[4e]Building the best party.

[Vortling]

Since there's been a small paradigm shift between 3.5 and 4e I'd like to examine the new focus of 4e: The party. Specifically I'd like to look at which classes and races synergize the best within the limits of the 5 person group to create a group capable of handling challenges with aplomb.

My initial thoughts on this party building exercise. I don't believe a wizard will be necessary. Based off my own experience and words from others the controlling job can be handled fine with the right other classes. Warlock and rogue are also out as they are simply inferior strikers to the ranger. I'm iffy on the cleric as well but that may simply be my own experiences with the class.

That leaves: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Warlord. I'm not sure if there should be one or two leaders but I know there needs to be at least one. As far as the rest go I'm looking at a Fighter, a Paladin, and two Rangers. One ranged ranger and one TWF ranger.

So what are people's overall thoughts on constructing this party and possible multiclassing options?

[Yakk]

The cleric heals way better than the warlord. This may or may not be useful.

What levels are you talking about?

[quillbreaker]

The wizard does excellent AoE and can also have one of the highest armor classes in the group. I'm not sure I'd chuck the wizard. And I'd think you'd want someone in your group that has Ritual Magic without blowing feats for it - that's a wizard or a cleric, and nobody is waving banners for the cleric at this moment.

[Edea]

I'm thinking at any level; maybe specify which levels you're referring to when making the party suggestion. For example, a level 1 party probably doesn't need a Wizard. A level 21 party, on the other hand, would do very well to have one.

Also, the swordmage class might be an option for a defender, especially the Shielding Aegis version.

[SadisticFishing]

Paladin/Morninglord
Cleric/Radiant Servant
Star Warlock/Student of Caiphon
Wizard. Find some radiant powers.

RAWR DAMAGE.

Synergy for the win.

[THAC0]

So far my group has played from level 1-6 with different combinations.

What works best for us is:

1 controller
1 striker
1 leader
2 defenders

We've found with only 1 defender, the squishies tend to get overrun.

Currently we're playing with:

1 fighter, 1 paladin
1 inspiring warlord
1 warlock
1 wizard

Another effective party composition we've tried traded the warlord for a cha-based cleric, and the warlock for a rogue.

We had a ranger once, I wasn't impressed. But then, that particular character was not well designed or played, so it might not be a fault of the class.

The wizard is incredibly useful if you have a player than can make best use of the tactical decisions.

Additionally, warlord can be effective, but this requires good tactics and teamwork.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Wizards are good for AoE, which is essential for dealing with lots of minions. Don't worry too much about "control," and make sure your Orbizard has some good single-target lock-downs.

Synergy-wise, a TacLord and 2 Rogues might be optimal. If the Rogues provide their own flanking buddies, then they can kill pretty much anything with great rapidity, and the TacLord can boost their to-hit to obscene levels. Personally, I'm not certain if Ranger>Rogue, but if you can ensure mutual CA like this, the double-rogue should be superior to mixed Rangers.

That leaves a Defender. Here I'd go with a Dwarven Fighter since they heal very well, and if you give them a Halberd they can provide area melee control and do pretty good damage. Maybe have him keep a Maul as his back-up weapon for when some extra DPR is needed, if you'd like.

You're correct about Warlocks, and while Rangers are nice, they always target AC. Rogues are going to be more reliable at hitting (particularly twin Daggermasters!). Paladins aren't needed when you have a TacLord buffing the crap out of everyone, and you don't need a second Leader (sorry cleric!).

So yeah, some thoughts.

[Crow]

A few notes:

The cleric is the party's best option for in-combat healing. Even with healing surges and the warlord's abilities, a party with a cleric is going to have much more stamina. This is important, as monsters now have much more staying power than before as well. In addition, the cleric's buffs have great utility for almost any member of the party.

The Warlock is a sub-par striker in terms of straight damage only. They're ability to inflict nasty status effects on targets gives them increased utility over the rogue and ranger. They are also even better than the ranger at staying out of trouble, which gives them (in monster terms) a sort of "lurker" role, and allows the defenders and leader to focus their efforts on fewer party members if neccessary.

While the rogue has greater one-shot potential (damage-wise), the ranger is very likely to out-damage a rogue over the course of a campaign due to getting more attacks, in addition to less stringent requirements to activate their extra damage.

