-
There has been a pretty big debate in my gaming group over the last few months about party composition in Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition. Since many people have pointed out that D&D 4e seems to draw upon a lot of aspects of MMORPGs, does that mean that a D&D 4e party needs to be balanced like a party in an MMORPG? Not sure what I’m talking about? Let me explain.
Many online games that use a party or group concept balance their game around having a party of five or six players. The Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide
assumes that most groups will have between four to six players, with the average being five. So let us assume for our example that we are balancing with a group of five players which are being led by the sixth player, the Dungeon Master.
In an online game, your five-man party will usually consist of the following, one defender (tank), one leader (healer), and a mix of three other characters. You may have three strikers (damagers), or two strikers and a controller, or maybe another defender as an off-tank with two strikers, or a multitude of other possibilities. The point being is that in an online game you can’t take five characters of the same class type into an area and expect to be successful. In an online game you often need to create a balanced group to be successful.
Our big question is does this idea hold true in D&D 4e as well? Do you have to create a “balanced” group to be successful in combat? D&D 4e uses many of the same game mechanics that today’s online games use. So does that mean the game designers assume that your four to six players are going to take group balance into consideration when creating each of their characters?
Party Composition of a Balanced Group
I play in a group that consists of a Paladin, Cleric, Ranger, and Avenger. The group works out pretty well due to the fact that we have a class that soaks up damage in the Paladin. We have two classes that dish out damage, the Ranger and the Avenger. Finally, we have a class that stand back and heals these fighters while giving them bonuses to attack and defend.
Our group took class balance into account when we created the group. Our game master consistently throws encounters at us that are Level + 4 encounters. This means that they are on the top end of the difficulty scale according to the Dungeon Master’s Guide. A lot of other factors come into play, like how many magical items do each of the characters have? What type of creatures are they fighting? Is the Dungeon Master designing easy or challenging combat encounters for the group?
Party Composition of an Unbalanced Group
I currently run a D&D 4e game as well. There are four players in that game which play the following classes, Druid, Warlock, Artificer, and an Assassin (formerly a Warden). This group fights mostly against standard encounters that are Level or Level + 1. Even in these encounters they sometimes have had a little difficulty. There are a couple differences with this group versus the previous group.
First, this group is much lower level. They don’t have as many magical items yet, but the monsters they are fighting are also weaker as well. The group has a decent amount of damaging potential, but they don’t have a lot of healing power. The Artificer has a few different heals, but for the most part the players have whatever powers they would normally have to heal themselves. Beyond using Second Wind or some type of healing potion, they don’t have a lot of options to mitigate damage.
Does Party Composition Matter in D&D 4e?
Beyond the combat implications, having a variety of classes helps in the roleplaying part of the game as well. You have different character classes with a wider variety of skills. If your party consists of five Rangers, they will do real well in the nature but throw them into the city and they are probably more out of their element.
I’ve heard some Dungeon Masters and players say, “Play what you want!” So even if the group isn’t balanced at least you are playing the class you want to play. Who cares if you are playing a class that “balances” out the group if it isn’t one you’re going to have fun with? That is, at least, the argument for the other side of the coin.
I think it is easier for larger groups with six or more players to use the ‘play what you want’ mentality. Odds are someone will play that one class that your group probably needs. With smaller groups like four or less I’d say that the Dungeon Master has to start taking party composition into account for his encounters. With small groups you’re bound to have gaps somewhere in the group.
I won’t make a judgment on which is better or worse. I definitely do think that a balanced group will usually beat out a non-balanced group in the area of combat mechanics. I think that is just the way the system was designed. But if you’re playing a class to help balance the group and not because you want to that can defeat the purpose of playing a game.
So what do you think? If you play Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition do you believe that players should attempt to ‘balance out’ the group with an appropriate variety of classes? Or, do you think that players should play what they want? If it happens to work out as a balanced group with one from each position, then great. If it does not work out well for the group then no big deal.
What do you think about party composition in D&D 4e?
Leave a Comment
November 2, 2009 at 7:25 am
Good article, Sam.
Our gaming group consisted of:
Warlord (leader)
Fighter (defender)
Rogue (striker)
Paladin (defender)
Ranger (striker)
The lack of a wizard (controller) to help handle large mobs of weak creatures was definitely felt, but we did have two strikers which helped bridge the gap.
