A common occurrence in the group I play with, it the tendency for the players to gravitate to the more exotic flavor classes and prestige classes, while shamefully neglecting the regular ones. Although I frequently GM the group, and the absence of a cleric in the group (a fairly common occurrence) doesn't bother me, when I play as a player, I always end up playing a Wizard, or a Cleric, because no one in the group wishes to play either. Everyone wants to play Rogue/Scout or Dragon-like characters. Anyone else notice this type of trend?
Definately. Especially with new players, I've found that players gravitate towards rangers instead of fighters, monks instead of rogues and so on. I don't really like it, especially in groups of four or less, but I'm not about to do anything about it other than give a suggestion or two and then let them learn on their own.
I too have noticed this trend, and not just from new players. My group used to be made of up gaming veterans, who also wanted to try out every new race or PRC that came out in the latest Accesory.
I find that this is detrimental to the survivability of most adventuring groups because you really NEED the base classes. However, Instead of just showing them the folly of this path and crushing them (not on purpose mind you, but just by letting encounters play out normally), I find myslef adjusting all their ecounters to better "suit" the weird parties they form.
Why you ask? Let me just refer you to a previous post about "fun"....nuff said.
At least they all KNOW what is being done and appreciate it. I think after so many years of gaming we all realize just how hard it is to survive in an adventuring group without a cleric for instance.
On the rare occasion I actually get to play, I find myself in the same boat as Allen. I always end up playing what the party lacks (which is almost always a caster, and most of the time divine).
There are several ways to address this issue if you believe it to be a problem (and only if):
1. The path you should NEVER take is to bar players from using certain classes if the books are available in the game unless you can justify it in your campaign world. I don't allow dragon shamans from PHB2 in my campaign setting becuse most dragons have regressed to dumb beasts and most draconic lore has been lost. This is despite the fact that I use some of the other classes. A better way of doing it is to limit the number of books you use in the game, such as using only the core rule books, or the core rulebooks and the Eberron books, etc. This is much easier to do at the beginning of a new campaign rather than in the middle of one to limit player grumpyness.
2. I normally find that player's miss out on having a cleric. If this occurs just let it take its natural course (which normally means the death of a PC or two, or a TPK). The group will quickly regret not having somebody who can heal.
If you want one of them to play a rogue and nobody is, throw a villain in who learns of the groups deficiencies and traps his lair to the teeth. The group might regret not having a rogue once a few of them succumb to traps that they might have otherwise overcome.
3. Throw in a few NPCs (enemies or otherwise) that highlight the magnificence of playing a cleric, rogue, or standard fighter. This is a dangerous thing to do of course, because you don't want the NPC to take over the game or become a player crutch. It takes patience and skill.
4. The player who plays the cleric or rogue should lead by example and show the others just how good the classes can be. If the other players still feel these classes to be deficient then there just goobs.
Again, only deal with the problem if you think it has become one. If the players are having fun and you're not unhappy about your campaign then don't do anything. Maybe they will get it out of their system after a few years.
well my group doesn't suffer from lack of clerics or mages... it is fighters and rogues that they lack, as of our next meeting the group will consist of a human cleric, a human cleric/stormlord, an elf wizard, and a gnome favored soul/sorcerer/mystic thuerge.
The way one of my clever players has of dancing around the problem is to have the Rogue Max out in the Use Magic Device skill and equip him/her with some extra items.
Everyone wants to play Rogue/Scout or Dragon-like characters.
I'd be okay with Rogues or Scouts - but "Dragon-like characters" - ugh. Well thats my personal beef, I don't like dragons, or other non-humanoid monsters as PCs (or even NPCs). I know there are books to create monsters as characters - but it would be a major exception to use them as PCs in my worlds, would require a really well thought out character concept, and a lot of prior coordination to integrate them into the social fabric of the world.
I think one good way to combat this trend would be to require folks to start at 1st level. That would stop most of the nonsense. And in my opinion starting at 1st level (or at least low level) tends to create better characters and better play.
|
I'd be okay with Rogues or Scouts - but "Dragon-like characters" - ugh. Well thats my personal beef, I don't like dragons, or other non-humanoid monsters as PCs (or even NPCs).
I've heard it said before; when someone wants to play a monster race, they rarely want to play a mongrel man or a kobold. Why do the half dragons get all the love?