Our group is using:

Cleric
Rogue
Rogue/Warlock
Ranger/Warlord

If I had to choose a party all for myself:

Cleric
Warlock
Ranger
Fighter
Warlord

[ghost_warlock]

The Warlock is a sub-par striker in terms of straight damage only. They're ability to inflict nasty status effects on targets gives them increased utility over the rogue and ranger. They are also even better than the ranger at staying out of trouble, which gives them (in monster terms) a sort of "lurker" role, and allows the defenders and leader to focus their efforts on fewer party members if neccessary.

Yes. Especially as you climb in levels, it's best to think of a warlock as a secondary controller moreso than a straight striker (more so for star/fey pact than infernal, btw; I haven't studied the dark pact enough to say where it falls with regard to this). Also, warlocks have a few powers that don't do a lot of damage, but increase the damage other party members can do thanks to granting combat advantage to allies or inflicting vulnerability-all on the target.

[Gralamin]

I've personally found that the following groups work very well together:
Tactical Warlord, Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric
Tactical Warlord, Wizard, Paladin, Warlock, Cleric

If you wanted a ranger in a group, I'd actually recommend:
Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Warlock

In addition, I would expect the following group to work very well:
Tactical Warlord, Wizard, Swordmage, Warlock, Cleric.

The reason for this is strictly, looking at any non-leader class, Power sources synergize internally quite well. The reason leaders are an exception is not only do they Synergize with there power source, they are also synergize very well with almost any other sort of character. This is because a leader improves everyone else in some fashion, and thus can benefit in almost any party.

[Yakk]

They are also even better than the ranger at staying out of trouble, which gives them (in monster terms) a sort of "lurker" role, and allows the defenders and leader to focus their efforts on fewer party members if neccessary

Except, of course, you want your players to be soaking up a measured amount of damage. Everyone has healing surges and HP -- ideally, you efficiently use every party member's.

Then again, if you have two surge-heavy defenders, this might not be the case.

[Tengu_temp]

I think the best group would be the classic four-man setup of fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard, with a strength-focused warlord as the fifth, hybrid party member - this way you get plenty of healing, plenty of damage, plenty of tanking and decent controlling abilities.

[MartinHarper]

I'd go with a party based on kiting. Ranged powers only (preferably range 11+so they outrange everyone in the monster manual), lots of slowing powers like Dire Radiance and Ray of Frost. Probably looking at Wizard, crossbow Rogue, longbow Ranger, Star Pact Warlock, and laser Cleric.

Edit: the idea is to kill most monsters down with only at-will powers and no healing surges. Then all the Encounter/Daily powers can be picked with a view to surviving the odd occasion where the party get jumped.

[Tempest Fennac]

What exactly does Healing Word do? I don't play 4th Edition, but I remember someone mentioning a while back that they could use it out-of-combat for infinite healing (that could be worthwhile if you're having problems deciding which Leader to use).

[Oracle_Hunter]

What exactly does Healing Word do? I don't play 4th Edition, but I remember someone mentioning a while back that they could use it out-of-combat for infinite healing (that could be worthwhile if you're having problems deciding which Leader to use).

It triggers someone's Healing Surge and gives 1d6+WIS HP in addition. Basically it makes out-of-combat healing more efficient (but by no means infinite). Inspiring Word just gives Surge+1d6 HP, so clerics are much better at healing.

[Criz Reborn]

It triggers someone's Healing Surge and gives 1d6+WIS HP in addition. Basically it makes out-of-combat healing more efficient (but by no means infinite). Inspiring Word just gives Surge+1d6 HP, so clerics are much better at healing.

Where does it say that? Im looking at both abilities and they each say they give an additional 1d6

[Saph]

Where does it say that? Im looking at both abilities and they each say they give an additional 1d6

Page 61, "Healer's Lore". Every time the Cleric uses a healing power, it heals extra HP equal to the cleric's Wis.

Note that this doesn't just apply to Healing Word, it applies to ALL their healing powers, like Cure Light Wounds and Healing Strike. Hence Clerics are the best healers by a long way. I'd pick one over a Warlord simply for this reason.