By stroytelling coincidence, both of our strikers retired their characters simultaneously. One of them chose to play a wizard while the other chose to play a swordmage (defender). We went from a striker-heavy party to a defender-heavy party. We had to make many changes in how we approached a fight. Losing the two strikers meant abandoning any hope at stealth. Between that and not having many ranged attacks meant that our party really became the “kick in the door, strike fast, strike hard!” band of badasses that usually bit off more than we could chew. We had to abandon plans at guile and stealth and just hit each encounter running.
Fortunately, (even before we added a 6th player/2nd leader of a cleric) our DM found ways to highlight our deficiencies without being too heavy-handed and forced us to come up with novel approaches to some of his challenges.
November 2, 2009 at 7:46 am
Playing the rules as written (that is, DM following encounter design guidelines and examples) means you’re going to have encounters designed to challenge and involve multiple roles. If your 4e players choose to limit the roles covered, they’ll likely have a harder time in this situation. They’ll need to adopt strategies and tactics to overcome their limitations.
I think 4e was designed to involve all the roles in encounters, to give everyone a chance to shine. As a DM, if you know your party has chosen to limit their roles, you might take that into account when designing encounters. Perhaps showing them in non-fatal ways what their weaknesses are (lack of healing, few tanks, or no ranged attacks, for example) to allow them to compensate in some way.
November 2, 2009 at 1:21 pm
If you approach D&D as a “problem” to be solved, the numbers show that a group of five characters of a single class (say, ranger, for example) will be statically as effective as the “ideal” mixed group as they can overwhelm targets.
Due to its organic nature, D&D isn’t as rigid in the limitations of class abilities as a computer game like WoW (which actually pulls its mechanics from D&D. How incestuous!).
November 2, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I have to agree the larger the party, the more wiggle room with classes. The smaller the group, the more spread is needed.
A side point to this however is the encounter makeup. The main reason for having a diverse party makeup is that the DM can counter with a variety of monsters for an encounter. The more the group is shifted to 1 class role, the harder it will be to take on an encounter makeup of different creature types. Likely that small group will be stuck hammering it out with 2-3 soldier-types.
I like more diverse groups because it allows the players to fight exciting encounters. If they are too class heavy to a particular type, the encounter diversity will suffer (unless you are shooting for TPKs).
And… nice topic post!
November 3, 2009 at 9:17 am
@Wesley – Numbers are nice but really what looks good on paper RARELY translates to how it performs in practice. Having experienced both I have to say that you are COMPLETELY wrong. A balanced group will always have FAR more freedom of action than a non-ideal group. With a non-ideal group your actions are almost set in stone for a said encounter and any deviation will lead to complications.
The one huge negative to any gaming group and composition, imo, is if you’re playing something to help the group and other people just “play what they want” you’re left feeling a bit bitter when there is no synergy and your group is floundering for success. There is nothing worse than trying to soak up damage for a group that doesn’t even want to play the roles that their current class is designed for.
At some point there needs to be some thought about the whole of the group rather than the individual. I would imagine we all play these games for the teamwork involved and the challenges, therefore if you choose to somehow take the team out of it then we’re all left just working to have fun…..
November 3, 2009 at 3:56 pm
In my group, still fairly new to 4E, we have a fighter, a swordmage, a wizard and a rogue, and I play a Paladin and am the only one with any sort of healing abilities. So our first encounter was went a lot longer than anticipated by the DM.
One thing I found when you have a lot of the same sort of class is that their abilities tend to interfere with each other. For example, Paladin, Fighter and Swordmage all have the ability to “Mark” an enemy, yet only an enemy can only be affected by one mark at a time, and the new once trumps the old one. As well as this, the Marks are all slightly different.
Imagine two spellcasters in the same party, one with fire spells and the other with cold spells…it would not go down well. Party balance is a good way for the DM to see what sort of group they need for the campaign they have and perhaps to adjust them accordingly.
That’s if you are doing the “play what you want” thing.
On online 4E games, sometimes DMs can pick and choose their players and a lot of them go for the more balanced party.
November 3, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Is it more fun to play a character that was not your first choice, so that the group will be better balanced against a variety of encounters?
Or…
Is if more fun to play what you want and have the GM adjust the encounters to fit the group?
I guess opinions differ. I prefer the latter.
November 4, 2009 at 5:48 am
@ Katana Geldar: I was also part of a group that had a Paladin, Fighter, and Swordmage. I went with the swordmage because it seemed fun (and it was), but halfway through I had to stop using my mark. It became pointless to use it behind the other two defenders, so I essentially lost one of the swordmage’s tools. It bothered me, but not as much as it could have, because I played him as if he thought he was a striker.
