paragon, blind). If you let your hunter player take mark of storm and give them a lightning greatbow, they can perform a pretty neat trick - a slide 1 away from melee range and prone via clever shot can deny a melee creature without reach his next attack, unless he's able to charge a different target.

It takes some time getting used to what effects each of a hunter's options will have on the flow of battle, but honestly I think they're a more viable class than people give them credit for. They're tied for being one of the most accurate classes in the game, can deal mid-tier striker damage if they optimize their RBA, and can cause single-target action denial several times per encounter. Don't underestimate the benefit of having 50 range, either.