group make up

[detritus]

I just wanted to get other opinions on a good 5 man group make up. I currently play with a group that it looks like we are going to have to inforce a rigid role selection. Currently we have a couple duplicate classes/roles. What would be your suggestion for a good group make up. I have been suggesting a defender, defender, controller, leader, striker make up with the possibilty of no controller or 2nd defender if we add another leader and at least one character that has some type of AE for minion slaying. The DM is not willing to let anyone re-roll at this exact moment, but I can feel a total party wipe coming.

Any thoughts?

Currently we have:
Fighter (12 yr old kid who just doesnt get it, and i think would be a much better striker, like a barbarian)

Swordmage (multi-classed as a wizard, he destroys minions and generally cleans up the trash quickly)

Ranger (cannot seem to use any ability but twin strike, since the others seem to confuse him)

Warlord (doesnt like to melee, *groan*, and only seems to want to heal the 12 yr old who doesnt like to melee either)

rogue (does very well)

Any class currently released or even play tested is fair game.

[Matthew Koelbl]

That actually looks like a balanced group. Two defenders, one of them played more aggresively (which is not a bad thing), two strikers and a leader. With the swordmage also somewhat filling in for the absent controller, I see absolutely nothing that 'needs' to change.

It is a very melee heavy group, which is both good and bad. It is good, since it helps block enemy movement and provide flanking for the rogue. It is bad, since it makes you more vulnerable to being blocked yourselves, as well as more vulnerability to enemies with area attacks.

I really wouldn't advise forcing people into different roles just to meet some optimum balance (especially since, with such a well-balanced party as you already have, it sounds like you are running into issues more player-based than character-based.) On the other hand, steering people towards classes that might be more appropriate could work well - directing the fighter to play a barbarian, making sure the ranger is playing a straightforward class, perhaps urging the warlord to play a ranged cleric, etc.

The party you suggest - which sounds very heavy on the defense - would not be my recommendation, as low damage can make for some rough fights. You don't want a party that functions as solely a support team for one striker - you want a group that has the duties well spread out amongst the group, which is what (in theory) you already have now.

On the whole, though, the group composition looks good. If you are running into difficulties, it might be a matter of tactics more than anything else, and that might be worth discussing more with the group. Or, if some players don't seem likely to listen to suggested tactics (like the fighter), it might be worth planning out good strategies built around them doing whatever they normally do, and finding a way to take advantage of it for the rest of the party.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

detritus wrote:

I just wanted to get other opinions on a good 5 man group make up. I currently play with a group that it looks like we are going to have to inforce a rigid role selection. Currently we have a couple duplicate classes/roles. What would be your suggestion for a good group make up. I have been suggesting a defender, defender, controller, leader, striker make up with the possibilty of no controller or 2nd defender if we add another leader and at least one character that has some type of AE for minion slaying. The DM is not willing to let anyone re-roll at this exact moment, but I can feel a total party wipe coming.

Any thoughts?

Currently we have:
Fighter (12 yr old kid who just doesnt get it, and i think would be a much better striker, like a barbarian)

Swordmage (multi-classed as a wizard, he destroys minions and generally cleans up the trash quickly)

Ranger (cannot seem to use any ability but twin strike, since the others seem to confuse him)

Warlord (doesnt like to melee, *groan*, and only seems to want to heal the 12 yr old who doesnt like to melee either)

rogue (does very well)

Any class currently released or even play tested is fair game.

I'm seriously wondering if you don't have some kind of a communication problem in the group as opposed to actual role problems in party make up.

Reality is you basically have the bases covered. You have a 'healer' - The Warlord, a number of strikers and a couple of defenders. Your a tad short on arcane but between a multi-classed Sword Mage and all these strikers there is nothing really out o kilter here. Your a tad weak when faced with large numbers of weak enemies due to a shortage of big area effect powers - thats really your only weakness in this party. I suspect that there are a heck of a lot of parties out there much more unbalanced then yours that are doing just fine.

Your problem ain't the characters...its the players.

[ProsSteve]

Seems a pretty good combination, i've got two groups on the go at the moment.

One Group:-
Fighter(Cleric multi) sword and shield type.
Cleric(Pelor) very good clerical type.
Rogue(halfling) agile and mobile in the game.
Fighter, two handed brute dives straight in.

Second Group:-
Fighter, human two handed axe.
Fighter, dwarf two handed maul very tough and hard hitting.
Cleric(Erathis) pretty good both in combat and at divine prayers.
Warlock, half elf, a bit rogueish and quick.
Wizard, elf, typical mage, given the moment very effective.

Both are good groups but early in gaming careers, the first is 3rd level the second is 2nd level.

Sound like the players don't fit the class's they've chosen. Fighters should want to get stuck in, if they don't the rest of the groups going to get a pounding,the Warlock doesn't want to do anything but heal!!! he should have gone cleric and been a good healer which i'd say is one thing that your missing from the group.
I realised after my very first attempt at running 4E that you need the powers set out as per the PHB so that new players to the game can see what he can do, and make sure they know how to read the Power Box's. The PHB does a pretty confusing job with it's explaination but now I understand it I can explain it to players.

[detritus]

Well we switched up the group make up.

The fighter who never wanted to melee is now an Archery Ranger and loving life and doing a great job now that all he has to do is kill, kill, kill.

the warlord who didnt like to melee is now a blasting wizard and doing well minion slaying for us.

the ranger who never used any ability but twin strike decided on a paladin and is doing well too.

The rogue switched to a fighter and is the best tank we ever had.

and the spellsword is now a devoted cleric and everyone loves him because they get heals like they didnt with the warlord.

[ProsSteve]

detritus wrote:

Well we switched up the group make up.

The fighter who never wanted to melee is now an Archery Ranger and loving life and doing a great job now that all he has to do is kill, kill, kill....etc.

Sounds like they've found the style of play they want. Trouble is the player often don't know what style of character they want to play especially the younger players. Once they start the game they look at what the other players can do and start askin 'can I do that?' and 'I like that ability'.

I am part of a Wargames club and have over the years run a few Rpg games for the guys during quiet periods and found the problems that you describe happening very regularly. You've then got a choice, either push the player to get into the character that he's chosen(often this fails), or drop the character out of the game and bring a new one in for the player that is more in line with his interests.

My second group is doing very well, the Dwarven and human fighters seem to be enjoying what they do, the elven wizardess is merrily blasting opponents all round the place, the warlock is cursing and teleporting everywhere and seems to be having a ball and the human cleric is really getting the feeling of the character. It's going well.