Leader Suggestion

[cmbarona]

Interesting. It seems you find the Paladin boring because he's not a leader. Do you think this is a fair assessment?

In that case, I wonder if you might also find the Fighter and/or Swordmage boring. After all, they, too, are (generally) more about debuffing enemies than buffing allies; the Fighter through higher damage and the Swordmage through battlefield control.

Perhaps you just find leader concepts to be more fun to play?

 

[Lord Ernie]

Dude, the Paladin is a defender, not a leader. Of course he doesn't grant bonuses or extra attacks like Warlocks and Clerics do - yes, he 'splashes' into leader a bit, cause he can use several powers that heal allies and transfer some of his own surges to other party members with Lay on Hands. But in the end, what he does is keep bad guys from hitting his friends, and if they do so anyway, mitigate the damage.

If you want to hand out boosts, play that battle cleric. Be prepared for some serious pain without a defender in the party, though.

 

[vhailor]

I have to agree that you are right and I am an idiot. Why? Because everyone in the party just chooses anything he wants without thinking the common good. As I said I wanted a fighter/swordmage, and had to give up on them because a leader was needed. Now, two more characters and going to enter(total character = 6) and one them wants to be rogue, while the other one wants a warlock (The party will have 4 strikers, a control wizard, and me). And I have to be a defender, a healer and everything else they want. And when I say I want to change to a cleric, they say that the party needs a defender. I am getting really tired trying to cover all the holes, and above all not playing a character I like.

 

[cmbarona]

I play in a campaign with only 4 players, and of course 2 of them both wanted to be strikers. So we have no defender. Ultimately, it works alright. It takes a bit of tactical planning, but generally things work out well enough. We have a Warlord (me), a Rogue, a Warlock, and a Wizard. I've focused my build on healing, so by level 9, I can really save our collective hides.

Edit: vhailor, your post posted while I was still typing my reply.

Don't worry, I don't think you're an idiot. In fact, I think with 6 players, 4 strikers is way too many. With a party that size, I would recommend at least 2 leaders or 2 defenders.

In general, my advice is to play what you want; that being said, though, I do think your party as a whole needs to have a discussion about its composition. If everyone wants to play a striker, then you'll need to be sure your DM knows to build encounters that won't be too difficult with your party's current makeup.

Don't let your party bully you into playing something you don't want. If they aren't willing to build characters for the good of the team, then they don't have a right to ask you to do it. Remind them that they can have fun without being the damage dealer.

 

[Lord Ernie]

Precisely. Either talk things over with your party, and tell them that this way, the game is simply no fun for you (you should not be the only one to make sacrifices), or just play what you like to play like everyone else does, and see how that works out. Party balance is important, yes, but it shouldn't be to the detriment of your enjoyment of the game. If nobody else wants to play the leader, well, then play without a leader and see how that turns out. Getting TPK'ed (or nearly so) a few times might make them listen.

 

[twilsemail]

I have to agree that you are right and I am an idiot. Why? Because everyone in the party just chooses anything he wants without thinking the common good. As I said I wanted a fighter/swordmage, and had to give up on them because a leader was needed. Now, two more characters and going to enter(total character = 6) and one them wants to be rogue, while the other one wants a warlock (The party will have 4 strikers, a control wizard, and me). And I have to be a defender, a healer and everything else they want. And when I say I want to change to a cleric, they say that the party needs a defender. I am getting really tired trying to cover all the holes, and above all not playing a character I like.

[sarcasm] I disagree with everyone else's advice at this point. Play an Avenger. Your party obviously doesn't have enough strikers. What are you guys thinking? Only 66% of your party is killing stuff.[/sarcasm]

The most important thing to remember here is that this is a game (as has been said many times before). Your goal in the game is to have fun. Do whatever it takes for you to have fun, just do it without ruining someone else's day. The same should be said of everyone else out there.

Play your Cleric. If the rest of the party notices a trend of... well.. dying, that's the fault of everyone involved. Perhaps after a TPK they'll consider redistributing the roles a bit.

[sarcasm] Oh! Maybe a Wild Mage! [/sarcasm]

 

[MarkB]

If you're bored with a paladin you'll really be bored with a warlord. Warlords are also less effective than clerics in a lot of situations. There's also some reviews saying that warlord is going to be the first class obliterated by power creep. I read two different early reviewers who felt the bard out warlorded the warlord.

We're currently three weeks into a campaign starting at 11th level, that includes 3 leaders - my Inspiring Warlord, a Tactical Warlord, and a Cleric, rounded out by two Rogues and a Paladin.

So far, I'm finding the Warlord highly effective. My character sets up foes for the rogues by positioning them, causing them to grant combat advantage, and giving bonuses to attack and damage against them, whilst the Taclord also boosts the rogues and the paladin with extra attacks, bonuses and free positioning movement. We're none too shabby at dealing out the direct damage, either.

The cleric can put down some reasonable status effects, and can out-heal the Taclord, but he's only just-about on par with my character for healing and condition-removal.

Maybe the Bard will turn out to be overpowered and become the new king of the leader classes - but if it happens, that will be a problem with the Bard, not with the Warlord.

 

[Herschel]

My advice: Keep playing the Paladin and watch the rest of them die as your impressive durability outlasts their glass cannon backsides. Then see what they roll next. If they all roll strikers again, watch 'em die again. Buy your DM minion & brute minis to egg them with. Rinse and repeat until they get the picture. ;v)

The important thing is to play something fun. All classes can be fun in the right set up. If they all want to play strikers, every single one of them better be multi-classing as a Cleric, especially if they want a defender in the group. Four-of-six is a ridiculous number. Point out that without you trying to cover every other role, their strikers aren't much fun to play. EVERYONE should make minor sacrifices for the party so nobody has to make major ones.

In a group of six, I'd start with two defenders and a striker, then build from there. Add next a leader to maximize what you have going. Then make sure you have controller abilities (can be a bard for a second leader or one of the defenders could be a Swordmage) and fill the last spot or two with maximum one striker.

Remind them Defenders can do some decent damage too.

 

[Herschel]

I still like the idea of playing the Paladin, withhold healing from them and watching the rest of them all die (except protect the wizard, if you can). Then suggest to the DM everyone roll dice for new characters, low roll picks character role first. If the first guy picks a striker, the second guy has to pick something else. When all roles are filled, the next person can double-up. If the Wizard lived, the player can keep him or enter the pool. A little horse trading can be fine if the third guy gets "stuck" playing a leader, for example, and someone later is wanting/willing to play that role, but only if someone trades. There's a good deal of variety already and soon to be more with PHB II this weekend and the powers books for Arcane and Divine coming soon.

 

[Akaiku]

Why can't everyone be strikers? It just makes the game more rocket-taggy then normal. Play whatever you want. If others say you need so and so class, suggest they play one if they feel so strongly.

To the OP, it'd be funny if you went with a urgosh tempest fighter and went all tank striker on them. "See? I'm like you but alive at the end of the encounter."

Also, paladins aren't that sticky, why do you keep getting thrashed?