I personally am wary of overloading the game with dragon-this and dragon-that. Dragons are already the closest thing in the Material Plane there is to a deity. They are forces of awe and power. They are magnificent. Throwing dragon-stuff around everywhere dilutes this. Things of a draconic bent should be the exception, not the rule, so that when they come up, it's a noticed and big deal.
|
I think one good way to combat this trend would be to require folks to start at 1st level. That would stop most of the nonsense. And in my opinion starting at 1st level (or at least low level) tends to create better characters and better play.
When new players bring a favourite character to the table, you can always tell which have been played from first level, and which are some munchkin's cheese-dream.
'Organic' PCs have a whole load of obsolete, redundant or duplicate equipment, their feats and skills have been worked out so as to be legal at every level.
'Backdated' PCs have blatant holes in them, because the munchkin just works out a grand total of feats/abilities/skill points, and spends them willy-nilly; wizards with no defensive 1st-level spells - how did they survive?
Feats bought without having the prerequisites.
Skills which require some ranks to be cross-class,....
Eg; something I notice a LOT is people taking 1st level as rogue, to benefit from increased skill points. I like rogues, and play them often. However, there are a lot of things such a character cannot do, like take Weapon Focus, Weapon Finesse, Metamagic Feats, all item creation feats are delayed (no Brew Potion until caster level 3), etc...and the whole super-character concept just falls apart.
I remember seeing a Rog1/Wiz 6, with 10 ranks of Tumble; I asked "So, the last 6 ranks were cross-class, then?". The owner, seeking to save himself 6 skill points, replied "Oh, no, I could have taken Rogue as my last level" (note the use of 'could have'; ie he had no idea what he'd done).
"Fine, level 1 was Wizard, lose 24 skill points..."
Pfeh...do it legal or don't waste my time.
I remember seeing a Rog1/Wiz 6, with 10 ranks of Tumble; I asked "So, the last 6 ranks were cross-class, then?". The owner, seeking to save himself 6 skill points, replied "Oh, no, I could have taken Rogue as my last level" (note the use of 'could have'; ie he had no idea what he'd done).
"Fine, level 1 was Wizard, lose 24 skill points..."Pfeh...do it legal or don't waste my time.
Your munchkins don't have very good access to technology. As a DM I make all my NPCs using PCgen but I presume there are a couple of programs out there that do more or less the same thing. Any program like this would allow said munchkin to build teh character level by level and probably usually still realize their cheese dream while not allowing them to cheat (and hence get caught).
I have no problem with this imbalance b ut then I have both 6 players and I let the dice fall were they may and my players no it. They simply would not enter the dungeon without a cleric or something equivilent. They like their characters to much to want to see them die for lack of healing.
When I GM I do not worry about what the players choose to play as they know that the ememies will exploit any holes that they would be able to notice with the knowledge they would have at their disposal by using gather info, scrying, etc.
This means in short that the party has to have all of the bases covered in regards to the necessary roles, or characters will die.
As long as they have the healing magic, defensive magic, offensive magic, trap finding at above a DC20, spot and listen, gathering information, front line fighting, and ranged combat roles covered to a degree consistent with character levels it does not matter what classes they choose.
I've heard it said before; when someone wants to play a monster race, they rarely want to play a mongrel man or a kobold. Why do the half dragons get all the love?
I'd be okay with Rogues or Scouts - but "Dragon-like characters" - ugh. Well thats my personal beef, I don't like dragons, or other non-humanoid monsters as PCs (or even NPCs).
I've always wanted a mongrel man as a PC. I've actually never played a non-humanoid PC though. Kobolds are intresting little fellows, aren't they? Of all non-humanoids, I can't stand the idea of "Half-Dragon". Just so annoyed whenever I hear about a character like that.
~Flabulater OUT!
I would agree that the 3rd ed guys did very little to balance player classes and this is a huge problem in both mosty combat oriented games and very little combat games as classes built to suceed on one style are generally not doing well in the other. It is now quite easy to both munckin yourself and to totally gimp yourself and if your really good; do it with the same class in a different style game. Luckily, I dont worry about class balance in D&D and just try to run a fun game with something in it for everyone. If you really want to play a balanced game you will probably have to play something else.
