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.
Holy cow my party is all strikers!! Forked Thread: Holy cow my party has 3 strikers
So how can a team of strikers do against a balanced team in a variety of encounters. I fancy labbing this probably in a couple of wekends time if people are interested in helping me build the parties & the encounters.
I would take 2 different parties of 5 & run them through 4 encounters representing an adventuring day - these encounters would be level +1ish with maybe a boss fight at level +2-3. Ideally the players would not know how many fights there are but that's tricky.
Party 1 would be all strikers
Party 2 would be a balanced party featuring all the roles.
I would do this at level 8 as it's about as high as I am familiar with & it is high enough that the classes are reasonably developed & characterised.
Parties
Strikers
I think there are 2 options here - 5 rangers or "one of each".
Rangers are seen as the strongest strikers a lot of the time & bow rangers have unparallelled ranged damage. I guess 2 or 3 of them should be capable in melee whille the rest shoot only. They should MC into some leader powers - anyone that was planning to play as a striker force would do this though (& my actual ranger did too) only 1 or 2 need do a utility swap any others can get by witha free daily heal.
One of each striker would be Ranger Rogue Barbarian Avenger Sorcerer. Warlocks have the lowest damage so are least able to test the theoryof killing fast. This team plays like a normal party in as much as it has a reasonable front line & good ranged support including the sorcerer AOE & the ranger would be bow or hybrid. Some MC leadership would be needed again.
I would prefer to try this party as it is probably more fun to play than all archers.
Balanced party
There are a lot of options here. My hypothetical best party is something like BRV Fighter, Battle Cleric, Tactical Warlord, Ranger, Sorcerer. This has lots of buffs heals & robustness but no controller.
So I have no idea what an optimised controller featuring party is like & I am open to suggestions.
Left to my own devices I would probably go Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard as it's traditional. I would then add a swordmage (assault) or a Warlord or a Druid. Well really I would add a Ranger but I am trying to increase the differentiation.
Any suggestions for a balanced party & build ideas are welcomed. I am OK with martial builds & other hitty ones, the rest are a bit more varied & I have not played them much to get a feel. I would also like play tips for the controller sorts.
Encounters
These should use a wide variety of monster classes & should be reasonably challenging or it's not really a test so 4 level 10 encounters more or less.
I have the published adventures so would like to use the maps from them which give a good frame of reference. Also Homlet has a nice Keep.
Encounter flavours with possibilties
Pack of Skirmishers, maybe something leader like with them. (eg 6 Phase Spiders. Terrain broken but with good LOS to help the spiders bamf..)
Artillery, Controllers & blockers. Fields of fire with chokepoints for the blockers to block up.
Lots of Minions with a leader or 2 & something robust. (eg Witherlings from MM2 are very nasty plus some gnolls. No idea about terrain)
Solo with support (eg level 7 Adamatine dragon with some Kobbolds from the Draconomicon (a healer/buffer & 3 soldiers). Big space - cavern with a few pillars. Not too much headroom as dragons are too manoevrable.)
I prefer more lower level monsters to fewer high level ones as I find these a bit irritating - but if that is needed as a good test its easy enough to change.
Anyway I will get on with making ups some characters & hope for some support.
But as you even said: Focus Fire is bad. The controller and defender can stop this from happening. All strikers can't. A well designed and well played encounter shreds them because of this. If your DM doesn't challenge you, that's fine but you're pointing out an extremely over-simplified (and thereby inaccurate) view of 4E combat in the game at large.
Last edited by Pickles JG; 4th June 2009 at 04:08 PM..
Reason: Holy cow my party is all strikers!!!
There is a lot of synergy between a Tactical Warlord and the Battle Cleric, but I think I would rather go for a Bard and Invoker.
The Sorcerer could be exchanged with a Barbarian. Barbarians can actually tank pretty well (Half-orc 18str/18dex as starting), since they get quite a lot of temp hp during a fight.
If you don't have a controller I think your party will be swarmed to easily by melee/minions, atleast at low levels.
The Invoker you pick wrath, Astral Terror and all the other encounter/daily powers that only targets enemies.
