Party Make-up

[Vogonjeltz]

I sometimes find myself at a loss for what class or character type I want to play, but I'm also interested in the idea of having unusual character assortments. So I had this idea for structuring party makeup.

Please rate the following systems, A and B for determining party makeup:

Archtypes: (full enumeration listed in spoilers, please let me know if I've left one out and what your reasoning for including it in the archtype is)
Warrior = Combat Class; Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight, Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Marshal
Thief = Skill based Class; Bard, Monk, Rogue, Ninja, Scout, Spell-Thief, Factotum, Beguiler
Priest = Divine magic class; Cleric, Druid, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman, Archivist, Dread Necromancer, Healer
Mage = Arcane magic class; Sorcerer, Wizard (including specialists), Warlock, Warmage, Wu Jen, Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer
Note: If a class falls under more than one category, I picked the more restrictive category. E.g. Paladin is a Full BAB combatant but only partial divine casting, therefore it is type 1 (I'm open to shifting these around, or even placing classes under more than one archtype if that would be more interesting for the system)

Step 1: Assign roles
A) Place 4 slips of paper in a hat (Warrior, Thief, Priest, Mage) and each player picks one, determining their archtype.
B) Each player rolls a 1d4 to determine what archtype they will play (1 = Warrior, 2 = Thief, 3 = Priest, 4 = Mage)

Step 2: Select class
A) Players pick the class they will play out of a hat (1 slip for each class, picking wizard could mean one or more additional selections to determine generalist/specialist distinction)
B) Each player rolls a d% to determine class with each class having an equal value (i.e. Warrior has 14 classes listed, so 1-6 = Barbarian, 7-12 = Fighter, etc...until rolls of 99-100 = roll again).

The first method ensures at least one class of each role is present, the second method enables the possibility of odd-ball party configurations (i.e. 4 Warriors) which might see players coming up with vastly different strategies for overcoming similar challenges.

Any suggestions for additions/subtractions/reorganizations? Has anyone done anything similar to this?

[Lokd0wn]

It's an interesting idea but as a DM I find it's best to offer player the most amount of freedom of character choice as you're comfortable with.

A party comprised of a Fighter, Monk, Healer and Truenamer would at the very least be interesting to try and find appropriate challenges for.

[HighWater]

I came here expecting a discussion on applying the party Rouge.
Thread does not deliver!

In all seriousness, you want to have players play random character types? Make sure they are on board with that. Also, if you experience tier distinction in your games, I'd advice limiting the Tiers available in the game. I'd hate to draw a monk in a Wizard, Druid party...

Alternatively, you could make your players roll their stats in-order (first roll is strength, second dex etc,). This has a similiar effect, but allows more player choice...

[Sir Chuckles]

Step 1 might be good for a group of brand new players, if everyone is willing to be try out any of the four primary archetypes*. Step two is terrible for anyone who's not going into the campaign specifically for this system. This is because a straight Barbarian plays in an incredibly different way than a straight Marshal does, among others.

Though, if it's "I have no idea what to play and the party doesn't want anything in particular", this is perfectly fine. If the you walk into the campaign and the DM asks you "You guys wanna do this?", then it's even better.

*If you have a group of new players, and one says that he wants to play a Dwarf Barbarian, don't say "No, it's time for a raffle."

[Jeff the Green]

Ew ew ew. As a DM I hate this because I like designing encounters to challenge parties with unusual makeup. As a player I hate this because I don't want my role to be chosen randomly, let alone my class.


Step 1 might be good for a group of brand new players

No it wouldn't. Two of the roles consist entirely or mostly of classes that are really hard to play while you're learning the mechanics because you also have to learn what a buttload of spells do and when they're useful, and many of those are also really really easy to screw up during building. It's also really easy to permanently turn new players off of the game entirely with a frustrating or boring first experience, and there are few better ways to do this than have them choose a class that doesn't appeal to them. New players are much better off choosing from a certain limited number of simple classes (most mundanes, warlock, binder, and dragonfire adept) based on what they feel like playing.

[Jormengand]

Even working with the system, I'd be inclined to move monk (frontline combatant) and truenamer (healing and support casting are some of its best abilities) up a box.

And yeah; I don't really want to see a party which is Samurai, Monk, Truenamer... and a fricking Cleric. Nor a party which is Monk, Healer, Warlock, and some crazy ToB stuff stuck on top of that.