- Saph

[The Mormegil]

Lazer Clerics heal REALLY well. Expecially at low-levels (try out Beacon of Hope... AMAZING!). They also have friendly AoEs. They are good against brutes, lurkers, artillery, controllers, minions, solos and elites.
Melee clerics are tanky. They are good against brutes, lurkers, solos and elites.
Fighters are good defenders for many-monsters encounters. They are good against skirmishers, minions, brutes, lurkers.
Paladins are good, on the other hand, against solos and elites, brutes, lurkers.
Ranged Rangers are pure damage. They are good against controllers, artillery, elites, solos, brutes, skirmishers.
TWF Rangers are quite useless.
Rogues are reliable hitters. They do quite good damage and quite good status effects. They are good against soldiers, lurkers, skirmishers, artillery, controllers, elites and solos.
Warlocks are good because of mobility, lurking abilities and controlling abilities. They are good against soldiers, lurkers, skirmishers, artillery, controllers, minions, elites and solos.
Wizards are good at AoEs and Orbizards are good at single target kills. They are good against skirmishers, artillery, controllers and minions.
Tactical Warlords are good at granting tactical advantages and to hit bonuses. They are good against soldiers, controllers, solos.
Inspiring Warlords aren't that good. Best have a cleric.
Assault Swordmages aren't good enough. Shieling Swordmages are good for single-target marking, mobility and AoEs. They have the best ACs. They are good against soldiers, controllers, artillery, skirmishers, lurkers, minions, elites, solos, brutes.

So, according to my analysis the best party will certainly have a Shielding Swordmage, a Lazer Cleric, a Warlock, a Rogue and a Ranged Ranger. Which is WRONG. Crap.

According to MY EXPERIENCE, the party should have a Shielding Swordmage, a Lazer Cleric, a Warlock, a Tactical Warlord, and a Fighter. Good synergy between each of them, good AoEs, good melee capacities, good tactical exploiting, Ritual Casting, diversified skills, good healing... Perfect. The only difficulty is that they don't have great damage potential. The Swordmage has got low DPR, the Cleric has got low DPR, the Taclord has got low DPR, the Warlock has got a fair DPR but not that high, the Fighter has got a fair DPR, but isn't a Striker. On the other hand, they can handle most of the tougher monsters with status effects and Shielding marking from far away, while dealing low but constant (thanks to the Taclord) damage.

[Mando Knight]

One game I played had three leaders and a Paladin, the actual setup was
2 Clerics
1 Warlord
1 Paladin (me)
1 Rogue

One of the clerics ended up sustaining over 100 points of damage in one encounter... even though he was only level 3 and the rest of the team was level 1...

[Hzurr]

One thing that I've noticed in the Cleric-less party I'm DMing, is that when you have a Warlord, having a Paladin as one of the defenders helps offset the healing the party would have otherwised received with a Cleric in the leader role.

I'm DMing a pretty large group, and we actually have all 3 strikers in the party, and it seems that the Warlock is by far the least effective (although that also might be because his rolls are horrible. It's uncanny).

The ranger (TWF) has been tearing things up, although he also has needed the most healing out of anyone in the group. The BS Rogue hasn't been as effective, but every so often she'll deal out so much damage it makes my head hurt (I don't remember the exact combo, but it's the one that does her sneak attack + dex + str + cha. It's hard-core).

Our wizard has a pretty good head for tactics, and has been making excellent use of thunderwave and ray of frost (that ray of frost saved their bacon during one encounter, since it kept a kobald from being able to run for help). Needless to say, it seems like a controller with a smattering of intelligence is extremely necessary.

Our Warlord has been moderately effective. Now, part of this was because the player hasn't been able to be there as much, and the guy we had filling in didn't have a good sense of what the Warlord could do. Once he figured that out, the warlord became much more usefull.

So, based on what I've seen, I'd recommend:
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger (ranged)
Warlord
Wizard

Other options would be to switch the warlord for a Cleric, and make the ranger a TWF.

As far as races go, I'm definately saying Human for the wizard (that extra at-will is too awesome), and aside from that I'd recommend a dwarf for one of the defenders (the "Second Wind" as a minor action is exceptionally usefull),
and that the party should include a dragonborn (enlarged dragon's breath as a minor action to clear a room of minions? Yes Please) and a half-elf (the group bonuses are just too nice to pass up). Tieflings...meh. Eladrin and halflings could be ok, but I haven't seen either one in play, so I really couldn't say. Elfs aren't bad.

[Charity]

Party of 5

Dragonborn Hammer fighter - for a smidge of aoe, a dollop of striker, with some heafty defender thrown in.
Elven laser cleric - king of healing plus some good buffs and aoe
Drow Paladin heading toward morninglord - good buffs, ancillary healing and reasonable damage output and good synergy with the clerics radiant powers.
Bugbear ranger heading for pit fighter - good manouverability high survivability and masses of damage.
Gityanki wizard with a smattering of warlock - great aoe and debuffing.

