Author Topic: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?  (Read 26701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Squirrelloid

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
[Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« on: August 08, 2008, 08:44:28 AM »
The rules tout that we should have a member of each role in the party, because each of their functions is vital.  However, packing some types of members may well interfere with the functioning of other members.  The most obvious example is the sneaky scout character - obviously he can't go sneaking around with the entire party unless the entire party is sneaky.  Less obvious might be that having characters whose sole purpose is to engage the enemy in melee limits the benefits achieved by applying some status conditions, like slow.  And in fact, if such a party member doesn't move up to melee then he has been denied his actions as surely as the effected enemy units.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss some rather skewed party compositions which seek to maximize the parties applied force to achieve combat superiority.

Ranged trumps Melee Offensively
The best defense is a good offense. -Mel, the cook on Alice

A party who is entirely range-competent is able to engage an opponent with its full force at greater distance and able to easily concentrate force to eliminate one enemy at a time, decreasing force that can be applied back on them.  Barring extremely close initial encounter distances, having to close to melee is a disadvantage in force application, and often the preferred targets are going to be hard to get to on foot. 

This either means that a party with melee characters is either diluting its force attacking multiple targets, or that its concentrating on secondary or even tertiary targets because those are the ones that can be concentrated on.  This of course means that the enemies actions are collectively more effective over the duration of the combat, because those enemies with stronger abilities (priority targets) get to live longer and take more actions, which means more damage to the party.  Yeah, those melee characters can suck up the damage better - but you wouldn't even be taking that much damage if you weren't dependent on getting one or more characters stuck in melee.

Basically, an all-ranged party gets to divide the enemy in space.  There will be those among the enemy who can engage the party at range, and those who will need to close.  Thus, at the start of the encounter, the ranged party can treat it as if they were just fighting the ranged contingent (with basically a timer running before the melee contingent becomes a threat - probably a short timer barring advantageous circumstances - see next section).

I can't overemphasize the importance of concentration of force.  The whole point of certain monster categories is to keep melee fighters off ranged attackers (who are capable of concentrating force).  Being able to ignore the skirmish line and eliminate the critical backfield players early is a major advantage.

Stealth trumps Defense
Float like a butterfly sting like a bee, your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see. - Muhammad Ali

If the party is undetected before combat, they get to dictate the terms on which combat happens.  This can mean a surprise round, holding a superior position, and having enemies favorably clustered for area attacks.  All of these help the party achieve combat superiority early in the combat, decreasing the need for costly attrition.

During combat, stealth means that the party is hard to locate, and thus hard to target and eliminate.  In some cases, the enemy may realize they are under attack, but may be unable to locate a target for their own offense.  Having to overcome the party's stealth options means wasting actions or taking actions at reduced effectiveness.

The party should of course be wary that canny adversaries will seek to do the same to them, and should have counter-stealth capabilities to compensate.

Running Away trumps Moving to Engage
Would it help to confuse it if we run away more? - Sir Robin, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

In real world combat, forcing the enemy to engage you was the hardest part of fighting a military campaign.  In fact, for much of european history it was just accepted that both sides had to be willing to engage in battle for a battle to actually occur.  It wasn't until Napoleon implemented some novel ideas about infantry deployment that an attacker could regularly force his foe to engage him.  Ultimately the important concept is a force:space ratio - at some critical level of force:space the enemy simply cannot retreat from you anymore because you can cut him off, and so he has to give battle.  (Napoleon's tactics reduced the necessary force:space ratio required to bring the enemy to battle).

In D+D running away isn't always easier - but it can be if you make that a goal.  By which I mean having a movement speed advantage translates into an ability to run away.  And like the classical javelineers/slingers who would launch a salvo at a phalanx, retreat until the phalanx gave up chasing them, and then repeat, having a higher move speed means you can make a ranged attack against a melee enemy, move away, and attack again at some frequency such that the melee fighter never closes with you.  This can be an absolute advantage (an Elf's 7 movement speed), or a relative advantage (unfettered stride).  Possessing a special movement mode your adversary cannot duplicate is a special case of this - their movement speed for that mode is effectively 0.

Bringing It All Together
You may have noticed that every single one of the above points is in favor of ranged attacks.  And in fact benefits a party which focuses on ranged attacks to the exclusion of other attacks.  In addition to being ranged focused, such a party needs to:

(1) be capable of stealth as a party
(2) be capable of detecting stealthy enemies
(3) be capable of maximizing the advantage gained by their specialization.

