I have done three play tests with three different parties:
1st party: Warlock, Ranger, Fighter
2nd party: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard
3rd party: Paladin, Fighter, Ranger
The characters were the test characters provided by WoTC, except for the rogue which was fan-made.
The ranger and the warlock are really dependent on their to-hit modifier. Without a high enough to-hit they aren't filling their role. I think that counts for all strikers. If you don't do damage, you aren't filling any secondary rolls either.
If you have a bad day as a Paladin, you can still heal with lay on hands and mark. If you are a cleric you can use healing word. Because of this, these two characters are probably the classes relying least on their to-hit rating.
The fighter can mark and soak damage and with the help of a cleric or paladin have tremendous staying power, and thus filling his role. One of the encounter powers, and one of the at-will powers are relying on being able to hit multiple foes, which isn't that useful with 2-3 enemies.
The rangers encounter powers don't really help him to fulfill his role as a striker, as he is primarily a ranged fighter. You don't need the fey step, except to get out of stinky situations. The daily power, while really good isn't very helpful against solo mobs.
The wizard is a bit special, since his attacks often targets multiple enemies, with multiple to-hit rolls, which makes him rely less on how good he rolls. He will probably hit 1-3 enemies anyway.
We made a rogue who used a dagger and a crossbow (which grants +3 and +2 to hit), and with 18 dex this gives +7 to hit. Using piercing strike this is +7 vs reflex which enables the rogue to hit often (compared to the rangers +6 vs ac). It was therefore easier for the rogue to hit than nearly any other character. The rogue also went for combat advantage anyway, sneaking along to gain combat advantage at the start of combat. This often gave a opening shot with the crossbow at +8 vs reflex with 3d6+4 damage which is really good for an at-will power. It had a much stronger STRIKER feeling than the ranger or warlock.
The warlock just didn't make an impression, maybe because the abilities to avoid damage really wasn't necessary? It doesn't compensate for the lack of ability to perform the strike role due to +4 attack vs for instance will. Compared to the rogues +8 its just puny.
Monster play
The kobolds where a blast to run. They did their job and the players could mostly hit them except on low rolls. I ran with a bit to few of them, but that could easily be fixed by running 5 of them instead of 3 as I did.
The hobgoblins were more of a challenge - or a drag rather. Especially the soldier with AC 20, Fort 18, ref&will 16 and 47hp. Even the rogue with combat advantage needs to roll 12, or 11 with a dagger. If there are two hobgoblins soldiers adjacent to each other the rogue needs atleast 13 - with combat advantage. The fighter would need 16. My players wasted dailies with no effect against these. Or like the fighter who had to try three times before he hit with his daily (reliable).
I didn't run the PC's against level 4 solo lurker dragon, but against something like level 2 elite lurker. That went quite well actually (lowered ac by 6, lowered defenses by 4, hp to 125 and skipped the darkness/fear ability).
Conclusions
Be careful when selecting monsters, especially look at their defenses. Too high AC is no fun.
I wouldn't have selected the abilities/powers combinations that are on the ranger and warlock. There just isn't enough synergy. I didn't like the builds at all.
I really liked the rogue, wizard, cleric and paladins, while I would maybe have tinkered a bit with the fighter.
Addenum:
The rogue was a halfling with the following abilities/powers:
Weapons: dagger and crossbow
At-will: Piercing strike,Deft Strike
Encounter: Positioning Strike
Daily
ositioning Strike (didn't have any daily powers to choose from, so just did 2w damage instead of 1w)
Other: Artful Dodger
1st party: Warlock, Ranger, Fighter
2nd party: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard
3rd party: Paladin, Fighter, Ranger
The characters were the test characters provided by WoTC, except for the rogue which was fan-made.
The ranger and the warlock are really dependent on their to-hit modifier. Without a high enough to-hit they aren't filling their role. I think that counts for all strikers. If you don't do damage, you aren't filling any secondary rolls either.
If you have a bad day as a Paladin, you can still heal with lay on hands and mark. If you are a cleric you can use healing word. Because of this, these two characters are probably the classes relying least on their to-hit rating.
The fighter can mark and soak damage and with the help of a cleric or paladin have tremendous staying power, and thus filling his role. One of the encounter powers, and one of the at-will powers are relying on being able to hit multiple foes, which isn't that useful with 2-3 enemies.
The rangers encounter powers don't really help him to fulfill his role as a striker, as he is primarily a ranged fighter. You don't need the fey step, except to get out of stinky situations. The daily power, while really good isn't very helpful against solo mobs.
The wizard is a bit special, since his attacks often targets multiple enemies, with multiple to-hit rolls, which makes him rely less on how good he rolls. He will probably hit 1-3 enemies anyway.
We made a rogue who used a dagger and a crossbow (which grants +3 and +2 to hit), and with 18 dex this gives +7 to hit. Using piercing strike this is +7 vs reflex which enables the rogue to hit often (compared to the rangers +6 vs ac). It was therefore easier for the rogue to hit than nearly any other character. The rogue also went for combat advantage anyway, sneaking along to gain combat advantage at the start of combat. This often gave a opening shot with the crossbow at +8 vs reflex with 3d6+4 damage which is really good for an at-will power. It had a much stronger STRIKER feeling than the ranger or warlock.
The warlock just didn't make an impression, maybe because the abilities to avoid damage really wasn't necessary? It doesn't compensate for the lack of ability to perform the strike role due to +4 attack vs for instance will. Compared to the rogues +8 its just puny.
Monster play
The kobolds where a blast to run. They did their job and the players could mostly hit them except on low rolls. I ran with a bit to few of them, but that could easily be fixed by running 5 of them instead of 3 as I did.
The hobgoblins were more of a challenge - or a drag rather. Especially the soldier with AC 20, Fort 18, ref&will 16 and 47hp. Even the rogue with combat advantage needs to roll 12, or 11 with a dagger. If there are two hobgoblins soldiers adjacent to each other the rogue needs atleast 13 - with combat advantage. The fighter would need 16. My players wasted dailies with no effect against these. Or like the fighter who had to try three times before he hit with his daily (reliable).
I didn't run the PC's against level 4 solo lurker dragon, but against something like level 2 elite lurker. That went quite well actually (lowered ac by 6, lowered defenses by 4, hp to 125 and skipped the darkness/fear ability).
Conclusions
Be careful when selecting monsters, especially look at their defenses. Too high AC is no fun.
I wouldn't have selected the abilities/powers combinations that are on the ranger and warlock. There just isn't enough synergy. I didn't like the builds at all.
I really liked the rogue, wizard, cleric and paladins, while I would maybe have tinkered a bit with the fighter.
Addenum:
The rogue was a halfling with the following abilities/powers:
Weapons: dagger and crossbow
At-will: Piercing strike,Deft Strike
Encounter: Positioning Strike
Daily
ositioning Strike (didn't have any daily powers to choose from, so just did 2w damage instead of 1w)Other: Artful Dodger
Last edited:
