D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
I prefer the dead condition over all others, my vote is for *all* striker groups being most efficient.
Although I reserve the caveat of all strikers and one leader (preferably cleric) to make the adventuring day last longer.
Self-fulfilling prophecy again. If you run out of healing surges with a cleric, it's because he wasn't dealing as much damage as anyone else, and replaced his damage with extra healing (which you wouldn't have needed if he was cranking out damage like you).
Quote:
It really is sad that my favorite archetype is so weak in this edition. My wizard was absolutely creamed by a rogue in one-on-one combat. Controllers are apparently designed to not exist outside of the party anymore. They are more like a 3e bard now, rather than sit back and drizzle on a party bonus, they sit back and drizzle on a little damage. Weak sauce, my wizard died, good riddance those mechanics - hello avenger...
While I've always supported that 1 on 1 fights don't mean anything in game balance, it is pretty annoying that the Wizard is probably the most likely character to get his butt kicked at any given time by any given thing, in exchange for the ability to hit multiple targets with low to mediocre damage, inflicting the same status conditions as all other classes.
I haven't actually played many different groups yet, my players have Eladrin Tac warlord, Tiefling Star pact warlock, Dwarf Paladin, Human Orb Wizard, Human Brutal Scoundrel, Elf Archer Ranger, Human Cleric of Bahamut. The strikers all seem pretty good, though with the healing available it's hard for me to say how they would do if the beatings they take, stuck. On the positive side, I have been pleasantly suprised with the combats being pretty fast, even if all the various initiatives give me a headache after 6 hours or so. Generally 5 or 6 play at a time. 2 strikers were always present. We roll scores (all late 30's+ year old grognards) so some chr have some odd or redundant stats & most are a bit stronger than the standard points method overall.
I suspect the all striker crew would be fine vs most encounters, but some might really mess them up. A little judicious use of Multi class feats to pick up a little healing or more tricks, just in case, would probably cover the holes, along with some picks for anti-minion duty. The strikers seem well set to adventure, covering even things like skills very easily. I might be wrong about multi-class usefulness due to our score method...
I have to say that the wizard, despite being a cookie-cutter "killer" build with rediculous scores(high everything), is the least effective, everyone laughs at his "magical might". And I use lots of minions. Seems weird, but he always played casters due to his infamous bad luck. Now that he rolls for spell success...well, it hasn't been pretty.
Last edited by GenghisDon; 30th May 2009 at 02:52 PM..
I'm playing in a party of four consisting of two defenders (fighter and swordmage), a cleric and a wizard. We have no strikers.
You suxxors, strikers pwnage.
That actually looks like a very nice party. Balanced to take on many different threats and the dual-defender set up is nice against brutes or the Swordmage can get in the enemy backfield and wreak havoc on oppsing controller types. Healing, area effects, solid damage, good durability, etc.
I played in a group with two Assault Swordmages, three wizards and a Cleric and it was very interesting. Damage was also not a worry and the wizards could drop status effects and clouds to really much up the opposition.
I find the 'strikers are the only class' mentality to be rather funny and, dare I say, lacking in scope. I'd be curious to know the gaming age of those crying 'strikers ahoy'. From my (albeit anecdotal across numerous sites and events) experience, I find that less mature (in 4E game experience vs. real age) gamers are the ones praising strikers most, especially ones also heavily invested in 3E.
Self-fulfilling prophecy again. If you run out of healing surges with a cleric, it's because he wasn't dealing as much damage as anyone else, and replaced his damage with extra healing (which you wouldn't have needed if he was cranking out damage like you).
It's pretty hard to do damage when you're stunned, prone, imobilized and asleep too.
Self-fulfilling prophecy again. If you run out of healing surges with a cleric, it's because he wasn't dealing as much damage as anyone else, and replaced his damage with extra healing (which you wouldn't have needed if he was cranking out damage like you).