By 3 I mean that the goal is to achieve combat superiority by focused fire and both removing priority targets early and multiple targets before the enemy can properly engage.  At which point, both delaying the enemy engaging you (ie, reducing their action efficiency) and maximizing your ability to remove targets from the combat are key priorities.  Thus, strikers and wizards are the key members of this party - in fact, I'm going to argue for them being the *only* members of this party.  Ie, we're going to focus on damage at range and debilitating conditions.

Consider a party comprised of 2 elf wizards and 3 elf archer rangers.  They have a speed advantage over most creatures they will encounter, they all have at least good dexterity which means an initiative and stealth advantage (and should all become trained in stealth), and they have a perception advantage (racial skill bonus, trained for rangers).  In addition, Elven Accuracy gives them a key early combat offense advantage, maximizing their first round or two and thus achieving combat superiority early.  We can of course diversify this a little more (2 wizards, 2 rangers, 1 rogue), and some other races can also fit in rather well (although they won't be as fast, they can be even sneakier) - Drow make great Rogues or Warlocks and are sneaky.  Gnomes are even sneakier, and favor similar classes. 

Such a party should spot enemies before they are themselves spotted, and should be able to wreak havoc by surprise and achieve a decisive advantage quickly.

The bottom line
Ultimately, such a party could be extremely effective while also being exceedingly skewed towards strikers.  It does, however, require the DM not stealth-nerf you (by making enemies automatically detect you so they can ambush you, or you don't detect them arbitrarily).  It could certainly be more interesting than playing with a standard party. 
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels. -Chip 4:2

Squirrelloid

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2008, 10:14:04 AM »
Who are our ranged harriers?
Four classes fit well into this methodology - the three striker classes for their high damage, all of whom are capable of acting at range, and the wizard for his AoE debilitation and minion killing.

The Wizard
Races: Elf gives you Elven Accuracy, a good dexterity, a good wisdom, a sight advantage (LLV), and a movement speed of 7.  All of these are potentially useful to a skirmishing wizard.  What it doesn't give you is an int bonus - for the moment we'll forgive that because its other advantages make up for it (and we're not getting that 7 move speed anywhere else!).

Your other real option is gnome, which gives you some great stealth abilities and an int bonus, but that hardly makes up for everything it loses.

Its perfectly possible to play a standard orbizard build in this role.  See my Wizard HB Master of Puppets concept.  However, we can optimize more specifically at the loss of some generality.

You're going to be focused on early combat performance, which makes elven accuracy really good.  In addition, starting with wand of accuracy isn't a terrible idea (we can pick orb up in paragon).  Especially as you aren't going to necessarily be trying to save-lock someone for an entire combat, just long enough to let you annihilate most of his buddies.  As such, a 16 int 14 wis 14 dex 12 cha build pre racials can be justified - especially as you will likely be getting a lot of use out of Sieze the Moment in paragon by party SOP (assuming you have it).  We'll also probably end up using a lot of Master of Space style spells, so the utter dedication to orb will not be as heavily rewarded as it could be.

Your spell choices should focus on spells with a range between 10-20 squares.  Certainly spells which have a range of "close" should not be common in your repetoire (although having one as an 'oh shit' button isn't a terrible idea).  You should also favor spells which create favorable terrain or disable the enemy.  Sleep is a beautiful spell because it still slows (save ends) on a miss - the hit text is just gravy.  Icy Terrain is a great encounter power because it creates an obstacle to the deployment of force by the opposition.  Similarly, Grasping Shadows from the Class Acts article.  At later levels you'll want to take advantage of spells like Web, Wall of Fire/Ice, Illusory Wall, and so forth.  Your goal is to break the enemy up into manageable chunks so the party doesn't get overwhelmed.

Your At-Wills want to be Scorching Burst (for minion control) and probably Ray of Frost (because slow is really powerful in this style of party).

PP: Bloodmage is almost certainly your best PP option, but DO is also strong (especially if you can take Illusory Wall!).  Ie, typical wizard PP choices.

I recommend two wizards for reliable control options.

The Rogue
Sniper Rogues (Gleemax), probably Drow for the stealth advantages.  Your best PP is probably the Assassin, because you want to focus on massive damage.

The Ranger
Race: Elf, duh.  Bonus to Wis and Dex is exactly what the doctor ordered!