In honesty, I'd find it much easier to teach new players all to use rogues (you make attack rolls and skill checks, you can work together as a team, and later you can prestige into assassin/spam UMD at things to cast spells once you've actually got the hang of the system).

[Sir Chuckles]

No it wouldn't. Two of the roles consist entirely or mostly of classes that are really hard to play while you're learning the mechanics because you also have to learn what a buttload of spells do and when they're useful, and many of those are also really really easy to screw up during building. It's also really easy to permanently turn new players off of the game entirely with a frustrating or boring first experience, and there are few better ways to do this than have them choose a class that doesn't appeal to them. New players are much better off choosing from a certain limited number of simple classes (most mundanes, warlock, binder, and dragonfire adept) based on what they feel like playing.

Extreme retroactive emphasis on "might". In fact, change it to "could possibly, once in a blue moon". And add a few asterisks of "If they're new to 3.5e but have experience in the d20 system" and "when properly cut down to new player friendly classes *stares angrily at Truenamer*".

[Vogonjeltz]

Extreme retroactive emphasis on "might". In fact, change it to "could possibly, once in a blue moon". And add a few asterisks of "If they're new to 3.5e but have experience in the d20 system" and "when properly cut down to new player friendly classes *stares angrily at Truenamer*".

Uh... Did you have some traumatizing experience? I wasn't expecting that much negativity in general, the lack of whimsy and devil may care attitude is palpable.

[Sir Chuckles]

Uh... Did you have some traumatizing experience? I wasn't expecting that much negativity in general, the lack of whimsy and devil may care attitude is palpable.

Taking the control out of the player's hands, regardless of the player's experience with the exact system they're in (3.5e for this thread), is never a good a thing, barring mind control or similar effects. The key here is taking. This system is perfectly fine for when everyone at the table is 100% willing, in which they hand the control over to lady luck more than the DM.

I had to backtrack on my statement, as I realized the way it was written was not wholly the way it was intended to be.

[Red Fel]

Taking the control out of the player's hands, regardless of the player's experience with the exact system they're in (3.5e for this thread), is never a good a thing, barring mind control or similar effects. The key here is taking. This system is perfectly fine for when everyone at the table is 100% willing, in which they hand the control over to lady luck more than the DM.

I had to backtrack on my statement, as I realized the way it was written was not wholly the way it was intended to be.

I agree.

The first rule of D&D, and most tabletop RPGs, in my mind, is that - apart from established setting rules, preliminary DM limitations, and general considerations of courtesy - players should be able to do as they like. That means that if one player wants to play a Fighter, and another a Barbarian, they should be able to, unless Fighters and/or Barbarians don't exist in the setting, or the DM has banned them in advance, or Jerry is never allowed to play Barbarians because every time he does he gets all mouth-foamy and kills half the party for no reason.

Your Option A creates problems because players have no choice in the matter. Sure, they can choose from a class you've assigned within one of the four groupings, but they can't choose their concept. What if a player hates the bookkeeping involved in caster classes? He has a 50% chance of being assigned a class he hates if you go with the 1d4 method. Or worse, you create player conflict with the "slips in a hat" method, because if one player chooses Fighter, and another wants Fighter, you've now got resentment between the players.

Your Option B isn't much better. It has the same issues, but adds an element of being rather meaningless - if the whole purpose of Option B is to "enable[] the possibility of odd-ball party configurations[,]" why not just let the players pick what they want? "Hey, everyone, let's all randomize classes and see if we all get Monks. It'll be wacky!" No point.

I just don't see what is accomplished by robbing the players of one of the fundamental character-building decisions.

[Amphetryon]

Several Base Classes don't fit into only one of the boxes where you've shoehorned them; for example, a Dread Necromancer can make a perfectly serviceable Mage (they cast Arcane spells, after all) or even Warrior (free MWP and some DR). *Insert boilerplate observations of how Team Druid or Team Cleric can fill every niche.*

[Jormengand]

*Insert boilerplate observations of how Team Druid or Team Cleric can fill every niche.*

Even if we take something far worse than a cleric or druid, such as a truenamer, you still have a perfectly serviceable warrior (Swift action buffs such as Knight's Puissance, Mystic Rampart and even the Word of Nurturing line to keep alive, Swift action attack with Temporal Twist, coupled with medium BaB and no ASF-equivalent), skill monkey (universal aptitude and to an extent hidden truth, as well as tUHyJF allowing you to sneak around and still utter), arcane equivalent (Inertia Surge allows you to Freedom of Movement or Hold Person, and you have some decent damage stuff if you need to damage things) divine-equivalent (Word of nurturing and other healy things).

