Holy cow my party has 3 strikers in it

[Old Gumphrey]

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).

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.

 

[GenghisDon]

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.

 

[Herschel]

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.

 

[Herschel]

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.

 

[GenghisDon]

Some players turn on their whine power at that point, inflicting damage on their hapless DM's

 

[Herschel]

lol

 

[Sadrik]

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

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.

 

[Sadrik]

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

 

[0-hr]

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.

 

[Elric]

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