Hmm, by the raw you may be right. Another striker might be better than a full on cleric. My thought though is that the strikers will inevitably take damage and having a cleric their to help with healing surges, might allow the group to adventure longer during the day without sacrificing that much potential damage. Not to mention that a cleric can act as a striker vs. undead... Ymmv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gumphrey
While I've always supported that 1 on 1 fights don't mean anything in game balance, it is pretty annoying that the Wizard is probably the most likely character to get his butt kicked at any given time by any given thing, in exchange for the ability to hit multiple targets with low to mediocre damage, inflicting the same status conditions as all other classes.
In this case though the damage values are so disparate between my poor wizard and the rogue he had to fight in 1v1 combat that it was no contest. It also hurt that the rogues REF was actually higher than his AC.
In 1e/2e/3e the measure of a character's *combat* potential was either in how much damage he could do in knocking out monsters or in how you were able to improve the party through buffs/debuffs. The wizard does neither of these two things very well. Poor weapons, armor, HP, and surges are very difficult to deal with when you have virtually no offense to go with it. Not to mention that most of their effects target REF which is generally the most difficult defense to hit. It is really too bad, I love wizards always have since 1e. I am going to mess with the hybrid rules and see if I can get one to be worth its salt. If I cannot get a striker/wizard hybrid to work I am going to throw the towel in on them.
I find the 'strikers are the only class' mentality to be rather funny and, dare I say, lacking in scope. I'd be curious to know the gaming age of those crying 'strikers ahoy'. From my (albeit anecdotal across numerous sites and events) experience, I find that less mature (in 4E game experience vs. real age) gamers are the ones praising strikers most, especially ones also heavily invested in 3E.
lol
__________________ Sadrik
Last edited by Sadrik; 31st May 2009 at 12:16 AM..
Reason: pinpointing absurdness
From what I'm reading here, it seems that a party containing the 4 roles isn't the optimum build. If 3-4 strikers are an obviously superior setup, then doesn't that suggest a serious problem with the game design (since it seems that the intent was the a controler/leader/striker/defender party would be the norm - that is, the best)?
I've been playing a 'leader' (read 'healbot') and feeling pretty pointless next to the ranger. I'd rather play a striker myself, and from what I'm seeing in this thread, our party would do better if I did.
__________________
------------------------------------------------------- Future Armada : miniature-scale starship deckplans Zero Hour : fantasy cartography
-------------------------------------------------------
From what I'm reading here, it seems that a party containing the 4 roles isn't the optimum build. If 3-4 strikers are an obviously superior setup, then doesn't that suggest a serious problem with the game design (since it seems that the intent was the a controler/leader/striker/defender party would be the norm - that is, the best)?
I've been playing a 'leader' (read 'healbot') and feeling pretty pointless next to the ranger. I'd rather play a striker myself, and from what I'm seeing in this thread, our party would do better if I did.
To quote myself from earlier in this thread:
There's an interesting thread on the WotC optimization forums about "party optimization", here. The suggestions tend to be striker-heavy (especially Rangers), but aren't in the vein of "5 strikers." For what it's worth, lordduskblade on the optimization forum has written (very detailed) handbooks on Rangers, Warlords, and Fighters, and he says that fighters are the strongest class in the game at the moment (with rangers and warlords not far behind). His choice for an optimal party has 1 defender, 1 leader, 2 strikers (both rangers), and 1 controller: see here
I would double on Striker first, too. But not because I believe it's more powerful, but only because it would be "faster".
Basically, the overall damage a party inflicts is equal to "damage x staying power". If you add a Controller, Leader or Defender, you will add to the staying power part. The Controller makes the enemies less able to deal damage, prolonging your staying power. T he Defender makes it harder for the enemy to deal damage, too, and he has more staying power to begin with. The Leader often adds to the staying power due to his healing abilities (but he might also add to the damage, depending on builds). The Striker always adds to damage.
But: The length of combat is roughly determined by enemy staying power / party damage.