On that last thought, I also think that many of the newer players who didn't play in 1st or even 2nd edition weren't 'groomed' with the idea that (examples) dwarves can't be wizards, or you couldn't play a troll with fighter levels even if you wanted to. And there was no half-anythings. People new to the game come to naturally view the game as 'anything goes' and choose desired classes in such a light.
|
Party imbalance? I think that's a common occurence, even if the DM sets out and says "Only PHB for character creation". Not everybody wants to play a cliche, and not everybody wants to make a character they feel they "have" to make. My personal experience is that spellcasters are usually short-handed, as we either have a cleric or sorcerer-type, but not always both.
With smaller groups, it's probably more likely that a party will be imbalanced. There's 4 people at the table; 1 wants a barbarian, 1 wants an illusionist, 1 wants a rogue, and 1 wants a monk. What should the DM do? Tell the monk he has to be a cleric or druid instead? Suggest that the barbarian takes levels of fighter instead? Personally, I don't like that kind of railroading, on either side of the table. If that's how the party dynamic ends up, then so be it. The party can develop in reaction to the gaps in their set-up. I've seen half the party take cross-class ranks in "Use Magic Device" so that a few cure wands can cover the lack of a cleric, or having clerics prepare their offensive spells to balance the lack of an arcane spellcaster (always able to swap for a cure spell when needed, right?) That seems to suit my gaming groups, as we like the more 'natural' feel of a character that develops according to what skills will be useful, not just what the player envisions. With the flexible potential to character creation in 3.X, I think that party balance is actually less of a factor now than it used to be in previous editions.
The party can develop in reaction to the gaps in their set-up. I've seen half the party take cross-class ranks in "Use Magic Device" so that a few cure wands can cover the lack of a cleric, or having clerics prepare their offensive spells to balance the lack of an arcane spellcaster (always able to swap for a cure spell when needed, right?) That seems to suit my gaming groups, as we like the more 'natural' feel of a character that develops according to what skills will be useful, not just what the player envisions. With the flexible potential to character creation in 3.X, I think that party balance is actually less of a factor now than it used to be in previous editions.
It sounds like your gaming group really has its act together. I think a larger problem is trying to explain to a party, that does not already realize it, that if they don't fill all the iconic roles that they are going to have broaden the scope of their own abilities. Instead I tend to see Cleric-less parties where the bard decides not to get healing spells, no one takes the heal skill or use magic device, and the party seems to think that they are just entitled to find large numbers of potions as they have no healer or even basic healing ability of their own. Then again I think it may be we are just over accustom to computer games which give you easy ways to do all the basic functions that you will need for the game and have come to expect the same in pen and paper RPGs.
Yeah, party imbalance can be a problem, but don't go blaming all the extra options for it. If there's a gap in the party you can always find another class to fill in nowadays. For instance, if the party lacks a healer there's clerics, favoured souls, druids, spirit shamans, shugenjas, ardents (Life mantle) and the partial healing classes like paladin, ranger, dragon shaman etc. So there is no need to boycot the extra classes for the sake of party balance. If the party won't make up for a dificiency then it's their fault not the DM's, let them know about it and if they ignore you then let 'em suffer (but don't go out of your way to do so).
When I play I always end up having to fill a role but with so many classes I can always find a way to do it that I'm happy with.
Also, why do some people find dragon characters so bad? I love dragons a lot, so seeing some DM's backlist them because of some munchkins is really sad. And when I say that I love dragons I mean it, every piece of clothing I'm currently wearing has a dragon on it somewhere, I can see four different dragon statuettes, at least ten books about dragons and a dragon poster just taking a quick glance around my room. Not being able to play a dragon shaman if I wanted to simply because the DM think's they're munchkiny would make me really unhappy, and the point of the game is to have fun right?
I think the obsession with half-dragons is due to the inherent power/coolness of dragons, and half-dragons let you play a dragon-like character without having to take an absurd level adjustment, but like anything else it can be munchkinised but it can also be fun, it all depends on who you're playing with.
Some people may have problems with the way I do it, but I flat out deny the use of certain character classes and feats. I feel that balance must be maintained.
A perfect example is the duskblade. A character with better saves than a fighter, slightly less HP, nearly the same BAB progression and up to level 5 arcane spells. Also, they can bypass armor for purposes of arcane failure up to medium. Why would anyone want to play a fighter?
Personally, I stick to the 3 main books. I suck like that :]
Why would anyone want to play a fighter?