Assigning the classes into random categories which don't really have anything to do with what they actually do is... odd.

[Amphetryon]

Even if we take something far worse than a cleric or druid, such as a truenamer, you still have a perfectly serviceable warrior (Swift action buffs such as Knight's Puissance, Mystic Rampart and even the Word of Nurturing line to keep alive, Swift action attack with Temporal Twist, coupled with medium BaB and no ASF-equivalent), skill monkey (universal aptitude and to an extent hidden truth, as well as tUHyJF allowing you to sneak around and still utter), arcane equivalent (Inertia Surge allows you to Freedom of Movement or Hold Person, and you have some decent damage stuff if you need to damage things) divine-equivalent (Word of nurturing and other healy things).

Assigning the classes into random categories which don't really have anything to do with what they actually do is... odd.

I'm just curious here; were you quoting my post to rebut it? Without specific language to the contrary (which my reading of the above does not include), I find it generally reads as if that's the case when one quotes and responds to a post on the boards. If your intent was a rebuttal, what aspect of the statement you quoted did you find to be in error?

[Jormengand]

I'm just curious here; were you quoting my post to rebut it? Without specific language to the contrary (which my reading of the above does not include), I find it generally reads as if that's the case when one quotes and responds to a post on the boards. If your intent was a rebuttal, what aspect of the statement you quoted did you find to be in error?

I quote things I want to respond - or make reference - to. Doesn't mean there's things wrong with them.

[HighWater]

I'm just curious here; were you quoting my post to rebut it? Without specific language to the contrary (which my reading of the above does not include), I find it generally reads as if that's the case when one quotes and responds to a post on the boards. If your intent was a rebuttal, what aspect of the statement you quoted did you find to be in error?
The content of the post reads as if Jormengand was agreeing with you, and piling on the evidence with extra examples.

Yeah, the Niche-thing may have been the original outside of the designers, but even most core classes transgress these boundaries. Especially those where a lot of varience in build is possible...

Most players will want to play a particular class or another. Assigning this to Fate may be appreciated in some groups, but most people generally want to play what they want to play, and not Big McStupidFighter when they wanted to be a flamboyant Bard. Ask the group first and limit the classes available to a similar powerlevel, so at least nobody gets screwed massively from the outset Monking it up in a party of Druids and Wizards.

Edit: Swordsage'd on the first part. :smallwink:

[OldTrees1]

Each of the first 4 books in the Complete ____ series gives specific suggestions on how to take advantage of the opportunity of parties of all the same archetype.

As such, I leave party make-up completely in the hands of the players.



Sidenote: In general if a post is quoting another post, it is responding to that other post. Nothing more and nothing less is implied. Agreement, Disagreement or merely continuing the topic are all common.

[Jormengand]

Swordsage'd

Don't even get me started on ToB classes. They're meant to be fighter types, but they can emulate practically any play style by casting the right spells performing the right maneuvers at things.

[HighWater]

Don't even get me started on ToB classes. They're meant to be fighter types, but they can emulate practically any play style by casting the right spells performing the right maneuvers at things.

When even the melees won't keep to their Niche, it's time to eliminate the Niche...

[Shining Wrath]

This could be fun for a brief campaign. We have one player who is always ... ALWAYS ... something lithe and quick and ranged or back-stabby. Scout / Ranger, Swashbuckler / Rogue, Pixie Rogue with something else coming after the Pixie LA is paid for.

So, this might be fun for a brief campaign to get everyone to try something they might not ordinarily play. If everyone agrees to it in advance and thinks that's fun.

Otherwise, I side with those who say the DM should try to make it possible for players to live out their fantasies. Even if those fantasies are of David Carradine in Kung-Fu.

[Amphetryon]

I quote things I want to respond - or make reference - to. Doesn't mean there's things wrong with them.

Thank you for clarifying.

[JusticeZero]

I disagree with the roles you have in the first place. At the core, you have two basic roles:
People who make enemies go "Ow", and people who prevent their friends from saying "Ow".
Arguably, there is also a role for people who help the enemy to be set up for the first guy to inflict "Ow", but people sometimes neglect it.
There are a lot of ways to do each of those. A way to fix people so that they don't need to stop is also important, but not worth an entire role in a normal size group. Repairing damage can be used for a defensive function if it's very efficient, but without extra layers of mitigation to increase the effectiveness of the HP pool, it's not enough.

