D&D 3.x Combat Roles: Did The Striker Exist Pre-3e?

[Andor]

If striker means "High damage output" then in the old days they were usually Wizards or Archery focused fighters. (I recall making a dwarven dart throwing specialist. He had many many attacks per round for a surprising amount of damage.) A thief was never begrudged a decent backstab because they just didn't happen that often.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think in 4e they want everyone to be able to do damage, but the striker is "big bursts of controlled damage to specifically-chosen targets." They're the guys who can target the wizard or cleric hiding in the back of the room and take him down quickly, whether it's by dodging and tumbling past his defenses (like a 3e rogue or monk) or just shooting him where he stands (like an archer/ranger). It looks like warlocks might be a sort of combination, moving around rapidly with line-of-sight teleports and nuking from a safe distance.

A fighter, on the other hand, can still dish out a lot of damage, but he'd have to wade through all those mooks to get to the wizard.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It seems to me that the 4e striker role is going to be defined by "extra damage to one foe in special circumstances".

Probably get about the same average damage over time as a defender, but the damage caused will be more, uh, 'lumpy'. (plink plink plink ZAMMO), something like that.

The controller will probably get about the same average total damage over time but by doing some damage to lots of targets simultaneously.

Arguably the Ranger could still have been considered a 'striker' in 1e, because of his damage bonus against giant class creatures (i.e. extra damage in certain circumstances) alongside the thief who could get the occasional big backstab. We also used to use the Barbarian class created by Brian Asbury in an early issue of White Dwarf who had his 'first attack ferocity' bonus, which was a damage multiplier on his first attack in each melee.

Cheers

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I guess before 3rd edition, the role wasn't tied to a specific class.

Especially spellcasters (with the right spells) and archers fit the role best - they could strike at specific targets, circumventing other targets. Alone, they can be overrun easily, but with a strong defensive line, they were effective.

In 3rd edition, Classes like the Rogue, Ranger, Monk and Warlock are pretty close to that role - able to dish out lots of damage to single targets, but requiring to stay on the move or have someone else diverting the attacks to them. (Due to the mobility of many of them, they don't need a "defensive line" in the traditional sense, since they are all over the battle field. But they need someone that avoids them getting hammered by Greatclub wielding Ogres or recieving full attacks by Dragons)

The Striker role always existed, but no class was specialised for that role (but some where quite able to perform the role).

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

That also how I'd read it.

The defender does a sustainable amount of damage each round, going Bam Bam Bam against multiple foes and wearing them down. The role also involves Being In The Way of bad guys to stop them getting to other party members.

The striker on the other hand, is much better at occasional huge attacks - bam bam BAM!

See? D&D 4e, now with sound effects!

 

[Creamsteak]

Probably get about the same average damage over time as a defender, but the damage caused will be more, uh, 'lumpy'. (plink plink plink ZAMMO), something like that.

I believe the term used most common is "spikey" as in a graph spiking at a particular point.

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

My assumption has been that nothing will be more important to the Striker than mobility. Pouncing on flat-footed foes, attacking on the run, tumbling past front lines, pursuing flanking positions, hunting down spellcasters, targetting sides and backs (if facing is being brought back) ... even grabbing higher ground. The designers have mentioned that movement is going to be a much more important aspect of combat in 4e; I see that really blossoming in the Striker.

 

[Henry]

The Magic-user was the "striker" class in AD&D and before -- the very nature of fireball to a bunch of creatures who only had a few hit dice, and NPCs who maxed out at 9 hit dice, was proof of that. The main difference, however, is that Magic-users could only be effective strikers a few times per day, anywhere from once to three or four, before they were ineffective in combat. But yeah, a striker defined as "fragile artillery piece" described the Magic-user pre-3e up and down.

Ooo, I just had an epiphany... the roles of defender, striker, leader, and control didn't have their origins in D&D -- they had their origins in wargames, and therefore in the concept of warfare itself! I can't believe that never occurred to me, I feel dense as hell.

 

[Abstraction]

So I guess the Striker is trying to get past the Defender to deal nice damage to the Leader and Controller. The Defender's job is to keep the enemy Striker from getting through. They seem clearly opposed to each other conceptually (other than the fact the 4E monster roles seem to have different definitions). The Controller and Leader do not seem opposed at all, though. Interesting.

 

[TwoSix]

So I guess the Striker is trying to get past the Defender to deal nice damage to the Leader and Controller. The Defender's job is to keep the enemy Striker from getting through. They seem clearly opposed to each other conceptually (other than the fact the 4E monster roles seem to have different definitions). The Controller and Leader do not seem opposed at all, though. Interesting.

Well, the controller focuses on lowering the ability of multiple foes to attack, while the leader increases the ability of allies to attack. Since the two sets of abilities would apply to the same people, thus roughly cancelling each other out, you can see the Controller and Leader as being in opposition.