There is a lot of synergy between a Tactical Warlord and the Battle Cleric, but I think I would rather go for a Bard and Invoker.
The Sorcerer could be exchanged with a Barbarian. Barbarians can actually tank pretty well (Half-orc 18str/18dex as starting), since they get quite a lot of temp hp during a fight.
If you don't have a controller I think your party will be swarmed to easily by melee/minions, atleast at low levels.
The Invoker you pick wrath, Astral Terror and all the other encounter/daily powers that only targets enemies.
My party was not a suggestion as there is no contoller & there needs to be one as they are the opposite end of the spectrum from strikers.
You suggest:- BRV Fighter, Bow Ranger, Invoker, Bard, Barbarian or Sorcerer. What flavour Bard would you want?
I only want one Striker so how about Swordmage in the last slot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiornys
Let's use WotC's suggestion for the balanced party: 2 Defenders, a Striker, a Leader, and a Controller.
How optimized are we making these characters?
t~
As optimised as possible Of course you can be optimised for different things. Having had a play there does not seem too much scope for extreme abuse at this level, though I am no expert, willing to be proved wrong. They can be optimised as a team & should not rely soley on dailies for effectiveness. I would miss out bloodclaw & reckless weapons - I am unaware of anything else as OTT (Iron Armbands ?). If this helps either team too much we can add them in but as they are a bit broken it's not a very good test.
I am happy with doubling defenders. I think you probably want one tending to damage & the other to robustness - so Warden/BRV/Paladin (if you must) plus Tempest/Assault Swordmage. I guess Shielding Mages count as robust thoughthey seem to me to be better are preventing damage to allies than taking it themselves making them a separate category.
BRV Fighter stands for Battlerage Vigor Fighter? I wouldn't pick that one. It is often considered "overpowered" and might be used to attack the "credibility" of your little study.
A classic setup might be: Fighter (Sword & Board), Paladin, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard.
For the Striker team: Avenger, Barbarian, Ranger, Sorceror, Warlock.
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?>
BRV Fighter stands for Battlerage Vigor Fighter? I wouldn't pick that one. It is often considered "overpowered" and might be used to attack the "credibility" of your little study.
This is true though since I am cheering striker team I was thinking of it as a handicap. In fact my position is not really that all strikers is better more that all strikers is viable. People round here are reluctant to drop the healing crutch & like a tank. We do not see many controllers.
I could just use my LFR not BRV dwarf fighter, who seems OK.
BRV Fighter stands for Battlerage Vigor Fighter? I wouldn't pick that one. It is often considered "overpowered" and might be used to attack the "credibility" of your little study.
A classic setup might be: Fighter (Sword & Board), Paladin, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard.
For the Striker team: Avenger, Barbarian, Ranger, Sorceror, Warlock.
Good teams... So what are the judging criteria for the results?
by the way...
A BRV fighter optimized for pure survival, seems most often sighted as unkillable ... not necessarily better as a defender...just better at being last man... and less likely to be having his friends with him at the end of the fight ... (In real life ranged weaponry was used extensively with the sling being very cheap and popular, emulate real life better and brv vigor is a whole lot less useful (when optimized that way))
Criteria in order of "relevance":
1) Number of Encounters completed
2) Number of PC losses (e.g. need a Raise Dead Ritual. Dropped to 0 hp or less doesn't count,that "just" costs healing surges and powers.)
3) Number of Daily Class Powers expended
4) Number of Healing Surges expended
5) Number of Daily Magic Item uses expended
6) Number of Consumnable magic items or ritual components expended (to raise the dead and son on.)
Also, for evaluation data, it should be noted how much each individual encounter costed the party. If you'd actually run the encounters multiple times for each group, it might pay off to change the order of encounters.
Instead of having just one adventuring day, one could allow the party to move at its own pace and see who finishes the encounters first and with how many resources left.
Open to debate might be whether a raise dead ritual is allowed during the encounters.
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?>
"I only want one Striker so how about Swordmage in the last slot?"
