The strikers seem to have suffered from power creep more then the other classes. When 4e first came out, it was a challenge for rogues to get combat advantage every turn, and quarry is not a huge damage boost by itself. The strikers where doing more damage then anybody else, but not massively more. Now, a competent rogue will have combat advantage on every attack, rangers are getting most of their damage off Twin Strike and extra attacks and slayers have huge flat bonuses to damage and none of them will miss very often. My party's defenders are still doing the same DPR they did when 4e first came out, but the strikers are doing three or more times.
I also want to add that even if the other roles had the same power creep in regards to their role, it wouldn't have helped.
Most people enjoy dealing damage. If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 20% less damage that's a acceptable trade.
If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 50% less damage that's kind of sucks. (aka powercreep only to the strikers)
Thats partly because its way more complex and anyone can be tough, the Defender is also about manhandling enemies so that they dont target the others so much and he also gets to do his damn if you do and damned if you dont options... both need enhanced. Being able to mark and hold more enemies successfully and make em pay if they dont. The DM needs to violate those marks sometimes too.
The thing is that even manhandling doesn't always help. I have a level 13 swordmage dealing 10.5 DPR. So his whole job is standing there and taking the punches while throwing back cotton balls.
Swordmages aside from shielding ones werent given nice enough goodies...the shielding swordmage is another style of defender quite distinct from the fighter what I described was mostly a fighter.. a shielding swordmage should target and enemy then well run like hell heheh, induce him to violate the mark because you nerf his attacks when he does now we still dont use any adjusted monster damages and that nerfing is still significant. But yes swordmages havent recieved the love they could and I do think you are generally correct power creep could have been better controlled.
I would enjoy an approach in which each class was given a score that ranked them on each of their roles, like cleric: leader 60, striker 10, defender 10, controller 20 or something, and the general goal was to get around 100 in each. This could obviously change depending on the number of party members (the approach have now is for 4 players, but making it 125 as the goal makes it good for 5 players.) Here are some more examples for my own entertainment. Paladin: leader 30, striker 25, defender 40, controller 5 Wizard: leader 10, striker 25, defender 0, controller 65 Fighter: leader 5,striker 35, defender 40, controller 20 Warlock: leader 5, striker 40, defender 20, controller 35 Warlord: leader 45, striker 20, defender 20, controller 15 Ranger: leader 15, striker 50, defender 25, controller 10 Rouge: leader 10, striker 65, defender 10, controller 15 Avenger: leader 5, striker 40, defender 35, controller 20 (I hope these are in one of the books eventually!) Bard: leader 45, striker 15, defender 10, controller 30 Barbarian: leader 5, striker 55, defender 35, controller 5 Druid: leader 25, striker 25, defender 25, controller 25 (whoever said bards were jacks of all trades?) invoker: leader 15, striker 25, defender 5, controller 55 (this is an added bonus, I know they aren't going to be in the PHB) Assassin: leader 0, striker 65, defender 5, controller 35 Psionic: leader 15, striker 20, defender 10, controller 55 (most variable because of power points, or simmilar mechanics.) monk: leader 10, striker 35, defender 25, controller 30 Scorcerer: leader 5, striker 45, defender 5, controller 45 What worries me about this is that no one has a striker level of less then 15...
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/ … s_Handbook An attempt at CharOp To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&DShow
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
PbP supporter! General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!Show
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
The strikers seem to have suffered from power creep more then the other classes. When 4e first came out, it was a challenge for rogues to get combat advantage every turn, and quarry is not a huge damage boost by itself. The strikers where doing more damage then anybody else, but not massively more. Now, a competent rogue will have combat advantage on every attack, rangers are getting most of their damage off Twin Strike and extra attacks and slayers have huge flat bonuses to damage and none of them will miss very often. My party's defenders are still doing the same DPR they did when 4e first came out, but the strikers are doing three or more times.
I also want to add that even if the other roles had the same power creep in regards to their role, it wouldn't have helped.
Most people enjoy dealing damage. If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 20% less damage that's a acceptable trade.
If my defender is 20% tougher than the striker and deals 50% less damage that's kind of sucks. (aka powercreep only to the strikers)
Thats partly because its way more complex and anyone can be tough, the Defender is also about manhandling enemies so that they dont target the others so much and he also gets to do his damn if you do and damned if you dont options... both need enhanced. Being able to mark and hold more enemies successfully and make em pay if they dont. The DM needs to violate those marks sometimes too.
