D&D 5E (2014) Do most striker builds weaken a party?

[Rya.Reisender]

I'm with Mellored on this one. Our tank has 20 AC and our rogue has 15 AC. The rogue hiding to avoid damage helps alot. Hit dice are barely even used at all. If the rogue wouldn't hide, he probably would drop unconscious pretty far. The tank (Fighter) can survive quite a while, healing spells on him are more efficient and he can use Second Wind too. In our games the rogue usually needs his hit dice for damage outside combat already. For example when he fails finding or disarming a trap or when he goes ahead stealthily and rolls a 1 on his stealth check.

Also Rogues benefit in damage from hiding. Not only do they gain advantage on the attack roll, it also allows them to use Sneak Attack at enemies not in melee with someone.

But in any case, it's not like the players get to decide who gets attacked, that's what the DM does, so it depends a lot on the DM style what kind of party setup is best and if tanks are of any use. What good are tanks when the DM thinks that creatures would always go after those that hurt them the most first? Then spell casters go down first and only the rogue will actually survive of the damage dealers by constantly hiding, forcing the creatures to finally attack the tanks when all else is down. On the other hand if the DM himself wants to distribute damage evenly (because it's more fun) or the DM is open to taunts (as in "If tank shouts a good taunt then I'll make the creature attack the tank as reward"), then it certainly can be that tanks in a party are more useful in combat than damage dealers.

I still think a more offensive group is more fun in combat than a defensive group. 1-2 tanks are fine, though.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I for one hate mechanics-based character descriptors. Striker, controller, etc. While it might be appropriate for other games, it never sat very well with me when applied to D&D.

 

[CapnZapp]

I for one hate mechanics-based character descriptors. Striker, controller, etc. While it might be appropriate for other games, it never sat very well with me when applied to D&D.

That is because they map poorly to the builds the game make available.

 

[Huntsman57]

I for one hate mechanics-based character descriptors. Striker, controller, etc. While it might be appropriate for other games, it never sat very well with me when applied to D&D.

I don't entirely disagree with you. Initially it bothered me as well since it harkened to WOW or 4th edition which, without wanting to start a flame war...lets just say it wasn't my cup of tea at all. With that said, I do rather like efficiency, and the use of these terms allows us to sum up the gist of how a character operates in an efficient way.

Of course, as with anything, there's no ideal situation. In me referring to a character as a "striker" it elicited a number of irrelevant responses that missed the point that what I was really going for was a comparison of those who block or absorb damage and those that avoid damage...but no matter how detailed we try to be something is always going to get misconstrued I guess.