This is not what you stated in your original post, you only asked for a balanced party, which would include one character of each kind. The fifth character should be a striker. If he can't be a striker, I would make him a tempest fighter with a double sword and the kickas 3rd level fighter power I can't remember the name of.
The bard I have in my party has 20 cha and the feat that gives his healing +5 temp hp. (In other words he heals healing surge+5+5thp.). The ability to overheal a bit without waste is great. You can heal earlier, and on average you heal more than any other healer.
Having the healer as a gnome has the great advantage of him going invisible for a round when he gets too much damage. You don't want your healer to go down.
by the way...
A BRV fighter optimized for pure survival, seems most often sighted as unkillable ... not necessarily better as a defender...just better at being last man... and less likely to be having his friends with him at the end of the fight ...
And such is viewed incorrectly. The BRV Fighter is 95% as sticky as the non-BRV Fighter and uses less healing resources, hence, giving more healing resources to the group which in turn increases the survivability of the group, not decreasing it. This is a common misconception.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
And such is viewed incorrectly. The BRV Fighter is 95% as sticky as the non-BRV Fighter and uses less healing resources, hence, giving more healing resources to the group which in turn increases the survivability of the group, not decreasing it. This is a common misconception.
Similarly, one will probably observe opponents ignoring the BRV-fighter (and taking Combat Challenge attacks from his mark) more often than most fighters. This isn't the sign of weakness that many people take it to be; it's a sign of strength.
The BRV fighter takes so little damage from many melee attacks that there's little point to attacking him. So the enemy is forced to absorb a Combat Challenge attack + the mark penalty in order to deal damage to the party.
This is similar to the common misconception that a fighter can have AC that's "too high", leading enemies to attack his allies rather than him. There's no such thing; a fighter can give up too much in getting high AC, but that's a different story. If you gave a fighter +3 AC for free, you'd find that enemies ignore him more often, but he's a clearly superior character.
I'd actually suggest 4-person parties. 4 strikers vs. 1 of each role.
I second this.
Also magic items can be extremely variable in how well a group deals with various encounters. I would suggest giving extra '+' over any other considerations. In this way you are seeing more of the class at work than any funky yet useful ability.
Also, I think it would make the most sense in making the parties come form the first 3 core books. Not to limit anybody but to not find closet case weapons or quible over not-used-enough-yet effects and also to make sure everyone is on the same page.
My suggested parties
STR ranger
DEX Ranger
CON Warlock
Rogue
Vs.
Fighter
Wizard
Rogue
WIS Cleric
4 encounters each slanted in several directions:
Solo combat
Boss + many minions
Terrain/traps + artillery
Straight up just a good mix of monsters without minions or very few
Level 8 is a very good spring board point. If we can get the PCs written up, the encounters written up and then tested by as many groups as possible we may have something here.
__________________ Sadrik
Last edited by Sadrik; 4th June 2009 at 08:07 PM..
"I only want one Striker so how about Swordmage in the last slot?"
This is not what you stated in your original post, you only asked for a balanced party, which would include one character of each kind. The fifth character should be a striker. If he can't be a striker, I would make him a tempest fighter with a double sword and the kickas 3rd level fighter power I can't remember the name of.
I did try to say it but evidently not very clearly ... The power is Rain of Blows. I would be inclined to ban it otherwise any Melee Ranger/Brutal Rogue/Spear Warlord is likely to MC to get it. OTOH that's a lot of feats. Like Battleragers I am not sure that Tempests are a good test as they are strikers in disguise especially in the Doublesword/Rain of Brokeness configuration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadrik
I second this.
Also magic items can be extremely variable in how well a group deals with various encounters. I would suggest giving extra '+' over any other considerations. In this way you are seeing more of the class at work than any funky yet useful ability.
Also, I think it would make the most sense in making the parties come form the first 3 core books. Not to limit anybody but to not find closet case weapons or quible over not-used-enough-yet effects and also to make sure everyone is on the same page.
My suggested parties
STR ranger
DEX Ranger
CON Warlock
Rogue
Vs.