Incredibly good feat progression until 12th level in the past, and they are now worth taking to 18th level with PHB2. Duskblades are good, but the simple matter is that getting 10 bonus feats is a pretty good trade-off for limited spell selection-- especially since a fighter really only needs a high Strength score, whereas a Duskblade needs a few different high abilities to really be effective.
Incredibly good feat progression until 12th level in the past, and they are now worth taking to 18th level with PHB2. Duskblades are good, but the simple matter is that getting 10 bonus feats is a pretty good trade-off for limited spell selection-- especially since a fighter really only needs a high Strength score, whereas a Duskblade needs a few different high abilities to really be effective.
Or, as is the case with my guy, simply because he would like to be called a fighter :]
|
Some people may have problems with the way I do it, but I flat out deny the use of certain character classes and feats. I feel that balance must be maintained.
A perfect example is the duskblade. A character with better saves than a fighter, slightly less HP, nearly the same BAB progression and up to level 5 arcane spells. Also, they can bypass armor for purposes of arcane failure up to medium. Why would anyone want to play a fighter?
Personally, I stick to the 3 main books. I suck like that :]
The duskblade spell list is very limited. No fighter bonus feats someone already mentioned. Less hp. Lesser armor to start means they need a good Dex to start with on top of a good Str, Intel, and Con to have fighterish hp.
Seems like a good class to be if you are in a 3 man party, or trying to be flexible to aid frontliners and the mages.
I found the PHB2 to be pretty well balanced and I was trying to find the powerlevel flaws. Maybe some of the feats could use a bit of tweaking but overall a much more balanced book than I expected.
FH
Seems like a good class to be if you are in a 3 man party, or trying to be flexible to aid frontliners and the mages.
FH
Thats a good point, and one I failed to see initially. It has the potential to be a very well rounded character and after initially writing it off I did go back and look at it again. The spell list is very limited and seems mainly focused on "buffing" yourself.
I hear what the OP is saying and I'm aware of this problem existing but if anything, at my table, the problem has been just the opposite. Problems with too many exotic classes and/or bizarre combinations sounds like they could be largely resolved by enforcing the "start at 1st level" restriction and having the players show a little cooperation by working together to create a balanced party rather than selfishly pursuing their own goals. It also sounds like DMs could discourage this behavior by letting the players' selfish choices have natural concequences - no cleric, oh well, I guess no healing then; or slam! you all just died in the trap no rogue was there to detect.
As to the opposite problem I mentioned, let me explain... If you only have a party of four characters there really isn't a huge opportunity to play anything too far afield from the basic four classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard) if you seriously want the party to survive and last through an arduous campaign (can anyone say Adventure Path?). Sure you can replace the fighter with a paladin, a ranger, or a barbarian even (or something even more flavorful) but you still essentially need to fill that slot once and only once. The cleric might be a druid instead but still the group is confined largely to the healing slot to be filled once and only once. There are classes that might hold some appeal, like a bard, for instance, that don't ever really get played in a small group because survival (especially at very low levels) depends on more effectively filling one of the four core slots.
I liked the question posted above about the four players who came to the table without an effective healer or spell-caster. I think it illustrates how in small groups everybody is almost forced to compromise in order to have a well-balanced group.
This brings me to a related question...
I hear quite a few posters on these message boards talking about drawing up characters individually and then just bringing them to the table (surprise!) on the first night of starting a brand new campaign. I've even read some complaints for those nasty players who dare to create/modify their initial characters at the game table on that first night. Okay... um, exactly how does it ever work out if everybody just comes up with their own character without considering what the party is going to consist of or what the theme of the campaign even is? I know the first session of a new campaign is kinda a drag because you don't get to actually play (at least not when I'm the DM) because the entire session is spent creating characters but I view this as a necessary evil. If players are allowed to develop their characters individually don't you almost always wind up with some ridiculous class imbalances? And I'm certainly not going to want (as a player) to have spent hours or days coming up with a cool character (let's just say for sake of argument - a barbarian) only to come to the table and find two other players created barbarians and now the party is seriously unbalanced without spell-casters, healers, or thieving skills. If we're all sitting down to the table for the 1st session, I might have the idea to play a barbarian but quickly see that no one else wants to play a cleric ("ok,ok, I'll be the cleric instead"). Irritating perhaps, but not too big of a deal. But then what if opening night is actually game play night and I've spent countless time and energy developing my barbarian, I'm going to be much less willing to toss him over and play a cleric (especially since this still disrupts/delays game play while I whip up something suitable, and probably not nearly as cool and clever as my original character was destined to be). Am I making any sense or just babbling here? Can anyone understand the question I'm trying to ask here? How does one foster an "anything goes" attitude and also maintain any kind of logical party balance, especially if dice are gonna roll on the very first gathering night?
