Okay, I am putting together a 4E campaign but I only have three players. Which of the four roles, Controller, Defender, Leader or Striker, would be the easiest to do without? I would like to have some idea, so I can steer my players in th direction of the other three.
I would suggest a Paladin, Barbarian or Ranger, and a Cleric. I would always suggest getting rid of the controller.
Paladin built with healing capability, both the barbarian and ranger can deal with alittle bit of damage coming there way and you can build the ranger to be able to do ranged and melee, and the cleric can be built to do ranged and melee as well.
I would also like to add the new thunder barbarian from primal powers, might be idle for this type of group if you go that route. It has controllerish tendancies, and the life warden is also a good choice for the defender spot.
I'm largely in line with other posts - controller tends to be easiest to do without in a small party. (Both because the role itself is often less vital, and because a smaller group means fewer enemies, which weakens them.) Though I should mention that all this advice is for the 'ideal' group - most any group can work, if needed to.
In a small group, it helps to have some hybrid elements. Like the ones detritus mentions - Paladin serves as a Defender/Leader, as would a Lifeblood Warden; Thunderborn Barbarian is Striker/Controller, etc. Fighter can make a good Defender/Striker, Swordmage a decent Defender/Controller, Sorcerer a solid Striker/Controller, and so forth. Not needed, by any means, but can help make for a versatile party.
But yeah, I'd generally let players go with what they want, but steer them towards a Leader/Defender/Striker combo if possible. Don't worry about the specifics too much beyond that, unless the goal is actually to build as optimized a party as possible - if you are just looking for what can work fine, and want to let them choose stuff that fits for them, the advice already given in the thread should have you covered.
I agree with this completely. In a group I am running we have a rogue, beastmaster ranger, and a barbarian. So no healer, no defender, and no controller. However I tailor most encounters to allow for this group to have a chance to win. I also make sure that they find a decent amount of healing potions.
The DMG discusses this topic to some length, and I think it does a good job summing up how to play with smaller groups and/or the absence of roles. I agree with most posters: defender-leader-striker, with at least 2 of the 3 melee-focused.
But since you labeled the topic Best Three Member Party, here is my interpretation using just the PHB:
Dwarf "Axe/Hammer & Board" Fighter
Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord
Elf "Archer" Ranger
The dwarf gets a second wind as a minor action and can dish it out using Dwarven Weapon Training/Weapon Focus/Weapon Expertise. Dragonbord pumps out the heals and has an close blast for those occasional minions (plus it deals some decent melee damage). Elf rains death from afar with the best maneuverability and a bonus reroll.
This is based purely on the stats and "roll-play". Have your players roll up whatever they want and adjust using the tips in the DMG.
As others have said - controller is the easiest to live without and its utility actually drops the smaller the group is because the number of potential targets that it can effect all at once keeps falling.
A group I know of has tried to convince me that a defender is unnecessary if you can create a striker with a high AC and other defenses, and perhaps some temp hit point gains like the barbarian. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but they are pretty adamant.
A group I know of has tried to convince me that a defender is unnecessary if you can create a striker with a high AC and other defenses, and perhaps some temp hit point gains like the barbarian. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but they are pretty adamant.
I actually agree with that, especially in a small group.
|
A group I know of has tried to convince me that a defender is unnecessary if you can create a striker with a high AC and other defenses, and perhaps some temp hit point gains like the barbarian. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but they are pretty adamant.I actually agree with that, especially in a small group.
I would also agree, but add that the squishiness of the party is a factor here. In general, the attacks will be more spread out without a defender, so it would work best if all of the characters are a little more on the durable side in this party makeup.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If you've got access to DDI, they had an article a few months ago about what the secondary roles of each class are. You might want to consider looking at that to get a sense of what classes overlap between roles.
But, in general, the controller is definitely the least essential. Honestly, you might be able to go with a beefier striker (the barbarian) in lieu of a defender as well. It seems to me that the controller is really a 5th party member, and if you have only 4 party members, you almost want two strikers, a defender, and a leader rather than one of each role.
Edit: and I see everyone else has made this point already as well too...
|
I've been running a game with 3 players from 1st to currently 7th.