You're an archer ranger, there is nothing unusual here.

The Warlock
Drow and Gnome both make exceptional Feylocks, which is probably what you want to be doing. 

Githyanki makes a good Hellock, but isn't notably stealthy nor notably fast, but it does do more damage and could quite possibly tank if forced to melee.  Actually, at that point something like a Minotaur Hexhammer is both a serviceable ranged skirmisher and a decent tank, but this is a compromise build for this party style.  Feylock is almost certainly the right choice, although starlock (with charisma focus) could be ok (no eyebite, but it's probably still doable).  Your goal is to end up invisible or otherwise hidden at the end of each of your turns, in addition to churning out some serious damage and, quite possibly, some disruption.

Your power choices should focus on making the enemy lose actions or dealing lots of damage.

PP: possibly multi into rogue for the Daggermaster PP to pump your critical with a pact blade, and write off the PP powers. 
« Last Edit: August 08, 2008, 10:38:44 AM by Squirrelloid »
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels. -Chip 4:2

DemonLord57

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 164
    • Email
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2008, 12:13:42 PM »
I think that Clerics should also be valid choices for these ranged-focused parties. The Cleric's at-wills are only 5 range, but their ranged encounter powers are pretty much all at 10 range. Having a healer is useful for bad situations, too. I think a nice setup would be an Elf Cleric with 18 Dex and Wis, multiclassing into Ranger for Disruptive Strike, (which is ridiculously awesome, IMO. I advocate all Rangers getting it as well.) and using a longbow when he's either not in range or out of long range powers. Besides, I find it unlikely that you'll be able to keep away from enemies enough to make the Clerics at-wills useless. If you can, you've already gotten an advantage.

There's also the issue of ranged enemies not being hampered. I haven't looked too carefully, but from what I could tell, enemies that only fight in melee get increasingly more rare as you go up in levels. Although you can still focus-fire better than a normal party, you lose the ability to hamper enemy ranged attacks with OAs. Of course, you also avoid those nasty close burst effects...

Squirrelloid

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2008, 03:32:47 PM »
I think that Clerics should also be valid choices for these ranged-focused parties. The Cleric's at-wills are only 5 range, but their ranged encounter powers are pretty much all at 10 range. Having a healer is useful for bad situations, too. I think a nice setup would be an Elf Cleric with 18 Dex and Wis, multiclassing into Ranger for Disruptive Strike, (which is ridiculously awesome, IMO. I advocate all Rangers getting it as well.) and using a longbow when he's either not in range or out of long range powers. Besides, I find it unlikely that you'll be able to keep away from enemies enough to make the Clerics at-wills useless. If you can, you've already gotten an advantage.

The thing is, the cleric's encounter powers are neither high damage nor decent AoE.  So while he has soms great daily options, most of the time he's not contributing as much to the goals of the party, which means you'll take longer to drop enemies.  I mean, yes, as a compromise you could include a cleric, it will make disasters more survivable, but lets not pretend the cleric is equally useful at the intended style of play.

Quote
There's also the issue of ranged enemies not being hampered. I haven't looked too carefully, but from what I could tell, enemies that only fight in melee get increasingly more rare as you go up in levels. Although you can still focus-fire better than a normal party, you lose the ability to hamper enemy ranged attacks with OAs. Of course, you also avoid those nasty close burst effects...

But stealth does interfere with ranged attacks.  So will things like Wall of Fire, WoI, Illusory Wall, Fog Cloud, etc...  Make them earn every attack they get =).

Also, higher level monsters are less common in general, so there are fewer melee high level monsters, but also fewer ranged high level monsters, in terms of absolute numbers.  I'm not sure what the actual trend is, if any.
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels. -Chip 4:2

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2008, 06:15:57 AM »
A brilliant exposition, Squirrelloid.

I would like to make an addition as well which is exclusive to the game itself (as your observations would all be relevant for pretty much any tactical situation outside D&D), which is relative to Ranged Trumps Melee Offensively.

Attacking weak spots maximizes accuracy.

As a general rule, if I had to rank Wizards, Warlocks, Rogues and Rangers in terms of accuracy, they would probably go in this order:

Wizard
Warlock
Rogue
Ranger

Why? The first two are capable of hitting different defenses somewhat consistently (and they don't ever have to hit AC, which tends to be higher than defenses usually), but the Wizard has better range and can AoE better. While Rogues and Rangers -can- target other defenses at longer range, they're much more focused on AC hits, and have generally less debuffs at their disposal (and the Rogue has a natural selection of powers that aid him with Stealth which the Ranger would need to spend feats to get).