|
It sounds like your gaming group really has its act together. I think a larger problem is trying to explain to a party, that does not already realize it, that if they don't fill all the iconic roles that they are going to have broaden the scope of their own abilities. Instead I tend to see Cleric-less parties where the bard decides not to get healing spells, no one takes the heal skill or use magic device, and the party seems to think that they are just entitled to find large numbers of potions as they have no healer or even basic healing ability of their own. Then again I think it may be we are just over accustom to computer games which give you easy ways to do all the basic functions that you will need for the game and have come to expect the same in pen and paper RPGs.
This sounds very familiar to me. There are two different approaches to this situation:
1. The one proposed by many of you: don't force your players into base classes, adapt the game, use magic devices for lacking spell casters etc.
2. Appeal to your players' senses, don't force them into any classes, but make them realize that a certain combination of classes is key to most adventures.
I am one of those DMs who don't have much time for adventure preparation. So I rely heavily on published adventures which in return usually heavily rely on the "standard combination" of classes. Besides magic potions and devices aren't available in every village in my campaign world.
So for obvious reasons I lean towards alternative 2.
Scenario: Guennar's group.
3 fighterish PCs,
1 druid
1 sorcerer.
Recently a new player joined our group. She didn't know the rules and was thankful for being given just two choices (= 2 completely filled out character sheets). My players and I explained the roles, benefits, and disadvantages of both classes and she chose the scout (it is better suited for our mainly outdoorish adventures than e.g. rogues).
Already before I had agreed with my most experienced player (and co DM) that we urgently needed a real cleric. So the second character sheet contained a cleric he took up in favour of his old barbarian character. He didn't mind taking up a different PC and I didn't force him into it. So far everything is happy. ;-)
I agree with one of the other writers above: he will manage to make his cleric shine and therefore make the PCs have 2nd thoughts about their prejudices about clerics. ;-)
Greetings,
Günther
Am I making any sense or just babbling here? Can anyone understand the question I'm trying to ask here? How does one foster an "anything goes" attitude and also maintain any kind of logical party balance, especially if dice are gonna roll on the very first gathering night?
I understand what you're saying and the answer is simple, don't go on dungeon crawls. If you end up with a party of characters that lacks a particular sort of character then go for adventures that don't require that sort of ability (i.e. no trapped locations without rogues, one or two fights a day without clerics). The Complete Warrior handbook has advice on how to run campaigns with only martial characters. However this all depends on the temperment and ability of your players and DM, if the DM is more the sort to plan everything out in advance then you really have to let him know what you're planning.
Just thought of something, there are a few people who complain about all sorts of fantasy stereotypes but people almost never complain that almost every adventurer team contains a fighter, a cleric, a rogue and a wizard. Like allot of other stuff that has been done to death, this has a basis in the rules, but it never seems to be commented on as much as certain other things, like say Elven Wizards, Half-Orc Barbarians and Gnome Bards. Oh well, whatever will be, will be.
And Aberzombie, what sort of image would that be? I just really, really like dragons like some people really, really like football. Or were you kidding around? ^_^
|
|
And Aberzombie, what sort of image would that be? I just really, really like dragons like some people really, really like football. Or were you kidding around? ^_^
It is a matter of taste isn't it - as always.
You have a lot of options - use them or leave them.Draconic/ half draconic whatever PCs are just one of these options.
It is a different matter if it comes to game balance, or call it rather game necessities. As you wrote in your posting: don't play adventures in trapped dungeons without roguish PCs.
Or in my case: don't play more than one or two fighting encounters per day without a real cleric in group.
And if you realize that the group as a whole is discontent with this situation, find a solution: my group agreed on belatedly introducing a cleric to our party... ;-)
Günther
As was mentioned above, there are a couple of solutions. If you're intent on playing modules or other prefab components, you're best advised to steer close to the core assumptions of the system.