[TwystidMynd]

I feel that part of the hypothetical party's situation that is being ignored is the length of a day.

If the DM of this party is the type of DM who throws 3 encounters per day, then Healing Surge rationing will not be as big of a deal. Some of the proposed party make ups have low-damage strikers, or no strikers at all. For these parties, combats will be long and drawn-out, causing them to spend, on average, more healing surges than a similar but striker-heavier party.

For DMs that throw 6 or more encounters per day, strikers and controllers gain in importance, because they can do their jobs using at-wills, whereas Leaders drop in effectiveness the longer an encounter goes on, due to slowly losing their healing abilities. Furthermore, Strikers and Controllers ensure that fewer healing surges are needed, since more things drop, and things drop sooner each round.

So, my point is that, depending on the type world the DM is running, different parties might be "best."

[Oracle_Hunter]

Party of 5

Dragonborn Hammer fighter - for a smidge of aoe, a dollop of striker, with some heafty defender thrown in.

Why Dragonborn instead of Dwarf? Dwarves get Dwarven Weapon Training (+2 damage) a CON bonus (for Hammer Feats) and can Second Wind as a Minor Action... not to mention Dwarven Toughness.

If you're going Dragonborn, I'd give him a Halberd instead for Deadly Axe goodness.

EDIT:

I feel that part of the hypothetical party's situation that is being ignored is the length of a day.

If the DM of this party is the type of DM who throws 3 encounters per day, then Healing Surge rationing will not be as big of a deal. Some of the proposed party make ups have low-damage strikers, or no strikers at all. For these parties, combats will be long and drawn-out, causing them to spend, on average, more healing surges than a similar but striker-heavier party.

For DMs that throw 6 or more encounters per day, strikers and controllers gain in importance, because they can do their jobs using at-wills, whereas Leaders drop in effectiveness the longer an encounter goes on, due to slowly losing their healing abilities. Furthermore, Strikers and Controllers ensure that fewer healing surges are needed, since more things drop, and things drop sooner each round.

So, my point is that, depending on the type world the DM is running, different parties might be "best."

While I agree that low-damage strikers (or controller-y) parties will suffer Surge loss over long battles, I think the double-rogue combo is the way to go. With a good Defender and a Warlord they can easily isolate and kill individual baddies in 1-2 rounds apiece (more for elites, of course).

Are people really hating on the double rogue? What's wrong with 'em?

[Yakk]

Two rogues is sub optimal

A rogue wants lots of flanking options to get easy combat advantage. Every other rogue eats a flanking option.

2 rogues + 1 melee means that ... either the rogues are each flanking the same target with each other, or one rogue gets no flanking, or the one melee is seriously surrounded.

1 rogue + 2 melee means that the one rogue has two distinct spots to flank an opponent, or more.

I'm not saying it won't work -- and the "double-rogue death squad" could be a useful way to take out back-line opponents. But a Ranger+Rogue could probably do it about as well.

Note that twin strike >~= rogue at-will damage, barring a target with a really crappy reflex defense. Ranger per-encounter powers aren't that good, damage-wise, and then Ranger dailies tend to be way too good.

[Crow]

Except, of course, you want your players to be soaking up a measured amount of damage. Everyone has healing surges and HP -- ideally, you efficiently use every party member's.

Then again, if you have two surge-heavy defenders, this might not be the case.

I will have to disagree with you there. I've found that ideally, you want none of your party members soaking up damage.

Now as a DM, it's different. Then I want the players to take all sorts of damage.

[Yakk]

Meh, monsters are going to be dealing damage to someone if they aren't being actively controlled by a PC's powers.

Given that the damage is incoming, you don't want the monsters to be completely ignoring any single party member. You want everyone to take a bit of monster-attention and soak it in their HP.

You do want the defenders (with their high HP, good AC, and lots of high-value healing surges) to take more damage than the other party members.

Ie, if you are taking 100 damage on a 5 member party, having the Defender take 60 and everyone else take 10 (even if the other members take 20% more damage than the defender, upping the total to 12 each), than having the Defender take 100 damage all by themself.

