Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3876835" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm not so sure about that. Strikers are fine-point damage machines. If the archer is like most of D&D history, arrows will never do the kind of damage that melee can do. But they could easily carry rider effects on the arrows, and we definitely have precedence for turning one arrow into a massive rain of them (which could all share an effect).I don't think an archer would be a good fit for a Striker at all. A rogue can sneak attack. A warlock can eldritch blast. A measly 1d8+Strength can't compare to EITHER of those in damage capacity, and it seems more likely to give archers other stuff to do with their arrows than to significantly buff up their arrow damage to rival sneak attacks and eldritch blasts.Grapple? Pin? That's definately controller territory. A defender doesn't mess with the enemies directly, doesn't manipulate their actions, they stand there, they soak up damage, they maybe manage to keep things within their reach, but they're not about crippling the enemy. That's controller territory, I believe. Defender territory, like was said about the fighter: "one you're in their reach, good luck leaving it!"The old "unless you're trained to use this, it has a chance to go off in your hands" would be my way of protecting that niche.It would work well for a striker, too. But whereas a striker would follow it up with a bucket o' damage, a controller would follow it up by saying "COME AND GET ME!" and leading the enemies away.Again, a defender doesn't want people outside of their reach. A controller's job is to place the enemies where they will be the least effective. The controller kicks the enemy into the defender's reach, where the defender keeps him. Which was showing how a class built mostly on controller abilities can still have a diversity. Perhaps instead of flanking, the target looses an action as they look for whatever is behind them. That'd be more controller-ish. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Another that would work well for a striker, but basically showing how a melee-based character can still have a lot of battlefield mobility, enabling them to get to where they need to control.Basically, a defender with a lot of battlefield mobility would make a very good controller, because his reach would be an area of control, and if he could move the space of his reach every round, he can affect the whole battlefield.And the Wuxia will be creating chasms, and the Yo-Yo master will be creating swaths of destruction, and the Battle Trickster will be scattering caltrops and the Archer will be disarming and the Swashbuckler will be "pulling" creatures in a duel...I think you've given too much "controller" territory to the "defender." So this is more about lacking a clear definition of these roles than about actually not being able to fill one of them.</blockquote>

Verification