How necessary is it to have one of every role?

[AttilaTheGeek]

I'm coming from 3.X/Pathfinder to 4E, and I really like a lot of what 4E does for balance and different roles, but one thing that worries me is the restrictions on party composition based on "required" roles. How necessary is it to have a Leader in the party? What about a Controller? Or a Defender?

[GPuzzle]

Defenders: Pretty much necessary. They're the first wall of defense, and while everyone should have some basic survivability (not much, though), they're the ones that will be reducing damage by a lot of stuff.

Strikers: They're also necessary. Get one or two, but not too many.

Leaders: They're surprisingly necessary not as healbots but as chessmasters. Positioning, giving your allies extra attacks and stuff like that. They're also pretty good at giving people buffs and sometimes debuffing enemies (*cough*Bard*cough*).

Controllers: Least necessary, but they are great at making everyone around them better by hampering their enemies significantly.


Also, watch out for Dabblers - these guys are from a role, and to do what that role does (blunting monster damage, doing heavy damage, giving buffs and allowing people to do more than they can, hampering monsters through status). For example:

Rogue: Striker/Controller
Paladin: Defender/Leader
Bard: Leader/Controller
Barbarian: Striker/Defender
Druid: Controller/Striker

[captpike]

while it is ideal to have of each role the game works perfectly well if you only have 3 of the four roles covered. you also can kludge it if you have characters with strong secondarys. the only exception is strikers, you need at least one real striker or fights will take forever.

one example that would work well would be if you had no controller; if you instead had a warlock (striker with good single target control powers) and a sorcerer to AOE you would be golden.

[vasharanpaladin]

Not necessary at all. Despite what the current "definitions" for the roles might tell you, any effects "unique" to Controllers can be found in anyone's powers; they usually just lack the AoE aspect.

A group without a Controller, then, functions just fine, but has a bit more difficulty dealing with large groups of enemies.

A group without a Defender, similarly, functions fine due to a well-built Controller's ability to lock the field and the aforementioned suite of control powers in other roles. In high Paragon, usually around 16th level, a few PPs for non-Defender classes grant mark-and-punish features. The only problem this group should have are at early levels, where a quick enemy can easily get through the melee line to the squishy casters behind it.

A group without a Striker is functional, but rather ill-advised. Combat is already something of a grindfest even when you have at least one Striker and a high-damage off-role. Expect combat with on-level or stronger enemies to turn into a chore if this is the case.

Finally, a group without a Leader attacks relatively slowly and has little means to use healing resources. It is, of course, possible to get on without one, but as a Leader can grant extra saving throws, attacks and movement as well as bonuses to attacks... well, expect combat to hurt. A lot.

My group usually drops Controller, if anything, and we're rather fond of Leader+Defender+3 Strikers.

[Kimera757]

No role is necessary, but not having some means:

Controller: generally viewed as the least necessary role, they seem to be outright crippling when the enemy uses such powers. (In our last game session, the PCs were immobilized and dazed by lizardfolk bog mystics. Ouch.) Controllers are tricky to master because they're fairly situational, but IME denying enemy actions, no matter how you do it, is valuable.

Defender: no defender means not much of a front line. "Heavy" brute strikers such as barbarians, slayers and blackguards can, to an extent, act as a front line. The best defenders act as a "sticky" front line. If your DM isn't using pincer strategies or lots of skirmishers then defenders become less important.

Leader: no leader means little emergency healing. 4e PCs can heal pretty well outside of combat, but if you need healing right now... Leaders are also the best buffers, and you'll miss the bonuses to attack, damage and sometimes saving throws they provide if they aren't there. IME Gamma World 7e, despite basically having 4e rules and even roles (origins don't have named roles), is startlingly different from 4e D&D mainly due to a lack of in-combat healing.

Striker: deal big damage. Given how many hit points monsters tend to have, this is the one you want the most.

[georgie_leech]

To reiterate what everyone else is saying, no role is strictly necessary, and you can get by with basically any combination of roles, but lacking any given role will present certain challenges.

As an example, at one point a friend participated in a 4-man Striker campaign. The lack of a Leader meant they couldn't react well to damage or conditions, the lack of a defender meant they didn't have anyone that could really draw fire effectively, and the lack of a controller meant that it was difficult to prevent their enemies from responding. This resulted in a sort of "Strike Team" feel, where they had to be extremely choosy about when and where they engaged enemies, and when they did, they had to go in fast and hard so the enemy didn't have a chance to respond. It was a fairly short campaign, but it seemed to work alright.

