# 2 Ways To Abandon Roles



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 1, 2013)

Why  not just ignore the idea of roles, and encourage your players to play the kinds of characters they like without feeling the need to "fill out" a party?  The game will take care of itself.

If you're really desperate for something like healing, there's always the hireling or NPC route.


----------



## Janx (Aug 1, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Why  not just ignore the idea of roles, and encourage your players to play the kinds of characters they like without feeling the need to "fill out" a party?  The game will take care of itself.
> 
> If you're really desperate for something like healing, there's always the hireling or NPC route.




I think the point the article is making is that 4e (and some other editions have symptoms of this) does not "take care of itself".  Unless you mean, the game will keep killing your party until you make a well balanced party.. 

I don't do 4e, so I can't say how true the problem is.  But I smell that it could be a problem that the game seems to prefer a party with each role filled, and that lacking a role could hurt your party.

The most obvious in just about all D&D editions is the healer.  It's not a fun role for most players I know.  Yet without one, games are more deadly or retreaty which isn't as much fun (yay! we had to runaway again!).

the obvious solution to having no healer is to buy healing potions/wands of healing, etc.

I think the thesis of the article is to consider the problem across all the typical roles in the party that D&D has, and if the game really expects them, examine other ways to cover the need, without forcing a player to fill a position he doesn't really want to fill.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 1, 2013)

I find the game expectation that all roles be filled to be significantly overstated, except in very optimization-focused gaming groups.  The base D&D game is fairly robust in that regard.


----------



## Balesir (Aug 1, 2013)

Although I agree that "one of every role" is not that big a deal in my experience (I run for a party of seven with no leader, forex), I think these are some neat ideas and I thank  [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] for them.

FWIW, my answer to the "loss aversion on consumables" issue is to split out "real" magic and consumables, rituals and so on. I treat residuum as a separate resource - not easily traded for gold - that magic items are made of (I don't use "item rarity"). Disenchanting an item generates its full value in residuum, and making an item _requires_ its full value in residuum, so players can form their "residuum reserve" as they wish (at a cost in gold for the rituals), but gold is useful only for the conversions or for other rituals, consumables, etc.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 1, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I find the game expectation that all roles be filled to be significantly overstated, except in very optimization-focused gaming groups. The base D&D game is fairly robust in that regard.




Like I say in the article, I totally believe it's possible to play 4e as written without having to fill all the roles.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea, that doesn't mean there's no pressure to fill the roles, that doesn't mean people don't go with their second or third choice just to avoid "hurting" the party. 

Recognizing that this issue exists (whether or not it "should") provoked me to propose a few solutions.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 1, 2013)

Janx said:


> I think the point the article is making is that 4e (and some other editions have symptoms of this) does not "take care of itself".  Unless you mean, the game will keep killing your party until you make a well balanced party..




That's pretty exaggerated IMHO and IME. I've been running various sized parties in 4e since Keep on the Shadowfell came out, and I really encourage the players to choose what they want to play rather than trying to "fill out the grid" (if you will). 

At the moment, my campaign includes a total of 7 pcs: a barbarian (the straight striker type), rogue, vampire, sorcerer, wizard, invoker and seeker. So four strikers and three controllers. We usually have 4-5 pcs present; there's never a session with a balanced-roles party. And they're doing fine. I do run a high-lethality game, but in my experience, having balanced roles doesn't make a huge difference as long as the party uses tactics appropriate to their makeup.

(We just had our first over-100-points-of-damage crit by a pc last night; the pixie vampire now holds the pc record for damage.)


----------



## Janx (Aug 1, 2013)

the Jester said:


> That's pretty exaggerated IMHO and IME. I've been running various sized parties in 4e since Keep on the Shadowfell came out, and I really encourage the players to choose what they want to play rather than trying to "fill out the grid" (if you will).




hey, I'm just supporting KM's discussion   I got no clue if 4e actually suffers from this, or if it's just some people.

Personally, if I get 4 players in 3e who want to play wizards and rogues, instead of a wizard, rogue, cleric, fighter, then I tailor the game content to be something I think befits a 2 wizards and 2 rogues, rather than a traditional dungeon crawling party.

So, I avoid the problem of "that's a crappy party for dungeon crawling" by building a city with thieving stuff and wizards guild intrigue, etc because I don't think a party like that would be interested in generic dungeon crawling to kill monsters and take their stuff.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 1, 2013)

Not all 4E roles are equal.  It's fairly easy to work around not having a controller, for example.  Not having a defender requires a change in tactics to some extent, but it is also something which is possible.  Not having a striker is workable, but I tend to advise against it because it tends to lower the party's damage output enough that it makes 4E combat drag even more than usual; however, a PHB1 fighter with the right selection of powers and feats can cover the striker role reasonably well.  