Skills are a thing everyone should have, because they are relevant to a different activity. If skills were entirely held by one player, that player would be inflicting the "Decker syndrome" on the party between fights, which is dull.

Magic is magic , and measured by how it is used. You can make a Cleric who hurls fire and destruction and pair it with a Wizard committed to keeping the party alive. That division is artificial and unnecessary.

So dividing things up is no assurance of a solid party. Better to give them a while to tune the party into an effective team with whatever oddball combination they are gravitating towards.

[dascarletm]

I disagree with the roles you have in the first place. At the core, you have two basic roles:
People who make enemies go "Ow", and people who prevent their friends from saying "Ow".


I think the idea is to present the more traditional RPG roles. You can broaden or narrow the viewpoint of character roles, but the four are iconic, and will be easily recognizable to anyone new to the game.

[JusticeZero]

They might be "Iconic", but they do not make a balanced party or even a good party. Furthermore, lots and lots of people do not know the "iconic" mix, because it has fallen off awhile back for pretty good reasons. It might be "Iconic" for the old hats, but the new people don't have that limit.
They would be better served learning how to make a good party rather than an "iconic" one. After all, "Iconic" parties are about as important to preserve as the Monk class, and for similar reasons..

[dascarletm]

They might be "Iconic", but they do not make a balanced party or even a good party. Furthermore, lots and lots of people do not know the "iconic" mix, because it has fallen off awhile back for pretty good reasons. It might be "Iconic" for the old hats, but the new people don't have that limit.
They would be better served learning how to make a good party rather than an "iconic" one. After all, "Iconic" parties are about as important to preserve as the Monk class, and for similar reasons..

Anyone who has played an MMORPG such as WoW will know those roles, or at least Tank, Healer, and Damage.

Game balance is really group specific. I doubt any system would be close to universal.

[Jeff the Green]

Anyone who has played an MMORPG such as WoW will know those roles, or at least Tank, Healer, and Damage.

Game balance is really group specific. I doubt any system would be close to universal.

Right, but you can fill tank, healer, DPR with combinations like spirit shaman, artificer, factotum; your previous enemies, dread necromancer, your previous enemies; or psion, psion, psion. In D&D class constrains your role (or not, for tier 1-2), but does not determine it.

[dascarletm]

Right, but you can fill tank, healer, DPR with combinations like spirit shaman, artificer, factotum; your previous enemies, dread necromancer, your previous enemies; or psion, psion, psion. In D&D class constrains your role (or not, for tier 1-2), but does not determine it.

I totally agree. I don't think the contrary.

[JusticeZero]

Further, you can fill your "Tank, healer, dps" crew with a DPS, a squishy crowd control expert, and a CLW wand. Trinity is regularly sub optimal, being merely two defense/control characters and a DPS. It lacks a synergy character and it's just one very specific combination out of many to achieve the same thing.
Plus, DnD lacks the only thing that makes a "tank" have any advantage, since there's no good way to force all the enemy to bunch up surrounding the fighter in a super-flank, and even if it happened, said fighter would get annoyed when the rest of the party started targeting her with Fireball and Meteor Swarm and similar AOE attacks.

[Vogonjeltz]

Taking the control out of the player's hands, regardless of the player's experience with the exact system they're in (3.5e for this thread), is never a good a thing, barring mind control or similar effects. The key here is taking. This system is perfectly fine for when everyone at the table is 100% willing, in which they hand the control over to lady luck more than the DM.

I had to backtrack on my statement, as I realized the way it was written was not wholly the way it was intended to be.

Ah, this (and Red Fel's comments) have helped to illustrate how my post came across. This isn't intended to be a blunt instrument for a DM to supplant player choice, but a group-consensus decision for an interesting way to create a generic party organically, or an unsual party (also organically).

I too take issue with, as a player, being told I should play a particular class (usually more so when I've already invested time considering what exactly I want to play). And I assure you, this is in no way intended to be used that way.


I just don't see what is accomplished by robbing the players of one of the fundamental character-building decisions.

This is what I'm referring to, my question was directed at forum goers in their roles as players more so just as DMs. Like, would you as players find it intriguing.


