Holy cow my party has 3 strikers in it

[Sadrik]

The main argument I keep seeing from the pro-striker camp is damage output. So, let's look at the roles and their contribution to damage output.

Being from the "pro-striker camp" I think what you have posted here is an idealized version of what really happens. This is more a this is how it should/ought to be kind of idealization that is a little more than misleading from how the game actually plays.

Strikers
Strikers have the highest average single target damage output. They also have abilities that enhance their ability to direct that damage at any target. That makes them the most efficient single character at bringing down a given target. Striker proponents have argued that these facts make a party of strikers the most efficient party at bringing down an enemy party.

Other than minions, most monsters have a lot of HP. When I mean a lot I mean that it is difficult often for even a striker to one-shot a monster. This is a very big change from 3e, where damage was higher and monster HP where lower. When trying to kill a monster with 191 HP and you average hit is doing 20 but a striker is doing 30 or 40 you take that from 10 hit monster to a 5-7 hit monster. Shaving those precious rounds is what it is about. The quicker you drop the first monster the quicker you can move on to the next.

Defenders
Defenders have the second highest average single target damage output. Some defenders are capable of damage output that rivals that of the best strikers (and clearly outclasses the lower damage strikers). However, they lack the mobility options of the Striker. Defenders also indirectly enhance the damage output of the party by making it less likely that a party member is disabled.

I will agree that you can devise a defender to deal striker like damage (especially the fighter). In this case the defender is actually useful. If you can maximize the damage output to equal to a striker then you will have a character regardless of roll who can actually pull his weight. Any other defender build is not viable from my estimation, in fact they actually hurt the party in combat rather than help it.

Leaders
Leaders have the second lowest average single target damage output. However, they indirectly contribute to party damage output in two ways. First, they have tools that help disabled party members recover. More importantly, Leaders grant force multipliers in the form of attack bonuses, damage bonuses, and extra attacks, causing the other party members to deal extra damage.

I still think the payoff of a leader is pretty useful, the healing alone is difficult to pass up. Besides clerics do striker like damage against undead. I would never ever have more than one though and it is an entirely optional thing. If you have three or less players I would say go all strikers.

Controllers
Controllers have the lowest average single target damage output. However, they are capable of the highest overall damage output through large area of effect attacks. They compensate for the general weakness of multi-target damage as compared with focused damage through effects, which can both hinder the enemy's ability to deal damage and enhance the party's damage output.

Controllers are the 4e bard. Sure they do a little bit of damage to a lot of opponents (even if you can hit a lot of opponents without hitting or hindering your allies) But this is little more than a slight scratch on the 4e monsters. The only place it shines is against minions and well that sucks. Not to mention that minions can be dealt with by the striker *own* AoE powers, twin shots, feats, race, multi-class powers and magic items equally as well if not better.

So, here's the thing. Even though Strikers have the best individual single target damage, they don't necessarily contribute the most damage to a party. Leaders and Controllers are easily capable of contributing more to overall damage output, and while Defenders will usually cause a slight drop in party damage per round, the extra resources they add to the party are more beneficial in adverse situations.

t~

Leaders and controllers require a well oiled machine to make them work properly and then they arguably don't even contribute like a striker could have in the first place.

A level of detail and a conscious "lets all huddle and squeeze out as many points out of every character as possible" is required. Many DMs and players don't like playing with the "tactician" who has "the" overarching plan for the party and parades the best way is... or we ought to... style of gaming. Not to mention the real time drag it has on the game.

If you are lucky enough to have a group of all tactician style players sitting at your table and you think you can squeeze the most out of a non-damage optimized defender and a goofy controller then I say go for it. Otherwise don't bother.

 

[Sadrik]

PS...why does everyone think only a balanced party can use teamwork and strategy? Why can't strikers do this, too?

Striker can optimize their tactics too but it is not a requirement. Other roles are dependent on the other party members more. For instance I can see a striker taking out a monster by himself, other roles not so much (especially the controller)...

 

[tiornys]

Being from the "pro-striker camp" I think what you have posted here is an idealized version of what really happens. This is more a this is how it should/ought to be kind of idealization that is a little more than misleading from how the game actually plays.

What levels have you played at? For how many sessions? With what mixes of roles? With how many different DM's?

I ask because your experience differs widely from mine, and I want to get a baseline on what's informing that experience.

For the record, I've played 18 levels in a balanced 5-6 person party, 2 levels in random groups running LFR modules, 3 levels in a party with 2 Leaders, 3 Strikers, and a Defender, DM'ed over 3 levels for a group running 3 Strikers, 1 Defender, and 1 Leader, played 3 levels in paragon tier with a varying mix of roles, 2 or 3 sessions of pick-up epic play, some sessions of pick-up high heroic and low paragon play, some sessions where we messed around with gestalt-esque characters, PHB2 gameday, and MM gameday. I've also sat in on and watched several sessions being played.

I have a lot of experience with the PHB classes, but only some with the PHB2 classes. I don't think I've seen a (non-gestalt) Swordmage, and I haven't seen a Druid or Shaman.

t~

 

[Ryujin]

Striker can optimize their tactics too but it is not a requirement. Other roles are dependent on the other party members more. For instance I can see a striker taking out a monster by himself, other roles not so much (especially the controller)...

Depends on the situation, I suppose. Sure, a Striker is going to have his damage mount higher and faster, but getting stun-locked or Thunder Waved into a pit a few times will ruin your whole day.