Also, a somewhat valid note: grabbing a Warlock or Wizard multiclass feat enables you to use wands with powers of either class -- good for emergencies or grabbing that nice power from the other class without spending a feat on it (since the only kind of power you can't grab through this trick is a daily).
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


ImperiousLeader

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2008, 06:35:31 PM »
The ranged Cleric is a little too short-ranged for this kind of party, but what about an bow-wielding Artificer?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2008, 06:40:03 PM by ImperiousLeader »

Squirrelloid

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #6 on: August 10, 2008, 12:44:17 AM »
The ranged Cleric is a little too short-ranged for this kind of party, but what about an bow-wielding Artificer?

This is where I confess I haven't actually read the Artificer beta.  Maybe I'll get around to it before GenCon.
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels. -Chip 4:2

Lokathor

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • Email
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2008, 07:38:43 AM »
Gnolls get 7 speed, and +2 Dex / +2 Con would be okay as the base for a hellock or ranger.

ImperiousLeader

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2008, 11:47:53 PM »
This is where I confess I haven't actually read the Artificer beta.  Maybe I'll get around to it before GenCon.

The main reason an Artificer is a good idea (maybe replacing a wizard in your party) is the "Aggravating Force" at-will. You use any ranged weapon, if you hit, the next ally to attack that target gets a +2 to his attack role. Not to mention some of the Artificer's utility powers can enhance the party's mobility, and as a leader, you get healing. Also, the Artificer's other (currently known) at-will is Thundering Armour, which is nice if your ranged party does get into melee, as you target an enemy adjacent to an ally, and push the foe away from your ally on a hit.

Subbing out a wizard for an Eladrin Artificer would offer a lot more flexibility and some healing to your party.

Squirrelloid

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2008, 04:06:39 AM »
Subbing out a wizard for an Eladrin Artificer would offer a lot more flexibility and some healing to your party.

This is where I get a little tentative.  Eladrins don't work well in this style of party.  They aren't fast, and they aren't exceptionally sneaky.  Which means they can't stay at range very well.  (No, one 3 square teleport per combat is not going to do it).

If you can make it work with Elf, Gnome, or apparently Gnoll... then we might be talking.  (I'm leaving out Drow because he really needs a stealthy class, even with his great natural stealth abilities).
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels. -Chip 4:2

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #10 on: August 11, 2008, 05:47:49 AM »
Quote
(I'm leaving out Drow because he really needs a stealthy class, even with his great natural stealth abilities).

Don't forget his racial powers, particularly Cloud of Darkness.

Instant blindness, no save, no hit, no nothing? Sure it's close, but it can definitely work wonders, and it provides concealment in a pinch.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2008, 09:55:49 AM »
There's one inherent and absurdly glaring flaw in your reasoning, Squirrel:  There is no way for you to respond to an enemy retreat other than to give chase, and why would intelligent enemies retreat when they encounter a hidden force of enemies with a range advantage over them?

There are two ways the situation plays out, and both of them badly for the party:

1) The enemy retreats and the party gives chase.  The party is now exposed and, lacking both leaders and defenders, can be quickly and easily knocked out one-by-one and have virtually no means of recovering.

2) The party doesn't give chase and the enemy escapes.  The enemy will either go on about it's way or setup a trap to lure the party into an exposed position and then take them out.  The more the party skirmishes with the enemy, the more likely the latter becomes.

Oh, and lets not forget the most important part: you can have a balanced party that focuses on ranged tactics.

ImperiousLeader

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2008, 10:19:01 AM »
This is where I get a little tentative.  Eladrins don't work well in this style of party.  They aren't fast, and they aren't exceptionally sneaky.  Which means they can't stay at range very well.  (No, one 3 square teleport per combat is not going to do it).

If you can make it work with Elf, Gnome, or apparently Gnoll... then we might be talking.  (I'm leaving out Drow because he really needs a stealthy class, even with his great natural stealth abilities).

Eladrin are not that bad at stealth, the teleport allows them move from cover to cover (required for stealth), they've got a DEX bonus and Eladrin Education allows them to be trained in stealth (not an Artificer class skill) without expending a feat (or allows them to Skill Focus (Stealth) to keep up). Plus, you've got a pair of Elf Rangers, surely one of them could take the Crucial Advice Utility to help out.