The thing is that even manhandling doesn't always help. I have a level 13 swordmage dealing 10.5 DPR. So his whole job is standing there and taking the punches while throwing back cotton balls.
Swordmages aside from shielding ones werent given nice enough goodies...the shielding swordmage is another style of defender quite distinct from the fighter what I described was mostly a fighter.. a shielding swordmage should target and enemy then well run like hell heheh, induce him to violate the mark because you nerf his attacks when he does now we still dont use any adjusted monster damages and that nerfing is still significant. But yes swordmages havent recieved the love they could and I do think you are generally correct power creep could have been better controlled.
Thing is that I am talking about a shielding swordmage. He is pretty good at defending, just in a way that makes him basically incapable of ever killing anything but minions without having to whack away at it for ages.
He does a great contribution to combat in regards to his role, just in a way that makes me want to play him less and less. In earlier levels that wasn't so explicit but since paragon he has fallen more and more behind the cool studs actually slaying the monsters he is only preventing from hurting the others.
Maybe it's just me and it's simply the wrong class for me, but to me such a design where one class is the Robin or Alfred to the other class being Batman sucks.
The thing is that even manhandling doesn't always help. I have a level 13 swordmage dealing 10.5 DPR. So his whole job is standing there and taking the punches while throwing back cotton balls.
When an enemy violates the mark his punishment is either doing less damage or maybe having his strike re-directed agains one of his allies. Neither improves the damage of my swordmage.
The greates let-down was when I was fighting four rounds 1 on 1 vs a standard monster while the others were occupied at other corners of the map and after four rounds of hitting every round (good rolls for the hit, my attack bonus is fairly standard) I finally bloodied my enemy (and that's with encounter and daily powers thrown in the mix during this four rounds). By then the others were done and a striker finally came along and slew the bloodied monster in one rounds.
At them moment I could actually make battles faster by stopping to attack. I can just announce "full defence" each round and the combat would be faster since the time it takes me to roll dice and announce damage is more than the negligible damage I deal shortens the combat.
And I didn't purposfully minimize my damage. I had an 18 main stat, improved at every opportunity, I have a +3 weapon and even have the focus feat and a shard attached to the weapon, thus midly optimized.
There simply shouldn't be so huge damage gaps between the roles/classes
Consider that the swordmage, expecially one not optimized, does pitiful damage. He is a Defender/Controller with emphasis on defense and pure control... So the damage does not even enter in the equation (and the assault swordmage, while not terrible by itself, it's the weakest build of the bunch). The fighter it's almost a striker that marks (and, for me, the best overall defender), so probably you will prefer him. Or at least, when I play with the fighter I do almost the same damage of a striker and I have all the perks of a defender, so it's a good compromise.
Anyway, as I said, for me the strikers do not overshadow the other roles. Obviously the mechanics can be tweaked a bit, damage expectations re-worked etcetera, but for now the strikers do now rule anything. They end the combat quickly? Yeah, but quicker does not equate to better. A good wizard can cripple an enemy so much it becomes harmless, a good defender put out some decent damage while intercepting enemies shrugging off their attacks, a good leader thanks to teamwork can surpass DPR of a striker in team buffs.
In short: Quicker =/= Better.
It's also often a problem of tactics of the DM and/or the players. On the players part, for example I often see defenders that walk aimlessly on the battlefield engaging in their personal battles in the corner of the room, away from the party... That's not how your class work. That's how the Avenger work. The defender is the center of the battle, he should stand in the frontlines and attract enemies like a magnet. On the DM part, often DMs are not exactly tactical geniuses. That's ok, but in that case you should at least follow the "Tactics" entry of the monsters. Instead they just throw a couple of random monster without sinergy and make up an improvised suboptimal strategy. The battleground it's often overlooked, and it's often just blank with maybe a couple of rocks. You should give the vantage of terrain at the enemies and not take the lazy way out. Nothing too complex, just put some difficult terrain and strategic cover position, the battle will suddently be very different.