Several Base Classes don't fit into only one of the boxes where you've shoehorned them; for example, a Dread Necromancer can make a perfectly serviceable Mage (they cast Divine spells, after all) or even Warrior (free MWP and some DR). *Insert boilerplate observations of how Team Druid or Team Cleric can fill every niche.*

Thanks, I was dividing the casters by the type of magic (Divine = Priest; Arcane = Mage) more than anything else, as the type of magic sets the parameters under which the spells are created. That being said, what do you think of the following blurred lines?:

Warrior Archtype:
Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight, Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade, Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler, Marshal + Monk, Favored Soul, Dread Necromancer, Warmage

Thief Archtype:
Bard, Monk, Rogue, Ninja, Scout, Spell-Thief, Factotum, Beguiler

Priest Archtype:
Cleric, Druid, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman, Archivist, Dread Necromancer, Healer + Paladin, Ranger, Dragon Shaman, Truenamer

Mage Archtype:
Sorcerer, Wizard (including specialists), Warlock, Warmage, Wu Jen, Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer + Duskblade, Hexblade, Bard, Spell-Thief, Beguiler

Also, did I forget any classes? I know I didn't include Incarnum, but I also don't happen to own that book. The initial reasoning for the cutoff on Warrior was Full BAB progression, but that left some classes (Dragon Shaman, Marshal) effectively without a niche, so for them it was 'best fit'. I didn't include Druid or Cleric in warrior initially precisely because their primary role is divine spellcaster. Their ability to serve in secondary roles wasn't a concern. (Although having a different standard might be interesting too.)

[JusticeZero]

what do you think of the following blurred lines?Okay, so what happens when you have a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Favored Soul who shoots lightning and fire everywhere, and a nuking Sorcerer, and they are wondering why the party has a glass jaw?
How about when you have a front line Druid doing your heavy fighting alongside some mage gish that's already heavily focused on melee? Your third character comes in, do you say "What we really need is a guy who can swing a sword", when you already have two front line combat experts?
Or you get a Bard who loads up on healing items and control to protect the team, you get a Paladin who built to be a good secondary healing type but fights with some ridiculous substandard techniques or other, and you get this ridiculous Sorcerer who uses illusions and buffs to keep anybody from getting hurt. Fights look like you're freaking gumming enemies to death, but the party rarely takes more than a few scratches. Now character? "Um, gee, I think we need a healer"?
Seriously, you just need to make sure that they can A: beat stuff up and B: survive the other guy trying to beat them up when they do. That's your magic duo right there, and there's some overlap. There's a lot of ways they can do either of those two things. As long as they're able to keep up their post combat healing stock, they're gold.
Just tell people to talk with the rest of the group and work out some tactics between themselves instead of trying to make an iconic group and restrict the characters they can play to try to fit some artificial idealized mold that honestly had more to do with fictional character tropes than tactics.

[Gnome Alone]

Most players will want to play a particular class or another. Assigning this to Fate may be appreciated in some groups, but most people generally want to play what they want to play, and not Big McStupidFighter when they wanted to be a flamboyant Bard. Ask the group first and limit the classes available to a similar powerlevel, so at least nobody gets screwed massively from the outset Monking it up in a party of Druids and Wizards.

I do agree with you, but I'm mainly popping in to say that next time I play in a one-shot I'm totally gonna make an musuclar-idiot-sword-guy named Big McStupid. Or possibly Bigg McStoopid if I feel like being clever... uh, ish.

[Jeff the Green]

Plus, DnD lacks the only thing that makes a "tank" have any advantage, since there's no good way to force all the enemy to bunch up surrounding the fighter in a super-flank, and even if it happened, said fighter would get annoyed when the rest of the party started targeting her with Fireball and Meteor Swarm and similar AOE attacks.

Actually, there are a couple. Assuming your enemy doesn't have freedom of movement, a grappler or druid/spirit shaman summoner can force enemies to attack him/his summons by virtue of being in a grapple with them. And the big daddy, crusader, has a lot of nice abilities to punish enemies if they attack anyone but him. It's not the same as aggro, but it ends up filling the same role.

[Amphetryon]

Actually, there are a couple. Assuming your enemy doesn't have freedom of movement, a grappler or druid/spirit shaman summoner can force enemies to attack him/his summons by virtue of being in a grapple with them. And the big daddy, crusader, has a lot of nice abilities to punish enemies if they attack anyone but him. It's not the same as aggro, but it ends up filling the same role.

In addition to the above, the Knight's 'Challenge' ability serves this role to a small degree.