Still, an Elf Artificer could work, it's just the stat boosts do little for you. Artificers like high INT and CON, but you've always argued the reroll is better than the +1 to attack and damage.

Gnomes lose a lot of mobility, they're only speed 5. Gnolls aren't particularly stealthy, though they are as fast as Elves.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2008, 02:50:06 PM »
Higher mobility + stealth + ranged attacks are a nightmare. Every time the GM sets up an ambush with gnolls in it we consider ripping our character sheets apart. I can thus vouch that Squirrelloid's theory DOES work -- provided the opposite party lacks a movement lockdown-based controller.

That said, last time we almost had our asses handed to us by gnolls, there was one of them right in front of us laying down the hurt.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


Squirrelloid

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2008, 07:32:58 PM »
There's one inherent and absurdly glaring flaw in your reasoning, Squirrel:  There is no way for you to respond to an enemy retreat other than to give chase, and why would intelligent enemies retreat when they encounter a hidden force of enemies with a range advantage over them?

There are two ways the situation plays out, and both of them badly for the party:

1) The enemy retreats and the party gives chase.  The party is now exposed and, lacking both leaders and defenders, can be quickly and easily knocked out one-by-one and have virtually no means of recovering.

The party is faster, they don't get to retreat.  We already discussed this (in reverse) under 'retreating is easier than closing'.  And as the party's first strike should be inflicting some slow, stunned, immobile, or similar conditions, a good number of the enemy are most assuredly not getting away.  And you're also assuming that there isn't a wall of ice or similar blocking the path of retreat.  Alternately, the enemies are bolstered blood pulsed - running suddenly doesn't seem like such a good idea, does it?

Seriously, a party designed to match the OP criteria should drop a creature in the surprise round, and another in round 1.  Anyone left who isn't hobbled can try to run, but I imagine they'll be in the minority.  And the party is exceptionally good at chasing. 

And as there is no morale stat anymore (hasn't been since 2nd edition), knowing when the DM will have a group of enemies run is completely unpredictable.  I mean, yes, if faced with a ranged barrage a group of melee enemies might decide to head for the hills immediately.  Or they might try charging the offending artillery, knowing they'll be squishy up close.  Honestly, the second is more likely in D+D.  What DM is going to have his monsters run after the first volley?

When you put a bunch of archers up against your party, do you expect the party to close or run away?

Quote
2) The party doesn't give chase and the enemy escapes.  The enemy will either go on about it's way or setup a trap to lure the party into an exposed position and then take them out.  The more the party skirmishes with the enemy, the more likely the latter becomes.

This really depends on the nature of the adventure.  If the PCs are being reactive (and the antagonists active), then the party just needs to know where the antagonists are going or what they are doing.  They can make it so their enemies have to deal with them from a position of strength or not accomplish their aims.

If the party is being proactive, the enemy has to be better at spotting them than they are at spotting the enemy, even if the enemy knows they're coming.  (They won't know exactly where, just like the party knows there are monsters about but doesn't know exactly where). 

I mean, yes, if your DM loves magically silent closet trolls, this style of party has problems. 

Quote
Oh, and lets not forget the most important part: you can have a balanced party that focuses on ranged tactics.

Ranged defenders are pretty awful.  Ranged leaders aren't much better for the kind of ranged we're talking about.  (Though in later levels a Tactlord/Battle Captain makes up for his lack of direct participation to a large degree by making everyone else awesome).
« Last Edit: August 11, 2008, 07:39:23 PM by Squirrelloid »
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels. -Chip 4:2

Squirrelloid

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2008, 07:36:44 PM »
This is where I get a little tentative.  Eladrins don't work well in this style of party.  They aren't fast, and they aren't exceptionally sneaky.  Which means they can't stay at range very well.  (No, one 3 square teleport per combat is not going to do it).

If you can make it work with Elf, Gnome, or apparently Gnoll... then we might be talking.  (I'm leaving out Drow because he really needs a stealthy class, even with his great natural stealth abilities).

Eladrin are not that bad at stealth, the teleport allows them move from cover to cover (required for stealth), they've got a DEX bonus and Eladrin Education allows them to be trained in stealth (not an Artificer class skill) without expending a feat (or allows them to Skill Focus (Stealth) to keep up). Plus, you've got a pair of Elf Rangers, surely one of them could take the Crucial Advice Utility to help out.