If, on the other hand, you're making your own materials, you can deviate wildly from the norm. Heck, each of the Complete books has advice on how to run adventures with everyone the same "core" class, right? And there's always the stories of the all thief campaigns and the like. If you're custom building, you can craft the experience you and your players are looking for-- the default assumptions can go hang.
If, on the other hand, you're making your own materials, you can deviate wildly from the norm. Heck, each of the Complete books has advice on how to run adventures with everyone the same "core" class, right? And there's always the stories of the all thief campaigns and the like. If you're custom building, you can craft the experience you and your players are looking for-- the default assumptions can go hang.
Yeah. I tend to wind up starting off with something prefabricated so that the PCs have a chance to get their feet under them in what (so far as I'm concerned) is basically "neutral territory" and then I get into homebrewed adventures and whatnot once I've gotten a feel for the party.
My big thing is that everyone should be able to play what they want to play, unless it's blatantly impossible or breaks the game. So baby balor adventuring with a paladin is out, but otherwise I don't much care. If nobody wants to play a healer, I don't see that somebody should be forced to play a character that they don't like -- it's supposed to be fun for everyone, right? It's not like it would be all that much work for me to toss out a few items to increase their stamina. Command Word Cure Minor Wounds is all but useless in combat after fourth or fifth level, but will significantly reduce fatalities and rest periods.
Then again, I'm a "nice DM". I only do nasty things to my players when it's important.
It's well too much effort, if you ask me, to create a high-level character one level at a time. To be honest, it's not that important to me - yes, my players will end up a little more powerful, but I think it can take more away from te game than it puts in. Mainly, I'm just lazy ;)
I once used this to my advantage to build a wizard who, starting at level 20 with ridiculously high Int, had maxed out all the Knowledge skills.
I think clever players can overcome most party unbalances. Although I never like to go on a quest without a cleric.
It seems the rogue is always left out.
But recently we created a new party with four halflings, three rogues and monk. We have one fighter, one cleric and one wizard. Go figure last party we created no one wanted to be a rogue, cause they were under powered, now we have a group with three rogues.
Director of Narrative
|
I had always loved playing rogues and clerics (since 1st and 2nd Ed) and only now have I realized why. I was always the last one to decide what I was going to play at our "Okay, new campaign - what's everyone going to play" sessions. I never wanted to be selfish and kinda always liked the support roles of clerics and rogues, so I always ended up playing them. (Then eventually combining them into a cleric rogue of Olidamara when our group ran through the Forge of Fury, Sunless Citadel...etc arc.)
But now I realize that I was pigeon-holeing myself. However I got good at creatively playing them where they still shine and perform their party duties.
Everyone in my group wanted to be the "blow 'em up" guy, the "hit 'em with a stick" guy or the "mysterious loner who is no help to the party" guy.
I don't know, man. The groups I've gamed with have often heard me say, "Any DM worth his salt can run a game for any type of group," over and over again.
When I've DMed, I've always strived to let the players pretty much play what they want. A group of magic-users? Cool. Nothing but fighters? Okay. All rogues and one ninja? Let's do it. I could see how this might be a little more difficult when running a module, but I still feel that with a little tweaking and a bit more work, a DM could run a party of duskblades through the same adventure he or she planned to run for an "all psionics" game.
My own DM experiences are mostly of original adventures and homebrew campaign worlds. The first adventure or two is usaully designed to get a feel for the group make-up, so it may feel a bit "generic," but after the "getting-to-know-you" period is over, the adventures end up being a bit more specifically geared toward the character classes represented at the table.
Now, as a player, I have to say that I totally resent needing to fill certain roles at the table. I'm playing in a Forgotten Realms game right now as a cleric, and the first few sessions were absolutly miserable. The other players treated me as a walking MASH unit. I couldn't cast the spells I had chosen to cast that day because everyone kept running to my character for the handing-out-of-healing. It was made pretty clear by the other players and the DM that THAT'S what the character was there for.
Well how boring is that? I got to spend my gametime sitting around, not daring do anything that I wanted to do (cast any other spells) because someone might need a spontaneously-cast 'cure light wounds.'
It was fairly unfulfilling . . . because I was there to fill the "cleric" role in the party.
All this has done has reaffirmed for me how I will NEVER force a party to make sure they have certain "roles" filled ("Okay, make sure you have an arcane caster, a fighter-type, etc., etc."). Let everyone play what they want . . . it just means the DM and the players have to get more creative . . .