So I suppose I should amend my previous statement by saying that any combination of roles can work, provided you understand how to work around your weaknesses and play to your strengths, and have a DM willing to design around your role choices; if a team lacks a good AoE Controller, you could probably tone down the number of minions, for instance.

[AttilaTheGeek]

So I suppose I should amend my previous statement by saying that any combination of roles can work, provided you understand how to work around your weaknesses and play to your strengths, and have a DM willing to design around your role choices; if a team lacks a good AoE Controller, you could probably tone down the number of minions, for instance.

That's fantastic, exactly the answer I was hoping for. Time to buy some 4E books!

[Inevitability]

I've said this before to another new player, but this link leads to a Mythweavers game specifically made for new players. http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=255297

[neonchameleon]

I'm coming from 3.X/Pathfinder to 4E, and I really like a lot of what 4E does for balance and different roles, but one thing that worries me is the restrictions on party composition based on "required" roles. How necessary is it to have a Leader in the party? What about a Controller? Or a Defender?

Leaders: A leader is your panic button for mitigating a run of bad luck. One is just about necessary, two is too many for fewer than five - and probably too many for five.

Strikers: It is pretty much impossible to have too many strikers in the party. They make the game fast and exciting on both sides.

Defenders: One defender gives squishies (wizards, invokers, archers, sorcerors) some protection and with high level tactics allows other people to play provoke tactics. Adds a lot to the game. Two allows some excellent tag teams. More is too many.

Controllers: Are never necessary although can be very fun.

[GPuzzle]

Wait, no.

There is such a thing as too many Strikers (past 3, things start to get ridiculous, because you'll have roughly 6 or 7 people in the group by then, which is too much IMO), but two Leaders in 5 is rather nice. Especially since one can cover the other's weakeness. For example, devote one to enabling and debuffing and the other to healing and buffing while having some saving throws.

[RedMage125]

I would say the ideal party of 5 should be:

1 Defender
1 Leader
1 Controller
1 Melee Striker
1 Ranged Striker

The Player's Strategy Guide says Defender is the ideal role to double up on. I disagree. The most meaningful status effect in terms of Battlefield Control (and Defending IS, in fact, a form of Control), is Dead. An enemy with 1 hp usually hits as hard (or harder) than an enemy with max hps. An enemy at 0hp does nothing.

If you have a party of 6 (the max I would suggest), I say THEN add a second defender, but make sure one of your PCs has Leader as a secondary role.

For example, the game I just finished running consisted of:

Sword&Board Fighter
Lazer Cleric
Wrath Invoker
Artful Dodger Rogue
Chaos Sorcerer
Lifespirit Warden

The Warden allows an ally to spend a healing surge when he uses second wind, and he hands out THP like candy. He's a dwarf, so SW is a minor action. He basiall ends up being backup Defender, backup Controller (through terrain effects), backup Leader, and quite nearly equals the strikers in damage output.

[TomPliss]

I would say the ideal party of 5 should be:

1 Defender
1 Leader
1 Controller
1 Melee Striker
1 Ranged Striker

I'd say it depends on whether the controller and leaders are melee (or melee oriented), and even then on what are their classes.
If the leader is a ranged artificer, having two ranged strikers and a melee controller will be better, to get more damage out of Magic Weapon, but if the leader is a melee enabler, mele strikers can be better. Moreover, with a melee rogue, having more melee characters can be a good idea because it gives more options to get a flanking CA...

[neonchameleon]

There is such a thing as too many Strikers (past 3, things start to get ridiculous, because you'll have roughly 6 or 7 people in the group by then, which is too much IMO), but two Leaders in 5 is rather nice.

6 or 7 is too many. But one of the more fun groups I've run for was three and a half strikers - a Thief, a Hunter, a Scout, and a Vampire. All with stealth trained - and running special ops against an invading army of ogres.

As for leaders, two leaders in five works if and only if neither focusses on healing. Nothing destroys tension like too much in-encounter recovery, and if you've already got four Healing Words per encounter (or Majestic Words or whatever) you've already got as much as you need throughout heroic tier.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I've heard that a party of five Tactical Warlords gets a bit silly.

[neonchameleon]

I've heard that a party of five Tactical Warlords gets a bit silly.

Each of them grants the attacks to each other and none of them makes it? You need something like a Slayer in there.

[p.d0t]

Having a 2nd Defender is nice if you often get ambushed from behind or encircled.
Just keep one defender at either end of the marching order.