Ah Crux-Tel, the memories…
November 4, 2009 at 10:21 am
“I would imagine we all play these games for the teamwork involved and the challenges, therefore if you choose to somehow take the team out of it then we’re all left just working to have fun…”
@Ego: Not only do I agree with this sentiment, it’s obvious that the design intent behind 4th edition is for players to fill a variety of roles for several reasons:
1. A variety of roles provides a variety of capabilities that allow a group to handle diverse circumstances. This allows the DM to make a wider variety of encounters to keep the game interesting. I would hate the neverending stream of 5-soldier encounters.
2. The role concept is designed with the intent to help player’s find the class best suited to what they want to do. If you want to do lots of damage, be a striker – not a defender. If you want to affect the masses, look into being a controller, not a striker. If I’m DMing and everyone creates their characters independent of discussion and then they show up with 5 strikers at the table, that should say a lot about what my players want.
3. Having a variety of roles gives the players their own niches to feel special. When I moonlit with Chris’ group, this was completely obvious. No one could dish out damage like Bryan (the striker); no one could so completely stop the enemy in their tracks like my fighter (the defender), death was almost irrelevant thanks to Sam’s cleric (the healer), etc.
When players begin to double up on the roles, there has to be something else (maybe specialization on one aspect of a class or build) to distinguish them. Three defenders in a group can be pretty pointless, but in our group, Crux-tel (swordmage) did specialize in charging and teleporting tactics to increase his striking. Draco (paladin) helped mitigate damage and Verick (fighter) was the unstoppable “you shall not pass” dwarven defender. Crux-tel’s mark did not ultimately serve what the group wanted from defender marks and never seemed to pay off for his teleporting ability, so Chris eventually stopped using it.
But his defender was still capable of soaking a lot of damage that would have otherwise taken out our cleric or warlord and he still was able to perform some interesting teleport rescue “switcheroos” that still make me chuckle.
@Katana: You’ve given me food for thought. If I play in a large enough group, I might be interested in exploring the fire and ice wizarding pair. A dwarven wizard specializing in cold spells to slow and immobilize and a dragonborn one specializing in fire to burn those hampered foes up seems very capable and I love the theme…
November 4, 2009 at 11:49 am
Regardless of the system, be it an RPG or on the computer, there is always a tendency to ‘balance’ the party. How many times has a new player been brought into a game and they ask, “What does the party need?” (healer, tank, striker, etc.)
That aside, a good GM will deal with the party composition no matter what classes are represented. If the group is short on ‘tanks’ and long on mages and rogues, maybe the story and plot deals with more investigation, subterfuge, and ambush instead of face-to-face fighting. If there are a lot of hybrid classes (rangers, druids, bards, etc.) maybe the adventure will deal more with tracking, research, and tactics and less with pounding down doors and blasting out damage. A good GM will craft an adventure that allows character to use their skills to the advantage, instead of letting their lack of skill drag down the adventure.
Rural character archetypes may seem out of place for an urban campaign, but with some ingenuity they could use their woodland abilities in the city. Using some of the character archetypes listed above, if the party needed to break into prison to free their companion, the ranger could hide out and watch the changing of the guards, observe the patrol routes and schedules, and track specific guards to liberate a set of keys in the days/week prior to the prison break. All of these skills are things that a ranger would use in the forest, but instead the GM is letting them apply them to the urban landscape to benefit the party. A warrior archetype may evaluate the equipment of the guards, the strength of the locks and doors, and the best tactical positions for a battle, but the GM could still accommodate that playing style.
It really boils down to having a GM with the flexibility and imagination to change the scenario to accommodate the players to a degree. This will help draw in players and make them feel like they have an effect in the game setting.
November 4, 2009 at 4:45 pm
In my opinion the only role that’s really needed for a party to take on standard challenges (yes, even Wootsie modules) are Leaders. Everything else can take care of itself in some way, but that healing and buffing is really necessary to run the gauntlet of encounters that Wootsie produces nowadays. With a good Leader, it’s possible for a party of nearly any composition to have a chance even with encounters that assume all roles present. At least in my experience.
November 4, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Looking up Wootsie…
November 4, 2009 at 6:53 pm
@ Chris:
WotC
November 5, 2009 at 5:38 am
@ All – Thanks for the awesome comments on this thread. It is a topic that I feel really passionate about and obviously there are a lot of people that have strong feeling about it as well.
