Heroes of Shadow

[Jhaelen]

More striker classes fits the party demographic I seem to observe, as the typical party will have at least as many or more strikers in it than any other role.

I agree, although exceptions exist:
in my 4e group the leaders make up the majority (3 leaders!).

In our next 4e campaign (Dark Sun), though, most characters are strikers (8 of 20), next are defenders (6 of 20). There are only three controllers and leaders, each.

I feel drawn to strikers myself. They're the most 'sexy' role somehow

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don´t have a single group where strikers are the majority...

1 group: 2,5 leaders, 1 strikers soon 0
1 group: 4 controllers, 0 strikers
1 group: 2 defenders... 1 striker (that does not like striking that much)

 

[Dice4Hire]

Did you say you ahve 20 characters?

 

[erleni]

I don´t have a single group where strikers are the majority...

1 group: 2,5 leaders, 1 strikers soon 0
1 group: 4 controllers, 0 strikers
1 group: 2 defenders... 1 striker (that does not like striking that much)

You're missing 0,5 characters in you first group (or have half a character).

Jokes aside in our groups we tend to see a drift towards strikers.

First group: 1 defender, 1 leader, 1 striker, 1 controller
Second group: 2 strikers, 0,5 leaders, 0,5 controllers

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You're missing 0,5 characters in you first group (or have half a character).

Jokes aside in our groups we tend to see a drift towards strikers.

First group: 1 defender, 1 leader, 1 striker, 1 controller
Second group: 2 strikers, 0,5 leaders, 0,5 controllers

Other roles fill the rest.. I just compared strikers to the most heavily represented group...

Ok, you could argue that the only "pure defender" (not even our main defender) is a Tempest fighter, the controller is a pyro mage.

You could argue, that the hunter and the predator druid and the greatweapon fighter are doing enough striker duties

and the last group´s thief is supported by a hunter too...

Actually I don´t really care which role classes have. It shoulf fit the playstyle. And strikers are the most easy to design i guess.

 

[the-golem]

Actually that's possibly one of the worst possible choices you could make, unless you later take the feat to negate poison immunity. Most of the creatures resistant to necrotic damage - notably undead - are immune to poison. So all you're doing is turning your non-damaging effects into something most undead will now utterly ignore (while before you're just doing less damage). That's actually a perfect example of a "trap feat" in the game, because you're actually worse with it against undead (who are widely poison immune, necrotic resistant).

[MENTION=78116]Aegeri[/MENTION], I'm not seeing how this would affect damage at all. Per the PHB errata, resistance or immunity to one type doesn't matter if the target doesn't have any resistance or immunity to the other type. In other words, you must have resistance or immunity to all types to decrease/negate damage from a typed attack. Here's the exact copy:

Page 55: Replace the fourth paragraph with the following text. Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects. Also, resistance doesn’t reduce damage unless the target has resistance to each type of damage from the attack, and then only the weakest of the resistances applies. For example, a character who has resist 10 lightning and resist 5 thunder who takes 15 lightning and thunder damage takes 10 damage because the resistance value to the combined damage types is limited by the lesser of the two resistances.

To give a specific example, if you damage an undead with, for example, 50 necrotic+poison damage, and this undead has resist 10 necrotic and poison immunity, then the suffered damage amount is 40. Now, against most undead, this feat might not actually help you, but it won't make your attacks less effective.

 

[Aegeri]

@Aegeri , I'm not seeing how this would affect damage at all. Per the PHB errata, resistance or immunity to one type doesn't matter if the target doesn't have any resistance or immunity to the other type. In other words, you must have resistance or immunity to all types to decrease/negate damage from a typed attack. Here's the exact copy

This is true, but you are thinking of damage and not effects. Poison immunity confers immunity to effects. The necrotic keyword makes no difference here, as it is merely damage and the creatures are resistant to it anyway.

To give a specific example, if you damage an undead with, for example, 50 necrotic+poison damage, and this undead has resist 10 necrotic and poison immunity, then the suffered damage amount is 40. Now, against most undead, this feat might not actually help you, but it won't make your attacks less effective.

This is correct, but what you've missed is the ACTUAL part of the trap (which I see you would have fallen for). Let's say your power did 30 necrotic and poison damage, then stunned the target. You get your 20 necrotic and poison damage, then realize that because you've given the power the poison keyword, the stun is ineffective and it isn't stunned (as poison immunity makes it immune to the non-damaging part of the power, the stun). Probably defeating the entire point of the power in the first place.

So this is a gigantic trap and doesn't help anyway.

 

[hbnetto]

This is true, but you are thinking of damage and not effects. Poison immunity confers immunity to effects. The necrotic keyword makes no difference here, as it is merely damage and the creatures are resistant to it anyway.
This is correct, but what you've missed is the ACTUAL part of the trap (which I see you would have fallen for). Let's say your power did 30 necrotic and poison damage, then stunned the target. You get your 20 necrotic and poison damage, then realize that because you've given the power the poison keyword, the stun is ineffective and it isn't stunned (as poison immunity makes it immune to the non-damaging part of the power, the stun). Probably defeating the entire point of the power in the first place.

So this is a gigantic trap and doesn't help anyway.

'Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects. " ( x 2)

 

[Aegeri]

'Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects. " ( x 2)

Actually immunity to poison does protect you from a powers non-damaging effects. See the poison keyword in the compendium. You should reread the section again, because you are misinterpreting how this works. If you are immune to poison, you don't suffer the non-damaging parts of a poison keyword power, but you still take the normal damage of the power if it was, for example fire damage. If you are immune to necrotic, you wouldn't take the necrotic damage but the non-damaging effects (like the push) would still work.

Poison immunity specifically makes you immune to the non-damaging portions of a poison keyword power. So if you are immune to poison, those parts do not affect you - but the poison immunity does not automatically cancel the damage (as it is being combined with necrotic in this case).

Also when quoting rules, it helps to actually quote the whole text and not deliberately take it out of context. Rules compendium page 225:

Immunity to one part of a power does not make a creature immune to other parts of the power. For example, when a creature that is immune to thunder is hit by a power that deals both thunder damage and pushes the target, the creature takes no damage, but the power can still push it

So the poison immunity still cancels all the non-damaging portions of the power. Like it or not.

 

[Dalamar]

'Resistance or immunity to one keyword of a power does not protect a target from the power’s other effects. " ( x 2)

I believe the wording of the Rules Compendium on the same matter is more clear on what it means.

Some creatures are immune to certain effects. If a creature is immune to a damage type (such as cold or fire), it doesn't take that type of damage. If a creature is immune to charm, fear, illusion, or poison, it is unaffected by the non-damaging effects of a power that has that keyword. A creature that is immune to a condition or another effect (such as the dazed condition or forced movement) is unaffected by the stated effect.
Immunity to one part of a power does not make a creature immune to other parts of the power. For example, when a creature that is immune to thunder
is hit by a power that both deals thunder damage and pushes the target, the creature takes no damage, but the power can still push it

The line you're quoting regards the second paragraph of the RC quote, whereas Aegeri is referring to the part that says a creature immune to poison is immune to the non-damaging effects of a power with that keyword.

Edit - And I see Aegeri posted while I was fetching my RC