Party Consists of:
Human Barbarian (Rageblood build) - Striker
Gnome Avenger - Striker
Githzerai Artificer - Leader
The barbarian avenger combo is nice. The Avenger picks a target and punishes any other enemy to dare attack him. The barbarian is melee death on steroids. Any enemies that avoid the barbarian and attack the avenger instead take damage from the avengers "can't touch this" abilities (we lovingly call the avenger Mc Hammer). That leaves the artificer. I personally believe a cleric makes a better healer, but I have come to appreciate how an artificer effectively makes healing surges a "pool" to draw from. A character with 0 surges can still be healed by the Artificer.
I would steer clear from the defender and go the 2 striker route. A smaller group tends to approach encounters with stealth in mind rather than the front door approach. In addition, the avenger played a defender (fighter) for 1 level (part of the story...avenger was captured and the defender helped in the rescue) and everyone felt the combats lasted too long. The Fighter did "soak" up the damage that would have gone to the Barbarian or Artificer, but because the fights lasted longer needed more healing as well.
A quick note about defenders: A defender should have an AC no more than 2 higher than anyone else in the party. Stacking AC on a defender is counter-productive. Why attack the defender at AC 22 when I can attack the controller at ac 19 with a -2 penalty (effective AC 21)? If the defenders AC is too high, the penalty is not a deterrent. The defender is then left with their class ability (like a fighters movement stopper).
So, if you do go defender, keep its AC in check, pick one like a fighter that locks enemies movement down, and use a ranged striker (ranger). Otherwise, High AC strikers do just fine. If you go 2 strikers, they work best as 2 melee for a small group of 3. Combat advantage for flanking goes a long way.
One last note: Gear, gear, gear. Potions of healing help in small groups (especially when the leader drops!), Cloaks of the Walking Wounded rock for small groups (make sure they use their second winds and/or total defense actions even if they don't have these cloaks!).
A group I know of has tried to convince me that a defender is unnecessary if you can create a striker with a high AC and other defenses, and perhaps some temp hit point gains like the barbarian. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but they are pretty adamant.
What little I have seen so far, a Three marshal group works amazing well.......
A group I know of has tried to convince me that a defender is unnecessary if you can create a striker with a high AC and other defenses, and perhaps some temp hit point gains like the barbarian. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but they are pretty adamant.What little I have seen so far, a Three marshal group works amazing well.......
By marhsal, do you mean warlord?
By marhsal, do you mean warlord?A group I know of has tried to convince me that a defender is unnecessary if you can create a striker with a high AC and other defenses, and perhaps some temp hit point gains like the barbarian. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but they are pretty adamant.What little I have seen so far, a Three marshal group works amazing well.......
Sorry yeah, keep calling them Marshals.....could be worse I was calling them captains for a bit thanks to Lotro....but yeah three warlords works really well.
Silly question, the Knight Commander says requires heavy armor and warlord class, but don't all warlords have heavy armor (chain mail)? So don't all qualify for the path or do you need to throw feats into all the heavy armor types?
By marhsal, do you mean warlord?A group I know of has tried to convince me that a defender is unnecessary if you can create a striker with a high AC and other defenses, and perhaps some temp hit point gains like the barbarian. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but they are pretty adamant.What little I have seen so far, a Three marshal group works amazing well.......Sorry yeah, keep calling them Marshals.....could be worse I was calling them captains for a bit thanks to Lotro....but yeah three warlords works really well.
Silly question, the Knight Commander says requires heavy armor and warlord class, but don't all warlords have heavy armor (chain mail)? So don't all qualify for the path or do you need to throw feats into all the heavy armor types?
Yes and No, a multi-classed warlord may not have heavy armor. For example a rogue that multi-classed to a warlord would have to take the feat to get into that paragon path. Ah, I loved my captain.
|
|
By marhsal, do you mean warlord?A group I know of has tried to convince me that a defender is unnecessary if you can create a striker with a high AC and other defenses, and perhaps some temp hit point gains like the barbarian. The proof is in the pudding, of course, but they are pretty adamant.What little I have seen so far, a Three marshal group works amazing well.......Sorry yeah, keep calling them Marshals.....could be worse I was calling them captains for a bit thanks to Lotro....but yeah three warlords works really well.
Silly question, the Knight Commander says requires heavy armor and warlord class, but don't all warlords have heavy armor (chain mail)? So don't all qualify for the path or do you need to throw feats into all the heavy armor types?
Paragon path prereqs like that one really target multiclass characters (same with paths that require "Cleric, channel divinity" or similar). If you take a warlord multiclass feat, you qualify for any feats or paths that have warlord as a prerequisite. But for this particular path, you would need heavy armor proficiency as well. This means that some wizard who took a warlord multiclass feat for one particular feature can't just walk into this paragon path in his robes.