I think that things can work well both ways. I also think the game is designed more for group synergy than not. I echo the thought that one of the main roles needed in any group is the leader, but you can get by without one. To me, almost all other roles are optional, but the game can be played successfully without one.
November 9, 2009 at 11:19 am
Personally, I have found that, while party balance and role do effect play, They tend not to do so as much as the player/gm dynamic.
Good players can find a way around most challenges regardless of the situation(even if that means running away!)
A good Gm will take abilities into account and adjust most encounters on the fly–not to mention tailoring adventures to what characters are good at.
Not only that, but I’ve found the roles to be misleading.
SOme strikers average less damage than some defenders, and leaders include so much variety that they might as well have been called miscellaneous.
My advice would be choose what you want, and if necessary, the GM can include an NPC to deal with a role that will balance the party, or eleminate the need to do so. If you have 2 or 3 choices you like, which tends to be the case with most people I’ve gamed with, choose the one that will help the party more, but otherwise, don’t worry.
November 9, 2009 at 6:30 pm
See draco my main problem with that is this: by your logic every football team in the league should have players that either must play or sit out just to balance out the challenge of the game based upon the viewpoint of the refs.
Yes there are always ways around an encounter, but honestly running away is NEVER a way to win an encounter unless that was the specific design by the GM. This is simply not an option most times and usually isn’t designed for. The main point of all of this is not whether the GM can (or will) adjust based upon the group dynamic but rather whether or not you can form an effective group without some semblance of balance. I think it’s been established (if not indirectly) that a balanced group will always be better and the only way to really survive or do well with a “just for fun” group is to accept that you will not be doing the hardest encounters and the GM has to balance around it.
To me this just isn’t that fun. Personally I will be spending the entirety of my current campaign trying to find synergistic ways to prove myself wrong on that point but so far it’s held (very) true.
November 9, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Plus we are playing the protagonists of the story. Many people do not feel very heroic running away for the third time today or finally giving in to the TPK…
Although I am not the ultra-optimizer that Bryan is, I do agree with his sentiment to this extent. If I am going to try to be a meat-shield defender for my party, I would like there to be some type of healing to back me up. If I am going to focus on a controller role to mop up hordes, I want a defender (or three) keeping the bad guys off of me. If I am playing a leader/healer trying to keep the tank alive, I want at least one striker dropping the foes that are eating up the tank’s hitpoints and draining my healing reserves. This allows us to survive the combat and move on with the story.
I’ve been in plenty of situations where the DM has fudged situations, die rolls, defeats, etc. so that the players survive. These times are usually obvious and leave a bad taste in my mouth because it was a victory (or narrow escape) that we did not earn and did not deserve. Thanks for dropping a quarter in my cup and taking pity on me, DM. I really feel like a hero now.
November 10, 2009 at 1:26 am
When you design an encounter, do you disregard the PC’s capabilities and weaknesses in favor of assuming that the PCs are “balanced” and “optimized?”
“Well, I designed this encounter assuming that the group consisted of a Glitter Boy, Dragon, Mechanoid, and Super Power Ranger. It’s not my fault the encounters are too tough – you shouldn’t have made a Rogue Scholar, Headhunter, Juicer, and scientist.”
I know this example is pushing it, but it still fits. I’m not there as a player to fill a gap, I’m there to have fun. If I come to the table wanting to play a Ninja-like character, and everyone tells me to play the healer, I’m not going to have fun. If I come to the table wanting to play a Headhunter, and all we end up fighting are MDC Dragons, I’m gong to be frustrated.
Games allow for endless combinations of player characters. No game says that you HAVE to have the four separate roles. The beauty of these variations, and the variations of monsters, is that all encounters can be designed for the current players, no matter what their party make-up is.
So I guess the question is, do we design characters to fit the encounters, or do we design encounters to fit the characters?
November 18, 2009 at 11:06 am
After 31 years of being a DM, I started on 0e, I would like to add about 1 cent worth.
Party composition is the central element of any adventure, but it is not dictated by the adventure. The 3 musketeers did not have a wizard, but had roaring good adventures. An adventuring party operates the same way. They have little control over the who and why of the bad guys. They just have to deal with it. On the flip side, it is no fun to engage in an encounter only to be ‘handled’ by the bad guys for lack of a power type.