Until someone has actually run the various possible party composition, I do not believe that any role focus impacts the viability. It is possible though, in which case we have to conclude that the available implementations between roles are "imbalanced". Maybe most Strikers deal too much damage, or most Leaders heal too little or don't grant enough bonuses.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Wow, I missed that post by Herschel. lol @ "immature players". What I think is funny is that people have so much faith in the game, they won't believe other people when they say strikers are the pet class and are just flat out better most of the time. Last week at the level 16 dungeon delve, my gf's barbarian killed a soldier, a minion, and a controller by herself in one round. She did 337 damage, and only critted once out of 7 or 8 attacks.
It's really a simple concept. The balance factor between a defender and a striker is that the defender trades excessive damage for a slight bit more defense, and the ability to force targets to attack him. I've got news for you: getting focus fired in 4e is bad news. Inviting it is usually unwise. Since any striker can GTFO, their chances of being focus fired are actually quite low.
Except this trade-off causes fights to last longer, thus increasing total damage to the party.
I will concede that in an undead-heavy campaign, a cleric (or str paladin) would be monstrous.
For the record, I'm 29, and I've been playing D&D since 2e came out. I got my first PHB when I was in elementary school. There, now that I've supplied credentials, maybe my opinion will be judged worthy.
Can anyone name a controller roll that isn't carried out well by the other classes. I've tinkered with making an optimized party before, and it never includes wizards (4 strikers, 1 leader). Killing minions is a nothing job. Most classes have attacks that wipe out a small area, and anyone can gain an area encounter attack by being a half-elf or a dragon born (and with a higher to-hit bonus).
As far as all those other things wizards do, you know how they... uh... well they're pretty good at...
...
So yeah the controllers bring down pretty much any threats one or two at a time in just rounds. Solo fights go twice as fast as with a conventional party. Fights in which the wizard normally sits their picking his nose as his daily MIGHT do as much to the solo as the rogues at-will. As the DM, I usually let a few minions come in after a few rounds, mostly out of pity for the guy.
Can anyone name a controller roll that isn't carried out well by the other classes. I've tinkered with making an optimized party before, and it never includes wizards (4 strikers, 1 leader). Killing minions is a nothing job. Most classes have attacks that wipe out a small area, and anyone can gain an area encounter attack by being a half-elf or a dragon born (and with a higher to-hit bonus).
As far as all those other things wizards do, you know how they... uh... well they're pretty good at...
...
An encounter power is not the same as an at-will power. A single use of an encounter power doesn't guarantee that you bring down any minions at all.
Targeting multiple enemies (at range) every round is an ability that only Controllers have.
Other control abilities:
- Make it a bad idea to stand where you're standing now.
- Make it a bad idea to leave the area you're standing now.
- Make it a bad idea to move to a specific area.
- Make it a bad idea to not move to a specific area.
- Force someone to move to a specific area.
- Reducing the amount of damage a monster inflicts.
- Making it impossible for a monster to reach its targets (slow, daze, immobilize, stun)
- Splitting up enemy groups.
- Block areas for enemy movement or attacks.
- Project force at range (Magic Missile, Bigby's Icy Grasp, Summoning spells)
That is all stuff Controllers do all the time. Most At-Will powers have some of these components all the time. Of course other classes have some of these abilities. But they don't have them consistently.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Targeting multiple enemies (at range) every round is an ability that only Controllers have.
Twin strike has the ability to do that. I am not super familiar with the PHBII but I am sure that they can hit multiple opponents too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
- Make it a bad idea to stand where you're standing now.
- Make it a bad idea to leave the area you're standing now.
- Make it a bad idea to move to a specific area.
- Make it a bad idea to not move to a specific area.
- Splitting up enemy groups.
- Block areas for enemy movement or attacks.
Zones are cool others have them too. In fact the Warlock in our group used one last night that did damage to anyone in the zone, all for a minor sustain we are level 5 so it cannot be all that rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
- Force someone to move to a specific area.
Common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
- Reducing the amount of damage a monster inflicts.