While I do believe Leader is the hardest role to go without, I also believe there is a potentially easy solution -though one which isn't as effective as actually having a Leader.  Have everyone in the party use one of their feats to multiclass into a class which has healing, and then everyone will at least some access to healing.  Still, it's important to remember that Leaders bring a lot more to the table than just healing, and there are a lot of situations in which I believe a class such as Warlord greatly increases the effectiveness of the party.


----------



## skotothalamos (Aug 2, 2013)

Neat ideas in general! I love the Leader(/Striker/Defender/Controller) in a Bottle!

The achievements as written would need some work, as three of them trigger on a flanked enemy (who is therefore both adjacent to an ally and granting combat advantage). One hit for 2d6 extra damage, a daze, and a fighter's challenge!


----------



## DancingSatyr (Aug 2, 2013)

I could not agree more with both this statement, and the quote about the "Soul of D&D". Epic, and well said!


----------



## the Jester (Aug 2, 2013)

I like the event-based effects, too- I've used something like that in particularly epic fights, with condition-based recharges and healing surge use (e.g. "When you guys have finished off the minions, killed two of the four ogres and either killed one of, or bloodied both of, the dragons, everyone can recharge one encounter power and spend a healing surge").

Boons work well for this kind of thing, too.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 2, 2013)

4th Edition is really just explicit (or intentionally made it known) instead of implicit (not saying it out right but still assuming you'll do it) about it.  Even if a game can do fine without a certain role, everyone will still want it because having it makes the game a lot easier.  Also... 

http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/855


----------



## drothgery (Aug 3, 2013)

I've always thought that despite making roles a lot more explicit, it's much easier to get by without any leader-combat-role class in 4e than it is to get by without a positive-energy-channeling cleric in any earlier edition of D&D. Second wind, healing surges, and full HP & surge recovery overnight mean you can recover quickly without draining spells (or wands in 3.x).


----------



## pemerton (Aug 4, 2013)

Johnny3D3D said:


> While I do believe Leader is the hardest role to go without, I also believe there is a potentially easy solution -though one which isn't as effective as actually having a Leader.  Have everyone in the party use one of their feats to multiclass into a class which has healing, and then everyone will at least some access to healing.  Still, it's important to remember that Leaders bring a lot more to the table than just healing, and there are a lot of situations in which I believe a class such as Warlord greatly increases the effectiveness of the party.



My party did 6 level without a leader - but they had a dwarf (minor action 2nd wind), a paladin (LoH) and 3 or 4 leader multiclass.

Around 6th level the ranger (multi-cleric) rebuilt as a hybrid cleric-ranger - since then they've generally had ample healing (and at least one multi-leader got trained away). The cleric-ranger doesn't do much that is leader-ish other than healing (and also +1 to hit vs quarried target from Battlefield Archer) - they non-healing party buffs actually come from the sorcerer/Demonskin Adept multi-bard.


----------



## Argyle King (Aug 4, 2013)

pemerton said:


> My party did 6 level without a leader - but they had a dwarf (minor action 2nd wind), a paladin (LoH) and 3 or 4 leader multiclass.
> 
> Around 6th level the ranger (multi-cleric) rebuilt as a hybrid cleric-ranger - since then they've generally had ample healing (and at least one multi-leader got trained away). The cleric-ranger doesn't do much that is leader-ish other than healing (and also +1 to hit vs quarried target from Battlefield Archer) - they non-healing party buffs actually come from the sorcerer/Demonskin Adept multi-bard.




A paladin has enough healing to help offset not having a Leader in a lot of cases.

I'm not familiar enough with Demonskin Adept to know what that is.  It's been a while since I've played 4E, so I'm sure there are a lot of options available now that weren't available when I was playing.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 4, 2013)

Johnny3D3D said:


> I'm not familiar enough with Demonskin Adept to know what that is.



+3 untyped attack bonus to self and allies from spending an action point.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 6, 2013)

Honestly, my approach from either side of the table has always been "Suck it up, buttercup.  You know where the multiclass feats are".  Or very occasionally to give them a half-weight NPC.


----------



## Storminator (Aug 6, 2013)

Neonchameleon said:


> Honestly, my approach from either side of the table has always been* "Suck it up, buttercup.*  You know where the multiclass feats are".  Or very occasionally to give them a half-weight NPC.




That's a Warlord power, right? 

PS


----------

