Community

Feb 14, 2010 -- 8:02AM, Anchovy_Pizza wrote:

I'm curious what character types you think do well in this setting. With 3 combat encounters per adventure, it seems combat heavy. This is not a bad thing IMO. If this combat focus is true, then it seems that certain character types would be successful in this play setting.

Well, most players seem to find the challenge level to be fine or easy, so you don't necessarily need to be super-effective for LFR. There will be some difficult adventures, but most of them are obvious (Specials, Interactives, anything concluding a major quest). Parties that are not optimal can still do well in difficult adventures, or at least complete them (since you can do things like run away - seldom is an adventure going to force you into a TPK).

Three combat encounters isn't necessarily better than two. The adventure will still use the same XP budget, but will spread it over three OR it will have more or fewer skill challenges. An adventure with two combats could have two really hard combats or it might have two normal combats and some difficult skill challenges. Focusing a PC for one scenario over the other is not something I would recommend. In general, the biggest effect you can plan for is that you will have at least two combats and only seldom four or more. Thus, you can pace Action Point usage and dailies that way. But, be wary of not using dailies. The first fight can often be very difficult when players hold back on dailies... but that might be the highest XP fight, right up front, or just plain the harder fight!

Feb 14, 2010 -- 8:02AM, Anchovy_Pizza wrote:

In this setting, the ideal combat team would consist of a few high-AC defenders and high-damage melee strikers, a ranged striker, a warlord, and a dedicated healer. I haven't seen any rogues or wizards. I don't know if this is a problem with those character types within 4th edition generally, but I imagine that a deeper and more diverse range of skills would be successful in a long-term campaign.

There are few universal truths, but there are some. It is easier to do well in LFR if you have at least one good defender (sticky, high defenses). It is easier to do well if you have at least one ranged combatant (preferably a strong ranged striker, such as an archer ranger or sorcerer, and having half the party be ranged is often better than having fewer be ranged as you get to ignore terrain somewhat). It is increasingly useful to have skills that are common to traps or trap-like situations (Thievery, Dungeoneering, Arcana, Nature). It is important to be able to have movement options, such as forced movement for multiple allies or shifts/teleportation for getting vulnerable allies out of the way. Control becomes very effective around paragon. Healing is important for some adventures. In those adventures you want one strong healer but you generally want their healing to also come with something else (tactical, preventative, movement, etc.) so that it isn't just about HPs. The negative comments about Pacifist Healers generally come because the build is often really focused on HPs but provides little damage or damage-enhancing or tactical output as compared to other leaders. (Thought it can be great, truly.)

Feb 14, 2010 -- 8:02AM, Anchovy_Pizza wrote:

So, please feel free to comment on party-building strategies for LFR, and what characters you bring every week to contribute to the team's success.

If building a single PC that will insert themselves into random groups, I generally try to have a primary and secondary area, as was mentioned, with the primary one that is applicable to my role. If I'm a leader, other than a Tactical Warlord or similar iconic buffer, I want to make sure I cover healing. If I'm a striker (outside of some warlocks) I need to address damage. I then try to boost my good skills so I will be a strong contributor when those situations come up. I try to be effective, but with the reality that I have plenty of breathing room for RP choices because LFR is not that hard.

If building a team from scratch, you can really be effective. You can plan for all sorts of synergies. Take a look at the ranged-focused shaman in Primal Power or the new ranged Warlord in MP2 for ideas of what could be done to enhance two ranged strikers (or another role with a strong ranged basic, such as a controler). I recently ran a great table of dwarves that all had Rings of Sympathy, so they were constantly chain-saving by making a save, activating the property to grant someone else a save. The daily on the ring just made it all the stronger. But, aside from such high thinking, just making a table of all the skills and making sure each one is covered will be really effective for skill challenges. You can also work on covering roles.

One issue worth noting is that some classes do not duplicate well. Two warlocks can be an issue (low damage, curse issues unless they both take a feat). Two bards can be an issue (certainly three would be rough). These tables can still triumph, but it is not ideal.