Edit: Ninja'd!
I may end up in the same boat - 3 players. We're either going to continue a Cauldron campaign we've had going for years or a Savage Tide campaign (Age of Worms was also on the table, but they opted out). Either way, we'll be dealing with 3 players. Right now we are either thinking of using a lot of hybrid characters or allowing a combination of two classes (i.e. characters get all the powers from both classes). The latter would obviously be more challenging and experimental.
I'll let you know what we end up going with and how it works out.
I have been running a game with my wife who is playing an Elven Cleric and a Deva Avenger. To supplement her party I have been trying different guest stars, a Dragonborn Earth Warden, an Elven Archer Ranger, and currently a Human Summoner Wizard. They all add their strengths to the group, so I'm not sure which was the 'best'. I could try a barbarian, but I don't want to out-strike her striker.
From what I have experienced, you can add anything to a Leader and a Striker and make a viable group. I'm sure there is an optimal group, but you also don't want to force players to play a specific class/role if they don't want to.
Remember you can multi-class into some healing classes for additional support like the warlord, cleric, or artificer. Our current 3 member group consists of a warforged fighter/artificer, human wizard and shaman. Defintely the downside to a smaller group is the leader getting beat up, so the extra shaman and wizard pet/summons help.
I've been running a group from 6th, we're up to 14th now, and we've usually had 4 PC's but sometimes 5. For most of that time, there was no Defender. Even now, the defender is a Swordmage, which tends to jump around a lot (teleport powers), so he's not the traditional "tank" type of defender; we had a dwarf fighter for one session, which I made up for a player who didn't have time to make anything himself, but as I made a mistake alluded to above and made him too hard to hit and too durable, so both me and the player agreed in hindsight he should have been made more rounded in order to be more effective and also more fun (the same player is now the swordmage, and while he's got the best AC it could be better, but he's keeping his defenses lower in order to be better in other areas like making sure he can deal out good damage).
From my DM's chair I'd observe that the group has never really had a typical defender, and it's still a very effective group. Without the swordmage, the warlord was the closest to a defender, although the barbarian and rogue also did their share of keeping the wizard and/or bow-ranger away from harm (usually to the detriment of the rogue's healing surges, but that player likes to live dangerously anyway).
Certainly the one thing I'd say is critical is having a good striker, and that as you go up in levels, that only gets more important. The game is just so much more fun when you've got at least one PC who can rip shreds out of the opposition, and the others in the group rally around and help make sure that the striker is set up to do so as often as possible. It might sound a bit like the bad old days of 3.x where some cheese-ball PC build can kill the opposition by itself, but it's not, it's more a case of everyone realising their strengths and playing to them:
- the striker's job is to hit hard and often,
- the leader's job is to make sure everyone stays healthy and can hit as often as possible,
- the controllers job is to cripple as many of the enemy as possible,
- the defender's job is to attract as much attention as possible.
So when you look at it that way, my advice is quite simple... In order of priority, to be most effective, and hence most fun ('cause it's not very fun when the game drags out into a slog-fest), the PC's need:
1. A good striker. If you want to go melee, be a Rogue, and make it a Brutal Rogue because that's the best way to get most damage most easily. At Paragon, be a Dagermaster then look for ways to maximise your number of attacks and maxmise your damage on a critical. Then be amazed at just how much damage you can inflict every round - just be aware that you'll be target #1 so are likely to run out of healing surges first, so make sure you've got good backup in terms of party member #2 as well as ways to move surges between party members (magic and/or class features). Another option is Barbarian, if you want a bit more durability, or just like the idea of bigger weapons, but I'm not convinced it's actually a better option, just different. If you want to go ranged, be a Ranger, it's pretty easy to dish out heaps of damage even at low level, and the rest of the group won't have to worry so much about keeping you alive.
2. A good leader. A tactical Warlord is a great option (buffs for the Rogue), but potentially a Bard (not so strictly melee focused) or Artificer (move surges around) is also a good option. For a 3-PC group, maybe not so much the Bard, as you probably want this PC to be a front-liner. Cleric could be another option, but I'm still not so convinced - for 3 PC's, you should go with a strong option that does a great job at their role and has great synergies with the rest of the group - the TacLord is a very strong leader and has enough durability in the front line.