Not sure what you are referring to on this unless you are referring to status effects that limit their actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
- Making it impossible for a monster to reach its targets (slow, daze, immobilize, stun)
conditions are applied by every character class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
- Project force at range (Magic Missile, Bigby's Icy Grasp, Summoning spells)
Magic missile has range 20, bow as range 40. Note that all other at-wills are range 10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
That is all stuff Controllers do all the time. Most At-Will powers have some of these components all the time. Of course other classes have some of these abilities. But they don't have them consistently.
They dont do this all the time. My wizard had a whole lot of powers that simply did a burst or blast that attacked REF and did a bit of damage to those who failed.
For the record, I'm 29, and I've been playing D&D since 2e came out. I got my first PHB when I was in elementary school. There, now that I've supplied credentials, maybe my opinion will be judged worthy.
Well I am 43 & have been playing since before you were born so your opinions mean nothing to me. No wait I agree with you
It's really a simple concept. The balance factor between a defender and a striker is that the defender trades excessive damage for a slight bit more defense, and the ability to force targets to attack him. I've got news for you: getting focus fired in 4e is bad news. Inviting it is usually unwise. Since any striker can GTFO, their chances of being focus fired are actually quite low.
For the record, I'm 29, and I've been playing D&D since 2e came out. I got my first PHB when I was in elementary school. There, now that I've supplied credentials, maybe my opinion will be judged worthy.
You might try reading what I wrote again before claiming to be offended. I specifically pointed out age was NOT the determining factor (even though you are still wet behind the ears ) It's fairly obvious you simply haven't seen what I've seen in 4E, which isn't a cut, just pointing out observations. Fore example: I had to fudge to avoid TPKing a striker-heavy team yesterday and I have TPKd a striker-heavy team before. A balanced party working well together is really hard to beat. A well-played Cleric has been the most impressive character on the table so many times some might think it's broken. Parties on the very brink of TPK suddenly "all" spring back to life when the cleric unlooads his zone healing and totally swings the battle.
Quite simply put, damage is not the be-all/end-all any more, nor are strikers the "best" class. Some of the easiest "hard" encounters I've been through were three wizards, two Swordmages and a Cleric. It's amazing what a couple of zones or burst attacks can do, especially to clear away things like Bugbear Stranglers' meat shields while still hitting them.
A great point was made just before previous post about DM and ecncounter building being a very important factor in how a party works (or doesn't). If the DM only builds or runs things a certain way, certain combos will work better in a small setting but not in the game at-large. .
Targeting multiple enemies (at range) every round is an ability that only Controllers have.
Other control abilities:
- Make it a bad idea to stand where you're standing now.
- Make it a bad idea to leave the area you're standing now.
- Make it a bad idea to move to a specific area.
- Make it a bad idea to not move to a specific area.
I think one problem with controllers is that in these particular cases the "bad idea" is often some more damage & that damage is less than the increase in damage a striker would have done in the first place. So it's just weaker than a striker attack (as it gives as choice).
If this type of power was backed up by very severe penalties - a lot of damage, dazed & immobilised etc plus was restricted to voluntary movement then this aspect of controllering might be more appealing. (as opposed to a way to simply do more damage by shoving people ino & out of firey walls)
Can anyone name a controller roll that isn't carried out well by the other classes. I've tinkered with making an optimized party before, and it never includes wizards (4 strikers, 1 leader).
I'm just going to quote lordduskblade's post from the WotC forums that I linked earlier. You may want to take a look at that wizard build; you'd really hate to give him up at Paragon/Epic levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordduskblade
I see no nova muscle behind this party; this means you have a Taclord and no one to really milk his bonuses for what they're worth. I would shuffle it up somewhat:
The Party: 1. Human Fighter MC Cleric/Warpriest (Shield Fighter) 2. Longtooth Shifter Ranger MC Fighter/Pit Fighter (TWF) 3. Dragonborn Warlord/Battlelord of Kord (Bravura) 4. Human Wizard/Wizard of the Spiral Tower (Orb/Staff) 5. Elf Ranger MC Rogue/Battlefield Archer (Archery)
Explanations: 1. The Fighter is the strongest Defender right now IMHO; no way I'm leaving home without one. This guy is a pure Defender-type, packing high defense, solid damage, a touch of healing, a bajillion ways to mark people, and the ability to push opponents 1-5 squares back when they attack someone else (depending on his level). Works particularly well with the other party members, as he gives the Wizard space to work his blasts with little risk of hitting allies, he allows the Rangers to get in a 1-on-1, where they can kill just about anything.