[Vogonjeltz]

Okay, so what happens when you have a Barbarian, a Rogue, a Favored Soul who shoots lightning and fire everywhere, and a nuking Sorcerer, and they are wondering why the party has a glass jaw?

I guess I don't follow. Barbarians are by no means fragile, and neither are favored souls (clerics with sorcerer casting), and having played a sorcerer I can assure you, done well they're virtually untouchable. The rogue is the weakest one there, and it's present in a standard party. Can you clarify your glass jaw comment?


How about when you have a front line Druid doing your heavy fighting alongside some mage gish that's already heavily focused on melee? Your third character comes in, do you say "What we really need is a guy who can swing a sword", when you already have two front line combat experts?

What you're describing here is build choice. That is going to be a possibility no matter how the classes get chosen. Everyone could focus on melee, or on standoff ranged, or on being social.

This is just intended to be a fun method for assembling parties when player(s) are ambivalent about what they want to do, not a panacea for poor decision making.


Or you get a Bard who loads up on healing items and control to protect the team, you get a Paladin who built to be a good secondary healing type but fights with some ridiculous substandard techniques or other, and you get this ridiculous Sorcerer who uses illusions and buffs to keep anybody from getting hurt. Fights look like you're freaking gumming enemies to death, but the party rarely takes more than a few scratches. Now character? "Um, gee, I think we need a healer"?
Seriously, you just need to make sure that they can A: beat stuff up and B: survive the other guy trying to beat them up when they do. That's your magic duo right there, and there's some overlap. There's a lot of ways they can do either of those two things. As long as they're able to keep up their post combat healing stock, they're gold.
Just tell people to talk with the rest of the group and work out some tactics between themselves instead of trying to make an iconic group and restrict the characters they can play to try to fit some artificial idealized mold that honestly had more to do with fictional character tropes than tactics.

At first I thought you were complaining. Now I'm not sure.

Are you saying a bard/paladin/sorcerer/healer group is destined to be ineffectual, or just that it could be?

If the former, I disagree.
If the latter, that holds true for every possible configuration.

[JusticeZero]

What you're describing here is build choice. That is going to be a possibility no matter how the classes get chosen. Everyone could focus on melee, or on standoff ranged, or on being social.

This is just intended to be a fun method for assembling parties when player(s) are ambivalent about what they want to do, not a panacea for poor decision making. What i'm saying is that how the party functions isn't always apparent from the classes they take, and what the party needs is often not to simply fill up the next check box in an arbitrary list of roles.
Are you saying a bard/paladin/sorcerer/healer group is destined to be ineffectual, or just that it could be?In the example I gave, that group was not ineffectual, but they were lacking in damage, not support. By filling in the missing square in your "Iconic" checkbox, you are led to suggest building a character who is traditionally an expert in providing the thing that the party already has a huge surplus of. The same with the barbarian/rogue/sorcerer/FS nuker party - they have a "glass jaw" because there's nobody to buff defense, nobody debilitating the enemy. They have a thick pool of HP, but not much else layered onto it. Their healing comes out of a wand. They have lots of HP, but as soon as the enemy gets to full attack, those HP disappear in big bites, very quickly. If the rogue dies, your system would have you suggesting people make a sneaky skill character instead of someone who can mitigate damage, when damage mitigation is what this group needs most.

[Talya]

You definitely need a rouge for your party make-up.

[Jormengand]

I came here expecting a discussion on applying the party Rouge.
Thread does not deliver!
You definitely need a rouge for your party make-up.

Maybe a ninja? A swordsage?

[Vogonjeltz]

What i'm saying is that how the party functions isn't always apparent from the classes they take, and what the party needs is often not to simply fill up the next check box in an arbitrary list of roles.In the example I gave, that group was not ineffectual, but they were lacking in damage, not support. By filling in the missing square in your "Iconic" checkbox, you are led to suggest building a character who is traditionally an expert in providing the thing that the party already has a huge surplus of. The same with the barbarian/rogue/sorcerer/FS nuker party - they have a "glass jaw" because there's nobody to buff defense, nobody debilitating the enemy. They have a thick pool of HP, but not much else layered onto it. Their healing comes out of a wand. They have lots of HP, but as soon as the enemy gets to full attack, those HP disappear in big bites, very quickly. If the rogue dies, your system would have you suggesting people make a sneaky skill character instead of someone who can mitigate damage, when damage mitigation is what this group needs most.

All classes are capable of functioning in multiple ways, and this is intended for assembling a party, not filling in when a character dies and they don't want to revive them.