Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="StickPerson" data-source="post: 4788588" data-attributes="member: 54605">Interesting thread.  I DM two groups, I've included deceased and departed characters in the calculation.  Overall I feel that strikers are over designed, i.e. to good, or that the other classes, controller in particular, just weren't conceived as well as the rest.  I wish the different roles had a more consistent appeal, as DM I'm already getting slightly bored silly with everyone wanting to play strikers all the time but understand the appeal. Group 1 (6th level):Dwarf axe and shield fighter (no longer in the campaign)Human cleric (no longer in the campaign)Elf archery ranger (about to leave the campaign)Dragonborn sword shield fighter (about to leave the campaign) Human charisma paladinShifter shamanHalfling fey warlock (for story reason spent a brief stint as a warlord to cover a missing leader role in the group)Shifter avengerHuman brutal rogueDrow dark pact warlock / wizard (split personality PC starts some days as a warlock, some as a wizard)Group 2 (2nd level):Eladrin Wizard (no longer in the campaign) Dragonborn great-weapon fighterElf two-weapon rangerEladrin tactical warlordHalfling artful dodger rogueTiefling infernal warlockSo across the two groups the break down (not counting group 1's halflings stint as warlord and counting the split personality drow as half a striker and half a controller).Defender: 4/16 = 25%Leader:  3/16 = 18.75%Striker: 7.5/16 = 46.875%Controller: 1.5/16 = 9.375% It's been my experience that players who start with a leader or controller get frustrated and eventually switch to a striker, and that the defenders tend to build their defenders as striker like as possible.</blockquote>

Verification