One marked difference between the fourth edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game (4e) and its predecessors is the assignment of roles, or tactical capabilities, to each player character class. While these roles can provide assistance to a neophyte player about how his character might behave in D&D combat, the roles also create a higher level of interdependence between classes. Combining that interdependence with 4e’s more exacting, miniatures-based combat system makes creating a balanced party a different process than in previous editions, a fact that my players and I learned the hard way.
The 4e rules are clear that a “balanced” party – i.e., one that is equipped to handle most situations – should be comprised of one hero from each of the conroller, defender, leader and striker roles, adding that parties exceeding four members in size should add extra defenders.
Although suggesting a mix of character classes in a party is hardly new advice, the formulaic approach 4e takes with respect to encounter design seems to assume that all heroic parties will follow that suggestion. Indeed, my group has found using the experience point (xp) budget by encounter level calculations to be almost eerie in their accuracy for providing an appropriate challenge for such a party; but when a party doesn’t have heroes from each role or is heavy on any role but defender, our experience showed that the xp budget formula breaks down.
Our current campaign began five sessions ago. There were six heroes: one controller, one defender, one leader and three strikers. The players were warned that the party, being striker-heavy, would probably be able to quickly dispatch enemy artillery and brute monsters with ease, but would likely have problems with soldier monsters, which tend to be more difficult to hit.
To my players – whose gaming experience involved playing prior editions, with most having played since the days of 1e – my warning probably seemed to be more of a cautionary note and, in their defense, that is how I intended it to be taken. After all, in the days before miniatures were needed, it was easy enough to tell a dungeon master, “we all gang up on the monster that hit Olaf last round,” without worrying about whether or not a character could even reach Olaf, or whether or not monstrous opportunity attacks could injure heroes trying to do so.
Actually playing through encounters designed “by the numbers,” we found that our striker-heavy party did, indeed, have little trouble with monstrous brutes. Artillery monsters weren’t as easy to take out as we had thought, and soldier monsters proved especially tough to defeat, even at encounters that the xp budget labeled as the heroes’ level. Soldier monsters swarmed past player defender/leaders, ignoring heroic opportunity attacks, and quickly got to the “soft-skinned” party members.
During the first four sessions, we played through a total of three battles with soldier-monsters. The first two resulted in two or more party members being brought from full strength to zero hit points or below. The third combat, which was to be the climactic battle with the adventure’s primary villain, was two levels above the party, defined by the rules as a “hard” encounter; it turned out to be fatal for five of the six heroes, who began the fight near full strength. Only the ranger/striker escaped to the party’s base town.
After the session, we decided to reassemble the party. Everyone agreed that the party should keep the rogue (striker), the wizard (controller), the paladin (defender) and the warlord (leader), so I arranged for the villain to keep those characters alive to be turned into undead through a ritual, to be held in three days’ time. The ranger (striker) who escaped returned with a dwarven fighter (defender) from town, who arrived just as the imprisoned heroes were escaping and the ritual was to begin.
After recovering their equipment, the new party took on what was essentially the same encounter that destroyed the old party and, while it was by no means an easy fight, only one hero was brought to zero hit points.
Obviously, our experience here doesn’t account for numerous variables, including random die rolls and tactical errors that could have affected a battle’s outcome. It therefore irresponsible to use this experience alone to suggest that the encounter xp budget guidelines don’t work. It is enough, however, to suggest that the highly tactical nature of 4e combat and interdependent character roles can impact game combat in different ways than in prior editions, and that perhaps encounters should be scaled down for parties with few defenders to provide a more appropriate challenge if an “unbalanced” party is in play.