3. Anything really! If you've got a good striker and leader, who can work together, then PC #3 is just whatever helps round out the group. If #1 and #2 are both melee focused, #3 can be a controller or ranged striker, for variety. If you need another melee type, go for a defender with good damage output and some control - the obvious one is of course Fighter, sword and board might sound appealing but actually any kind would work because they all offer up fun stuff that works.
Then whatever the mix, one PC should be able to cast rituals, and have decent Arcana as well as Nature. For example, making #3 a wizard makes this easy. It's hard to cover off all the skills, especially with 3 PC's, but that's not such a biggie.
So:
Brutal Rogue, Tactical Warlord, and Wizard with lots of control and rituals,
or Elf Bow-Ranger, Funky Artificer (use summoning to help fortify the front line), and Warforged or Half-Orc or Dwarf Fighter.
or something similar, depending of course on what your players will enjoy!
Lastly, I'd note how the nature of the classes changes over time - at Heroic tier, the difference between our rogue's damage output and that of say the defender wasn't so huge. Now, around Paragon, each role is more clearly defined, and I see a lot of player thinking going on in terms of making sure each PC plays its role well, and also that the group has a good spread of capabilities. For example the warlord has dropped some of his old powers that granted saves, because he can do that other ways now, and he focuses on lots of buffing stuff as well as dishing out extra attacks to the group; the rogue can do so much damage now, and adds new ways with each new level or magic item, that no-one else even tries to keep up or pretend they are a secondary striker, they all look to accentuate the strengths that their particular class has that no-one else does; the wizard focuses hard on genuine control spells and getting (and using) lots of rituals; the defender tries to mark as many opponents as possible as much as a "de-buff" than anything else; the Cleric is new and is also focusing on buffs, but I suspect his introduction will eventually lead to a surplus of healing which I'll counter with more hard-hitting enemies and brutal DM tactics to ensure it doesn't become boring ;-) So bear in mind that things change over time... best to worry about the first level or two, and work the rest out as you go along.
Cleric could be another option, but I'm still not so convinced - for 3 PC's, you should go with a strong option that does a great job at their role and has great synergies with the rest of the group - the TacLord is a very strong leader and has enough durability in the front line.
Good points but I think you may be underestimating how good a cleric is - admittedly I play one and love it so I have a bias but I still think the class slots in well in part because the cleric can fit so many different roles. Healing on tap and probably the best healer to boot - back up fighter is definitely a possible build, back up ranged character is possible (though only really fairly short range) and you can even make the powers more like a controller. In fact my personal cleric's build - while only really exceptional at healing is made so that I can do all these roles passably in a pinch. I'd think that'd be particularly useful in a small group where its often difficult to fill every slot in the parties order of battle.
I agree the cleric is the best healer hands down, and does support other roles as well. I failed to mention my original campaign was an extension of an older 3E campaign. The party consisted of a cleric, rogue and ranger (later replaced by an assassin). This supports the theory of having a leader class, then going with strikers, but with any small party, the margin of error is very slim in order to survive. One thing I did do is grant the cleric as pet (at the time they did not know it was a druid). This supported a 4th character coming into the campaign infrequently, but still being explainable in regards to the story line. When playing the pet (druid) as an NPC, I only granted access to the melee basic and at-will powers, and feats if they applied.
Yeah, I'm biased by my own group's PC's too.
I mean, my group's daggermaster rogue is pretty brutal by himself especially if he gets in early, but when the warlord and rogue team up and thrown down their good encounter or daily powers, it ends up with 2-3 PC's beating down upon a single monster, which ends up prone, dazed, uncouncious, you name it, it's just like a bunch of nasty punks kicking some poor guy on the ground - the idea of a fair fight just doesn't come into it. Sure, a Cleric can give out some good buffs, but the warlord's ability to not only buff but actually grant additional attacks means that if the PC's want to kill a creature quickly, they can often do that in 1, maybe 2 rounds max even for most elites. The warlord's ability to boost eveyone's initiative, and bonuses on the first round especially if he goes before them, just makes it even easier for the group to really lay down the smack early on, and gain a distinct advantage. Last night, they had two tough fights, but in each the warlord and rogue combined, with a bit of minor help, to take out the toughest monster on the battlefield part-way through round #2.
