Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Old Gumphrey" data-source="post: 4803606" data-attributes="member: 12872">I really can't believe all of this "strikers are glass cannons" noise across this thread, this board, and other boards. I've given empirical evidence showing that strikers regularly have some of the best defenses in the game, but I hear "no, you're wrong, because I said so, and because if I accept that strikers have good defenses, that means OG is right! Screw that!"I mean the OP comes back saying his fighter has the SECOND WORST defenses in a party of 4, but strikers are glass cannons? Remember the other 3 characters, including the 2 with better defenses than the fighter, are strikers. They also have more ways to get out of the way than fighters do. And they have very similar hit point totals. 1 extra hp / level is really not that big of a deal.The only classes I've seen that have really outstanding HP totals are rageblood barbs, axe/mace fighters, and guardian wardens. My infernal warlock has more HP than our "tank" paladin, along with higher NADs, endless temporary HP, and multiple teleports. Oh, and I also deal more combat damage by a good margin. And I'm a frickin' warlock, who is supposedly a gimpy striker class.With full optimization, a defender will be the most durable. Sure. But his damage decreases enough to where that extra bit of defense is meaningless. Strikers should ALWAYS have better defenses than controllers or leaders (except barbarians, who make up for poorer defenses with tons of temporary HP/debuffs and increased burst damage). And in our games, strikers do have better defenses than leaders and controllers (and about half the time, the tanks too).</blockquote>

Verification