D&D 4E Which role is least important in 4E?

[phil500]

I had to go with controller. in my limited experience, at lower levels, it feels like it boils down to being "good against minions".

Considering minion to-hit and damage. it seems with a dragonborn and a ranger or ftr in your group minions just arent much of a threat.

has anyone found controllers gain importance in higher levels? i havent played through that.

 

[Victim]

Controllers are good at hitting more than just minions - otherwise their powers wouldn't need to slap conditions like immobilize on their AoE powers.

However, I'd probably go with controller or striker. Everyone is doing damage, and most classes can select area or similar powers to damage groups. On the other hand, leader healing isn't really something that's easily available to other classes (minor action, and per encounter). While other characters can match a defender in defenses with high stats or their own armor/shield feats, that often requires a significant sacrifice.

 

[Verdande]

In my own limited experience, I've seen that players can certainly get by without a controller, although it's probably suboptimal.

 

[Blue]

Toss the striker

I had to go with controller. in my limited experience, at lower levels, it feels like it boils down to being "good against minions".

Considering minion to-hit and damage. it seems with a dragonborn and a ranger or ftr in your group minions just arent much of a threat.

has anyone found controllers gain importance in higher levels? i havent played through that.

While controllers are good at AoE damage, which means they are good at minion control, that's not the only thing they are good at.

They can split up your foes, allowing you to defeat them in detail. A few slowed or immobilized opponents really complements a defender. Having an enemy leader split up from his mooks and minions so he can't boost them is gold.

You can do without a striker. It will hurt, and you probably will go through less encounters per day both because you're trotting out dailies more often and also because you'll eat through more healing surges since your foes will take longer to drop. But strikers are about damage, and the others are about (less damage) plus other stuff. Heals, buffs, debuffs, etc.

I still see a lot of 3.5 thinking where "offense is the best defense" and killing the opponent fast (say 1-2 rounds at high levels) is king. That's not what happens in 4e, and damage isn't king. It's DARN useful and important, but it doesn't trump as much as it used to.

You need a leader, though you might be able to get through with a paladin (minor healing) and a fighter (good at self healing) for two defenders.

No defender is rough. Maybe an all striker/leader party that tried to kill quick and had an abundance of healing could deal. And a controller besides the rather fragile wizard.

Hmm, the more I think about it, each of the roles has at least one other role that if you double up on you can manage with.

But still, if I had to skip one, it would be a striker.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[Solodan]

A Striker would be my 4th choice for party design 9/10 times. I find that their damage is only slightly larger, and the real use of the striker class (at least rogue and ranger) are for the adventuring skills they provide.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Party built to work together (and with some combos in mind) can do without any role in combat.
I'd vote for striker, myself .. with the proviso that certain skills ought to be picked up by the other characters.

 

[Minigiant]

To me you need a healer or controller in a large party to minimize how much damage you take. I'd say striker. Everyone taking a few more pure damage powers than normal and grabbing damage feats could replace 1 striker in a big party.

But small parties can do without a controller due to the DM smaller XP budget.


Small party (2-4): need striker. No need controller
Big party(5+): other way around

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Striker, IMO. I'd fill out the striker position last, given that every class can deal damage pretty effectively.

 

[Rith the Wanderer]

Its funny how controller is winning, yet more people who post say striker. I said striker.

I think people want there main class to be useful and controller has the least classes attached, personally.

Although I definately think in small parties (2-3) a striker would be more important. And I think if you had to do without two roles it would be striker and controller.

 

[SadisticFishing]

Small party (2-4): need striker. No need controller
Big party(5+): other way around

This. Hence, I'm not voting. Depends on a lot of things, including, but not limited to: the makeup of the group, and the DM's combat style.

For example, a two handed fighter can do a LOT of damnage (that's damn damage!), and a wisdom based Cleric can do a lot of the controllery things, as can a Fey Warlock. That group wouldn't really need a controller, or a striker if the Wizard went for Wand, high dex, fire spells, and Tiefling.