Fighter
Wizard
Rogue
WIS Cleric
4 encounters each slanted in several directions:
Solo combat
Boss + many minions
Terrain/traps + artillery
Straight up just a good mix of monsters without minions or very few
Level 8 is a very good spring board point. If we can get the PCs written up, the encounters written up and then tested by as many groups as possible we may have something here.
This works for me - 4 is less work for one thing.
Level 8 is a good spot for magic items as you get all +2s & can buy another +2 with your spare cash if you need to (using the standard rules)
The first 3 books does limit the all strikers to not having a sorcerer but that just needs to be built around a little. It undoubtedly keeps magic items more even too. It might mean the test is somewaht invalidated as I certainly play with all the stuff, being mostly an LFR player.
Given that limitation the parties do rather build themselves in terms of the classes. I would go with a brutal human rogue who can cover both parties though any old rogue would do.
So
Dex Ranger - bow - elf
Str Ranger - dual bastard swords - Human or Dragonborn (or elf hybrid)
Con = Infernal Warlock - no idea how to build this.
Brutal rogue rapier - Human or elf
vs
Human or Dragon born Protector Fighter - Bastard sword
Human (or eladrin or tiefling) Wizard - no idea how to do this well
Brutal rogue rapier - Human or elf
Wis Cleric - dwarf? Human? No idea about range clerics.
I am not sure about ranged clerics - I like melee or mixed ones but I have not seen many if anyone wants to volunteer to make those. IME at least 3 characters will get into melee so having only 2 that are comfortable there is a risk.
I will make up some of the others today but I am away for the weekend so feel free () to do this too & to make up encounters.
I also suggest that you run with the "least broken" set of rules interpretations you can find. See multiple analyses that Rain of Blows, for example, is actually balanced against other powers if it's just 1[W], not 1[W]+bonuses. Use one of the commonly suggested BRV fixes if you use a Battlerager (mine is in the second spoiler tag here). Either don't use Bloodclaw and Reckless weapons, or use them in the "if I had written them, here's how they'd read" format. (Bloodclaw: only applies to weapon strikes made with this weapon; you only get to make one attack roll with boosted damage per use. Reckless: only applies to its own weapon attacks, as with Bloodclaw; cannot stack, you can't use it if you're already under an AC penalty from Reckless.)
With these things taken care of, many of the "strikers are teh best" convictions go away, and we're looking more at the roles as RAI. Much more interesting comparison.
I also suggest that you run with the "least broken" set of rules interpretations you can find. See multiple analyses that Rain of Blows, for example, is actually balanced against other powers if it's just 1[W], not 1[W]+bonuses. Use one of the commonly suggested BRV fixes if you use a Battlerager (mine is in the second spoiler tag here). Either don't use Bloodclaw and Reckless weapons, or use them in the "if I had written them, here's how they'd read" format. (Bloodclaw: only applies to weapon strikes made with this weapon; you only get to make one attack roll with boosted damage per use. Reckless: only applies to its own weapon attacks, as with Bloodclaw; cannot stack, you can't use it if you're already under an AC penalty from Reckless.)
With these things taken care of, many of the "strikers are teh best" convictions go away, and we're looking more at the roles as RAI. Much more interesting comparison.
Nah, no house rules, how ever good or suggested they might be. Again, credibility of the "test" is critical. If you think a power is obviously broken, just don't use it all and maybe take a note why.
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?>
And such is viewed incorrectly. The BRV Fighter is 95% as sticky as the non-BRV Fighter and uses less healing resources, hence, giving more healing resources to the group which in turn increases the survivability of the group, not decreasing it. This is a common misconception.
95% as sticky... well are you sure? part of stickiness is perceptions, if the npc's see hitting him as a waste of time, and he isn't dishing out the stuff, they will avoid.
But the point about not needing the parties healing resources is a good one.
Of course you can be optimised for different things. Having had a play there does not seem too much scope for extreme abuse at this level, though I am no expert, willing to be proved wrong. They can be optimised as a team & should not rely soley on dailies for effectiveness. I would miss out bloodclaw & reckless weapons - I am unaware of anything else as OTT (Iron Armbands ?). If this helps either team too much we can add them in but as they are a bit broken it's not a very good test.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