2. I built this guy in my Pit Fighter thread. He deals some very devastating damage, is fairly independent in combat (has little need for flanks after Paragon), and has enough defense to hold his own as a backup Defender. Also, a Warlord in the party makes him very, very happy, because there's nothing like nova-buffing a multiattacker.
3. I built this guy in my Dragonborn Nova Bravelord thread. Extra attacks are godly, especially on hard-hitting Melee characters. As such, this Warlord is an absolute beast for nova buffing. Since Battlelord of Kord packs similar benefits to Battle Captain and has flatly superior powers, this is my vote for the Leader, and you cover the face role simultaneously.
4. I built this guy in my Orbizard thread. Take a gander at his defenses; you'll be surprised at how high they actually are. Additionally, a Warlord buff on this guy means the Solo encounter is OVER. 2 turns is all this party needs to rip anything apart (maybe less). Also, he will have the back rank all to himself.
5. I built this gal in my Battlefield Archer thread. She has some durability to stay up front (heck, she has better AC than most of the Melee people), and she has brutal Ranged potential, as well as the full scouting suite. Additionally, if she's close to you, she doesn't miss much (pretty much capped accuracy through all 30 levels).
Methodology:
As you can see, this party's motto is hit fast, hit hard, and hit 'em 'till they stop moving. Everyone can get into Melee and survive for a bit (yes, even the Archer and Wizard), so no worries about getting "caught" up front. This party's Strikers and Controller milk that Warlord for what he's worth as far as the buffs are concerned, especially attack buffs. The Warlord and Fighter have healing duties down, and you'll be hard-pressed to find a party better at taking people out quickly. Divine Oracles and running speed are all well and good, but I don't have the room for 'em, and I'm not really gonna miss 'em.
I think one problem with controllers is that in these particular cases the "bad idea" is often some more damage & that damage is less than the increase in damage a striker would have done in the first place. So it's just weaker than a striker attack (as it gives as choice).
If this type of power was backed up by very severe penalties - a lot of damage, dazed & immobilised etc plus was restricted to voluntary movement then this aspect of controllering might be more appealing. (as opposed to a way to simply do more damage by shoving people ino & out of firey walls)
And you would be wrong. Unless the Wizard doesn't know what he is doing.
You send people into a different area because they can't bring their firepower to bear as effectively (or at all) then otherwise. They don#t get to flank, they might not get to attack at all, they are forced to engage a totally uninjured character. You use this abilities not just to move them somewhere, but because that somewhere puts the party in a better position or the enemy in a worse position.
Sure, a Striker would just have dealt damage. That's great. It means the enemies are dead faster. But if the enemies do "listen" to the Controller, the party is dying more slowly, so to speak. And if you die slow enough and the enemy dies fast enough, only the enemies dies.
Spreading around damage directed at the party is a great way to keep everyone in the fight. There is a big difference if that 60 points of damage the enemy might be able to inflict per round is target at one character or at 5. If targeted at one, that character might be dying and is out of the fight for a while. In this round, he doesn't deal any damage, no control, no defense, and no healing at all. He actually costs someone else his actions (even if just his minor action) to be recovered. If targeted at 5 characters, all of them can still focus their fire at the enemies, no wasting around resources, everyone fully contributing.
And a Striker Heavy party loses a lot of damage potential if one of its members is dropped. A Striker only party might not eve be able to recover on its own from such a loss! The strikers will have to actively work to ensure that they spread the damage around, which will most likely focus on spreading their own damage around. (Since if they keep engaging the same enemy all the time, they can't "control" who is attacking whom.)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