But as I say, it depends on what level your playing, and what kind of flavour your players like best. Most of mine tend to prefer attack over defense, with more risk in return for a chance of winning faster. So the warlord and rogue combo works really well, they can make sure the rogue gets his sneak attack hit in, and potentially grant even more free basic melee attacks to the rogue or defender to maximise the damage output per round. At Heroic Tier, it was all about getting in as many decent hits as possible, whereas at Paragon tier it's more about fishing for critical hits (and sneak attack of course). With a Cleric, I think it would be less offense, and a bit more defense / durability. I actually have a Cleric in my group now; he's just joined, and is probably still getting to grips with how best to make an impact, but looking at it from my DM's chair I do think he offers less overall to the group (lucky the player is running him as much for flavour as anything else). The Wizard dailies are pretty awesome, and its easy for that PC to cover off all rituals with decent Int and Wis (and skill training in nature, as wizards can spare a feat more easily than a lot of other classes).
I've definitely noticed quite a change from Heroic to Paragon Tier, especially as the players have swapped around a few powers and feats to really ramp up the party synergies. So the rogue is now all about maximising the attacks per round to get critical hits, while the warlord has many more powers that get the rest of the group extra attacks, bonuses to hit and damage, move people around, plus the usual healing and granting extra saves to keep everyone healthy. That's not to say that the others in the group don't play a useful part, its just that currently it seems the warlord and rogue are the central planks around which the rest of the party fill in the gaps. So I think my group would work pretty well with 3, 4 or 5 PC's, as long as the rogue and warlord were there :-)
Another big factor that is going to influence your character line up is just what kind of encounters your likely to face. One of the reasons I like my Cleric in the line up is, as I said, its versatility. This has been a very important theme in the kinds of encounters we have faced. Almost every significant encounter we have been in featured something along the lines of 'the group has to move from point A to point B, there may be some kind of intervening enemy or you might have guys chasing you - chances are your under fire from archers located in an inaccessible location. Or maybe you have to hold back goblins on giant bats while desperately trying to solve the skill challenge in order to cause an avalanche that will divert the lava flow away from the hapless village.
Its the difference between being in a tough fight because there is a troll backed by bomb throwers behind them (which emphasizes heavy damage output fast) and something like running up a dry river bed intent on getting to the mechanism that blows a dam while the enemy army chases you (minions appear behind you every round and run after you as fast as they can) while orcs fire flame arrows down on you from the balconies of ruins that line the banks of the riverbed. Most of the time in our big fights 'I do obscene damage in hand to hand combat in one round' just hasn't been the solution to the problem we are facing - or at least its just not a reliable solution. The result has been a push away from focused characters with every feat or ability aimed at doing a single thing really well and a push to insure that even if you can do one thing well you can do another at least passably and a third in a pinch.
The subtext of what I'm trying to say is that if your players are aiming to dish out insane amounts of damage each round then maybe the kinds of encounters your placing them in could be spruced up. 4Es base design glues the players to the ground by and large - that opens up a huge amount of design space for the DM to make encounters that involve them doing something interesting because they can't just say 'my character accomplishes your challenge through the use of this and that spell. Fly is rare and only one character is likely to have it - teleport limited in range and weak etc.
One of the great strengths of 4E is that your characters really never (well not until really high level) acquire the ability to just snap their fingers and be wherever they want to be. Even as they get into Paragon there is still design space for the battle involving swinging from chandeliers or a scene where the players jump into the crows nest from the top of a bridge and then have to fight their way down the rigging - paragon just means that the things to be found in the rigging are really nasty and there is more chance that something will pick you up and toss you out to sea ('cause Paragon characters are more able to handle this sort of thing).
This kind of design space did not exist in any previous edition of D&D - it was maybe closest in BECMI (I'm not familiar enough with OD&D to really comment on it there) and it was a kind of desired state in 3.5 Eberron but here you have the tools to make these sorts of encounters a reality - I've been playing them (not every encounter of course but at least the big epic finale's have been complex with diverse, sometimes even contradictory obstacles to overcome) and its some of the greatest D&D I've had the pleasure of being involved in.
I need to play Devil's Advocate here (would that be a Tiefling Lawyer?).
Although I do not necesarily advise this, my group usually plays with a Warlock (Striker), Warden (Defender) and Wizard (Controller). That's right, no Leader/Healer. We basically have classes that have lots of temp hit points and most of us have Inititate of Faith. We also take magic that allows use of Healing Surges.
My point is that a Leader is not necessarily a must-have party member. I am sure that this is not an optimal party, but there are options that still let people choose their favoriate class without saying, 'Who's the Leader?'