Still, an Elf Artificer could work, it's just the stat boosts do little for you. Artificers like high INT and CON, but you've always argued the reroll is better than the +1 to attack and damage.

Gnomes lose a lot of mobility, they're only speed 5. Gnolls aren't particularly stealthy, though they are as fast as Elves.

Gnomes are amazingly stealthy.  They get a free check at the start of combat to be hidden.  That's pretty awesome.  They make up for their lack of ability because of that.  (Also, you're going feylock as a gnome generally, which means teleport 3 every time a cursed enemy dies).

Its already assumed everyone is picking up Skill Training: Stealth or a multiclass which allows that to be picked up.  Eladrin don't really add much on top of that.  And their teleport is only 1/combat.

Gnolls aren't particularly stealth, but they are fast.

Its not that I think EAcc totally trumps +2 Int for wizards, but you also get a major benefit from the wisdom, and EAcc compensates for the loss of the +2 int mod.  I don't know if it would be worth it on an artificer or not.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2008, 03:22:53 AM by Squirrelloid »
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels. -Chip 4:2

ImperiousLeader

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2008, 11:09:25 PM »
I still think that exchanging a wizard for an Artificer (that will probably multiclass into wizard anyway, there are no Artificer Paragon Paths yet) nets you a lot more flexibility, with little loss in power. Their ability to mark targets for ranged fire is good, plus, since they use their ranged weapons to deliver some of their area spells, an Artificer with Far Shot and a Hand Crossbow can outrange most Wizard spells. The longbow is the ideal for the larger damage dice, but it's not strictly necessary. And, if you do stick with Crossbows, a lot of Artificer attacks grant combat advantage to the Artificer ... making a Rogue multiclass another option.

But if you're dead set against Eladrin, there are some other options.

Gnomes will really slow you down, and I doubt that Feylock Gnomes are going to get enough teleports to match their horrible speed, but they do have the INT bonus for Artificers. Small size limits you to Hand Crossbows though, but Far Shot can mitigate that. Flavourwise, Gnome Artificers are well known in Eberron. Overall, it's not a horrible choice.

Gnolls don't have an INT bonus, but they are boosting the other two stats a stealth Artificer wants, so they're doable.

Kobolds are going to be limited to Hand crossbows, but their shifty ability effectively gives them speed 7 when they're not using their minor action (which, I'll confess, Artificers, like the other Leader classes use). They've also got a racial bonus to stealth. They don't have the bonus to INT, but like the Gnoll, they're boosting the other two stats the Artificer wants.

Shadar-Kai are Eladrin with a racial stealth bonus. I'd sooner go Eladrin, but they're an option.

Tieflings also have both INT and stealth bonuses, and the advantage of a Tiefling is that, as the leader in a Defenderless party, should something go wrong, the Artificer has the built in healing to defend for a short time. And hitting Tieflings can be a bad thing.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2008, 01:48:57 AM »
Personally, I dislike the idea of picking a beta class over a finished one. There are just too many easily abusable things in the Artificer right now for me to believe he's gonna stay that way, I guess...
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #18 on: September 01, 2008, 06:46:53 AM »
Hmm, how would this setup handle enclosed or otherwise movement restricted areas(say, combined trap/monster encounter) then? Seems to me that'd be the first thing that a frustrated DM would start to pull to deal with this particular trick.

As for healing needs, without using the artificer, have one of the wizards multiclass into cleric, since the party won't generally be getting hit that much, picking up a few healing utilities, and later on the /encounter healing attacks should handle the damage you do take. The ability scores should be able to handle that much and the DO paragon path adds more accuracy for those nice Will target powers, along with a critical hit on demand for the rogue's Assassin's Point or the like.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2008, 06:49:09 AM by veekie »
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Squirrelloid

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
Re: [Party Theory] Who needs a balanced party composition?
« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2008, 10:39:11 AM »
Hmm, how would this setup handle enclosed or otherwise movement restricted areas(say, combined trap/monster encounter) then? Seems to me that'd be the first thing that a frustrated DM would start to pull to deal with this particular trick.

By being stealthy.  If you get to initiate combat, you get to dictate where and how you initiate it.  Make that 'restricted movement' effect your enemies more than it does you.  And of course, never underestimate the power of getting a surprise round where the entire party can effectively participate.
The ignorant shall fall to the squirrels. -Chip 4:2