This is, as I've mentioned before, quite key to generating encounters where the party is on the edge of defeat. By having monsters switch between "pound on one target" when they are too weak, and "spread damage out" when they are too strong, you can custom-tailor an encounter on the fly without cheating on dice rolls, HP totals, or the like. It isn't hard to justify that kind of behavior in a roleplay sense, either. :-)

Of course, that's DM theorycraft, not player theorycraft. However, it does point out that a relatively high HP Ranger who can be attacked is often better, defensively, for the party than a lower HP Warlock that cannot be attacked.

[TwystidMynd]

I haven't played a metric ton of games, but I did level from 1 to 6 as the only Rogue (Trickster) in the party. Part of the way we had a Fighter and a Taclord, and later the Taclord got replaced by a Wizard.

Throughout play, I found that it was very difficult to get into a flanking position while maintaining a "safe distance" from the baddies. This actually usually meant that I was taking hits from whatever the Fighter didn't have a chance to mark, because I was in the middle of the scuffle.

With the Taclord, a cool maneuver that we figured out was that, through combinations of sliding abilities, we could frequently "yank" the Biggest Baddie out from a group, and double-team him away from his buddies, and focus-fire him down while the Fighter tanked the rest. This became much more difficult to do when we traded the Taclord for a Wizard, but with two Trickster Rogues I think it would probably be possible again.

[Awesomologist]

First of all I'd like like to note that there is no such thing as a "Best Party". You'd be surprised at how much of it has to do with the creativity and skill level of the players around the table.
That being said I've experienced some groups that work really well.

Note: All of these groups were played in the Heroic Tier. Results may vary at higher tiers.

Group 1
Dwarf Fighter (player went with 2H hammers but we figure axes are feasible)
Halfling Rogue
Dragonborn Paladin (sword and board)
Eladrin Warlord (Tactical)
Human Wizard (Control)

Group 2
Dragonborn Paladin (sword and board, Slightly different build than group 1's but not significantly so)
Eladrin Swordmage (Assault Swordmage)
Dwarf Cleric (Devout)
Tiefling Warlock (Infernal)
Human Wizard (Control)

Group 3
Eladrin Swordmage (Assault Swordmage)
Dragonborn Warlord (Inspiring)
Eladrin Ranger (Two-Weapon)
Teifling Warlock (Infernal)
Human Wizard (Control)

All three groups played fairly well together. Group 1 was able to get by with Paladin and Warlord heals. Group 2 had excellent synergy between the Swordmage and Warlock while the Paladin defended the Cleric and Wizard. Group 3's Ranger played "whack-a-mole" shifting and moving around the Warlord's Target, while the Swordmage was very effective at moving the front line. Same synergy existed with the Warlock and Swordmage.

A few notes on specific classes:
1) We've found the Rogue and Two Weapon Ranger fairly interchangeable in that they're both mobile and deal a lot of great melee damage.
2) The Warlock and Archer Ranger are also similarly interchangeable as ranged damage dealers.
3) An Inspiring Warlords are almost as good of a healer as the Cleric, but we have not tested the endurance of this build.
4) Swordmages, of either build, make better secondary defenders than primary ones but their mobility is fantastic in situations were extra mobs come into battle or if a mob can get past the primary defender. Their synergy with ranged damage dealers is unmatched in my honest opinion.
5) Our group has come to the consensus that there is no reason to play a Battle Mage. Focused attacks on a single or small group of targets for high damage is the job of other classes. If the party gets swarmed, or has problems with a couple of mobs, we found the Wizard is best suited for controlling those mobs and keeping them away or hindering their abilities.

[Ealstan]

I'm currently playing a Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord, and I've gotta say it is definitely sub-par. It was good initially, but the higher we go (currently 14th), the less effective I become. To remain a contributing member of the team I've had to pump my defenses as much as possible to take up some tanking duties (We have one Dwarf Fighter, who rocks the house). I eventually multiclassed into paladin, which actually helped a lot. I now even heal more than I did single-classed.

[Awesomologist]

I'm currently playing a Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord, and I've gotta say it is definitely sub-par. It was good initially, but the higher we go (currently 14th), the less effective I become. To remain a contributing member of the team I've had to pump my defenses as much as possible to take up some tanking duties (We have one Dwarf Fighter, who rocks the house). I eventually multiclassed into paladin, which actually helped a lot. I now even heal more than I did single-classed.

I'm curious as to why you think you've become less effective? Dragonborn Warlords have the added benefit of higher strength so swapping a lower level power for a tactical power is an option.
Do you find the shortcoming to be in damage? Heals? Battlefield control?