P.S. I don't fully understand the evolution of how it happened. We started at low levels with at least one Cleric/Warlord/Bard. We had lots of deaths. Now everyone is more self reliant and we have fewer deaths.
EDIT: I think that the Tiefling Warlock and the Eladrin Wizard being hard to tack down also helps keep them safe.
I second the paladin or fighter. I personally recommend the paladin, mainly because fighters have a bit more of an "unholy black hole of pain" vibe, if you get what I mean. Besides, paladins can do some backup healing, which is always useful.
I want to update everyone. We ended up with a half-elf Avenger, an elf druid, and a human cleric of the raven Queen. I still feel that there is something missing from the group. Any suggestions on a good fourth member DMPC to round out this group?
I'd skip the DMPC and go with some kind of tankish companion. DMG II has strong guidelines for companions and I'd cook something up using that as the basis. The goal is to get your tank but make it as easy for the players to run as is reasonably possible and still have it be interesting. This free's the DM up to focus on the adventure and means that the players - who will already spend half the combats waiting for your turn to go buy don't have to wait on you for one more thing.
I agree on the companion, as I have already used this concept with a druid/npc companion as stated in my previous post. It also supported bringing in new players who wanted to learn the game.
I also used a DMPC as well, by using a warforged fighter that had no memory of his past, and basically acted as a protector for the party wizard. Over the time the warforged become more independent, and also help explained part of the campaign as the players attempted to unwrap the mystery of where he came and why he was protecting the wizard.
But with the latte option only choose a DMPC you are very familiar with so you don't end up delaying encounters.
Okay, I am putting together a 4E campaign but I only have three players. Which of the four roles, Controller, Defender, Leader or Striker, would be the easiest to do without? I would like to have some idea, so I can steer my players in th direction of the other three.
From reading the boards over the last few days I would say...Gish, Gish and a Gish.
We ended up with a half-elf Avenger, an elf druid, and a human cleric of the raven Queen. I still feel that there is something missing from the group. Any suggestions on a good fourth member DMPC to round out this group?
I agree with Jeremy and co - adding a DM-PC is never a great idea... as a player I've never liked it, and as DM I avoid it like the plague because while creating a PC is fun as DM I've got enough to do focusing on what's important to running a good game for the players rather than stealing their limelight. Adding a companion character could work, as it's simple to run and hence you can find a player who's willing to run it without it being a burden.
However... what is it you actually think is missing from the group above? I'm not so sure a defender / tank is actually what's missing, to me this group looks like it should be capable - middle of the road, perhaps, but each of these characters should be solid in their own right and together I'm sure they have some synergies and I don't see any glaring holes... As I see it, the group has someone to lay the beat-stick down (Avenger), someone to control the battlefield and also lay some smack down (Druid), and someone to keep everyone healthy and buffed as well as also lay down some damage (Cleric). The only question would be do they have a good spread of skills and rituals, but if not they can tweak their existing characters. So in theory, I think it's a decent group of 3; certainly quite viable. I'd be careful in upsetting the overall balance by introducing a fourth character - one PC per player is almost always best in my experience (the only other times we've varied from this in my groups, it's usually two PC's each, or one PC and one companion / follower each).
So what kind of role, or capabilities, do you think the group lacks?
Most importantly, what do the players think?
Just interrupting as this is short of along these lines.
What do people think of a party consisting of;
Warden
Cleric
Rogue
FighterNothing ranged, so it'll be all about being close in.
S.
Little defender heavy - if your going to double up on a class and there are only 4 players its a tad unfortunate if its the defender as your potentially moving the whole group into the realm of grindy fights and we all know how annoying that is.
|
Little defender heavy - if your going to double up on a class and there are only 4 players its a tad unfortunate if its the defender as your potentially moving the whole group into the realm of grindy fights and we all know how annoying that is.Just interrupting as this is short of along these lines.
What do people think of a party consisting of;
Warden
Cleric
Rogue
FighterNothing ranged, so it'll be all about being close in.
S.
What about Fighter --> Ranger/Warlock or perhaps Wizard?
What about Fighter --> Ranger/Warlock or perhaps Wizard?
Just about any answer is fine as long as its not a defender. I mean even a defender is fine if your group has a decent tolerance for the grind (many groups do) but iirc your group doesn't.
BTW, this topic just came up on the WotC CharOp boards here.