So, what does this mean? Your players want to have adventures and play the cool characters they see in their minds. Let them. When I have ‘encouraged’ (forced/tricked/coerced) a player or a group to be characters they didn’t want to be, I have always found that there is less enjoyment in the adventures. Even if the players come to enjoy those characters, there is still the thoughts of … “What if my character had been X instead of Y?”. Those lingering thoughts always affect the perception of how the gaming session went.
I have been known to make adjustments to my encounters for this. I have also been known to tell the group that they get what is in the module without changes. When I do the later and let the party encounter what is with out changes, something interesting happens. The story they tell of the 3 fighters and 1 rogue, who bested the wizard in her keep, takes on a an almost legendary quality.
Isn’t that what it is about?
November 18, 2009 at 11:13 am
Ego: I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion based on my post; I never tried to imply that characters must sit out to overcome certain challenges.
As for the idea that running away is never the way to win an encounter–no, I wouldn’t call it a win, per say, but it can be a way to overcome an encounter, and every encounter should take into account the possibility of one side or the other running. Even CRPGs do that, and often an enterprising group can use or fake using it to overcome the encounter(i.e. a group of orcs stand between you and the entrance. the party runs away, drawing them out of the way, then goes around them. did they “WIN” the encounter? no. Did they overcome it? yes, since the objective wasn’t to fight a bunch of orcs, but to enter the passage.)
In reality, the only time we’ve established that a balnced party is better is for plug and play encounters, such as are put out in published adventures. As Chris Stevens implies, any good GM will create challenges based on the party, rather than taking the easiest route and pulling encounters straight from the books(which are optimised for the ideal “optimised” party, and so will, of COURSE work better for such party).
Even dungeon crawls can work with 2 people, or 30, so long as the encounters are created with the party mechanics in mind. You don’t have a striker? either don’t put in so many damage soaking monsters, or reduce HP. You don’t have a controller? Fewer minions. No leader? Don’t put your PCs in a position where they need extra movement/effects from someone else.
To sum it up, while a balnaced party can be more optimal, it really only becomes an issue when the GM is lazy. If the Gm plans encounters based on the style of play of the players, and keeping in mind what strengths the party has, they’ll be able to overcome those challenges with exactly the amount of difficulty you want.
November 25, 2009 at 4:11 pm
An added factor in party composition is to look at sub-roles and multiclassing. If you don’t have a defender, a barbarian can help out. If you don’t have a leader, a paldin and some multiclassing can help ease the pain, literally. Also, in regard to the swordmages who weren’t marking – WTF?!? I’ve found swordmage marks to work best when you can mark somebody you aren’t fighting. Especially the Aegis of Shielding. You mark somebody and then move off to face a different enemy. They have the choice of making an attack at -2 and having most of the damage cancelled, or drawing an AoO by going after you (especially with the Fighter’s bonus to AoO’s)
November 27, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I’m not sure why 4e is being looked at in terms of balance as compared to an MMO. Realize that MMOs exist because of D&D – they took the ideas from D&D.
3.5 also NEEDS a balanced party.
You need a healer, two melee, an arcane caster, and a ranged character without magic.
You might be able to get away with no healer or no ranged, but this really hurts at higher levels.
November 28, 2009 at 8:52 am
I’ve never played an MMO, and wasn’t looking at it this way. And 4e handled “unbalanced parties” better than 3.5. In 3.5, you needed a healer, in 4e you don’t. And in 3.5, if that healer’s not a cleric, you’d better hope you don’t get certain conditions at low-mid levels.
December 19, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Any expert DM will fit encounters to meet the parties capabilities. Any expert group member will change tactics to suit their allies. The only thing a group “needs” to be balanced is a smart group of friends. I have played all meat shield groups, all skill groups, and all glass cannon groups. One very evil all Monk group. Never in an all healer group… that would be freaking crazy though.
It is a lot of fun to play a whole group of Barbarians and have a philosophical discussion about the strength of different dieties during combat with a group of evil acolytes and decide to spartakick them into their own sacrificial pit to show their god we meant no disrespect.
Sure a Mind Flayer is a lot tougher when Will saves are low, but it is up to the DM to decide what comes out when, who gets the drop on who, whether the roof is unstable, whether or not that ring you shruged and put on is for mind shielding or mind wiping, etc.
As time has progressed the “Roll” players seem to have gotten less and less gimped if the party is supposedly unbalanced. Also of note, in many MMOs an “unbalanced” party can still do just fine. Computer AI is stupid and exploitale. DM intelligence is working with you. So I think the answer to the question of whether it matters is, does it matter to YOU?