 

[eriktheguy]

A note on strikers

I find that when playing with a house rule that lowers monster HP and EXP (many house rules designed to reduce grind take this road) strikers become less valuable to the party and other classes become more necessary.
For example when your reduced HP elite encounter gains an extra monster (due to the reduced EXP) strikers do not benefit from this change (they only attack one target at a time). Meanwhile controllers have more targets, defenders have another enemy to worry about, and leaders have more healing to do (the enemies now have one extra attack on the table at full damage).
These house rules are recommended for high level campaigns, and in using them, you might find that strikers are no longer imbalanced.

 

[Trevelyan]

Controllers are the 4e bard. Sure they do a little bit of damage to a lot of opponents (even if you can hit a lot of opponents without hitting or hindering your allies) But this is little more than a slight scratch on the 4e monsters. The only place it shines is against minions and well that sucks.

Eh? Have you played a controller, because that's pretty much not the case. Real life example with one of my current groups:

Fighter does d10+6 at-will (av 12) and has an encounter power inflicting 2d10+10 (av 21) both against single targets.

Wizard does d6+6 at-will (av 10, burst 1 - minimum 2 targets) or d6+4 at-will (av 8, burst 2 - minimum 3 targets), or d8+6 (av 11) against single targets and has an encounter power which does d8+6/4 plus ongoing 5 (av 16/14 or 21/19 if first save fails, close burst 3/4 - minimum 3 targets).

When you factor in the additional likelihood that a wizard targeting multiple enemie is more likely to hit at least some o them you tend to find that the wizard is a pretty potent damage dealer.

I haven't included daily powers because the wizard's tendancy to use sustainable daily effects blows every other class out of the water over the course of an encounter.

Edit: I just remebered that the fighter has a +2 hammer while the wizard only has a +1 staff (of ruin). Give the wizard a +2 weapon and he'll be popping an extra 2 damage per attack.

Not to mention that minions can be dealt with by the striker *own* AoE powers, twin shots, feats, race, multi-class powers and magic items equally as well if not better.

Seriously? You are claiming that the striker ability to use occasional racial or encounter powers makes them at least as good, if not better than controllers with at-will AoE powers at hitting bunches of minions?

 

[Herschel]

A note on strikers

I find that when playing with a house rule that lowers monster HP and EXP (many house rules designed to reduce grind take this road) strikers become less valuable to the party and other classes become more necessary.

Actually, the very opposite is true when the number of combatants remains constant, especially where ranged strikers are involved. One of the things about many melee elites/solos/etc. is you hit them with everything you have at range and they're still ticking along when they close to melee. Unless you adjust their defenses up, it's a distinct advantage to the ranged strikers because the BBEG will get far fewer attacks when they close because a much higher percentage of their HP pool has been diminished.

 

[Abisashi]

What levels have you played at? For how many sessions? With what mixes of roles? With how many different DM's?
...
For the record, I've played 18 levels in a balanced 5-6 person party...

I'm also curious; I'm the wizard in the 18th-level party Tiornys mentioned. Here are some things I have noticed. I haven't played as a non-wizard controller, but unless they are especially different they probably see similar issues.

At low levels, wizards' control is mainly expressed in their daily powers and their superiority at killing minions. The conditions they impose are weak, their range is short, and the number of enemies they can hit with each attack is small, so they aren't that great at locking down non-minions.

At high levels, wizards vary a lot from battle to battle. Some battles I feel like I am contributing almost nothing; some battles I'm the MVP. Here are the most common things that negatively affect my ability to contribute; have you noticed the controllers you have seen suffering from these?
Low Initiative: If the Wizard goes first, he can hit enemies without hitting his allies, and his ability to lock them down is much more meaningful (especially slow/immobilize powers).
Open Battlefields: Indoors, the wizard can lock down foes more easily; outdoors the enemy can spread out more, and can just walk around his zones. Even in-doors, as rooms and corridors grow wider the wizard grows weaker.
Boring Terrain: If the wizard has some hindering or damaging terrain to push enemies into, or beneficial terrain to push them out of, he gets more millage out of his powers. Also, hindering and damaging terrain can make a battle act more like an in-doors battle (see above).
Few Foes: The fewer enemies, the less total damage a wizard does.
Minions: While other roles can kill minions, high-level Wizards often kill minions for free as a side-effect of locking down non-minions.

Wizards are also much better at control with access to Arcane Power.

 

[boar]

Being from the "pro-striker camp" I think what you have posted here is an idealized version of what really happens. This is more a this is how it should/ought to be kind of idealization that is a little more than misleading from how the game actually plays.

This is as hilarious as it is maddening. "Idealized version of what really happens" is the exact phrase I would use to describe the all-striker argument, which consists of nothing but heavy extrapolation and theory atop a thin layer of anecdotal evidence. Do you have statistical evidence of an all-striker party going through 100 encounters, and then a balanced party run by equally skilled players going through the same 100 encounters, with an encounter-by-encounter comparison of how each party performed? No? Then you do not have any more concrete data than anybody else.

Everybody's argument in this thread is based on personal experience and hypothetical analysis. That's fine. But claiming what you're claiming is just irrational and condescending.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Some battles I feel like I am contributing almost nothing; some battles I'm the MVP.

Strikers only feel like they contribute almost nothing when they go on a terribad rolling streak.

Controllers: Occasionally awesome, usually mediocre, sometimes awful

Strikers: Often awesome, sometimes great, rarely mediocre