If the DM is lazy, the monsters are lame and the non-strikers don't do what their role is supposed to do... In that case, yes, the striker is the MVP. But that's because the encounter it's too easy. Obviously he is going to win at everything if he can effortlessy walk up to an enemy and smash them without repercussion... Some DMs even send monsters straight to the defender, even if unprovoked O_o why they should do that? As a DM, I see non-underpowered strikers do terrible performance (mostly because they are quick to go to 0pf, if they are not careful) and as a player I never thinked "Wow, this fight could have been easier with another striker!".
That's not how your class work. That's how the Avenger work. The defender is the center of the battle, he should stand in the frontlines and attract enemies like a magnet.
This is what I was talking about earlier. People are often attracted to classes during character creation for non-tactical reasons. DnD is a Role-Playing Game. It isn't supposed to be primarily tactical, though that is part of 3 and 4. Players should be able to make the characters they want and expect them to work the way they imagined. When the player you're describing created a fighter character they probably imagined them doing certain things. They should be able to create a character that does the things they imagine doing. IMO, the character creation system should be open enough that a player is able to create what they want. Its not unreasonable to imagine a fighter type, armor and sword, being a dealer of damage. In a more open system groups of players who enjoy more tactical play can still make those characters. I just don't like hearing my players not having a good time because they feel they are "playing their character wrong." Its their character. It should play the way they want it to and be reasonably good at it.
To address your latter point, "hates thing X" is not an appropriate striker concept because vampire hunter and even the more general undead rapist are ridiculously narrow skillsets. This will result in either the class being useless outside of a purely vs. undead campaign, being silly overpowered whenever undead do show up, or possibly both!
On the former point, class should not mean anything but combat problem-solving style. Your other skills should be determined by kit or theme elements.
+1
"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23
To address your latter point, "hates thing X" is not an appropriate striker concept because vampire hunter and even the more general undead rapist are ridiculously narrow skillsets. This will result in either the class being useless outside of a purely vs. undead campaign, being silly overpowered whenever undead do show up, or possibly both!
On the former point, class should not mean anything but combat problem-solving style. Your other skills should be determined by kit or theme elements.
I think, ultimately, the problem with the roles was that the only way to kill a monster was to damage it. So you had any given role that was "do damage, but also do X" and then you had the striker, who was "Do damage and do more damage."- while healers or defenders proved extremely useful, having a guy who's just all damage really made it difficult to play in non-traditional parties.
In 3E, I could have a group of two wizards and a paladin, and they'd get by just fine. But in 4E, that same group would have trouble because they wouldn't be able to deal the damage the game's expectations are designed around.
If we took out the expectation that there's a specific brand of class that's designed to deal X more damage than other classes, I think we can really return that iconic D&D mixed party setup, without requiring that every party emulate the ur-party of wizard, rogue, elf, cleric, acrobat.
I also agree that all strikers share mobility, and that should really be their role focus.
That's not how your class work. That's how the Avenger work. The defender is the center of the battle, he should stand in the frontlines and attract enemies like a magnet.
This is what I was talking about earlier. People are often attracted to classes during character creation for non-tactical reasons. DnD is a Role-Playing Game. It isn't supposed to be primarily tactical, though that is part of 3 and 4. Players should be able to make the characters they want and expect them to work the way they imagined. When the player you're describing created a fighter character they probably imagined them doing certain things. They should be able to create a character that does the things they imagine doing. IMO, the character creation system should be open enough that a player is able to create what they want. Its not unreasonable to imagine a fighter type, armor and sword, being a dealer of damage. In a more open system groups of players who enjoy more tactical play can still make those characters. I just don't like hearing my players not having a good time because they feel they are "playing their character wrong." Its their character. It should play the way they want it to and be reasonably good at it.
As I've already said before, that's the deal if you want classes. I understand what you are saying, but since D&D is a class based system, and classes mostly define what are you combat ability, you should chose the class that is closer to what you want to play. If you do the contrary, it's not going to work.
With a different, more open ended, system it could work. But D&D classes are a legacy from wargames, so they obey wargame logic.
That's not how your class work. That's how the Avenger work. The defender is the center of the battle, he should stand in the frontlines and attract enemies like a magnet.
This is what I was talking about earlier. People are often attracted to classes during character creation for non-tactical reasons. DnD is a Role-Playing Game. It isn't supposed to be primarily tactical, though that is part of 3 and 4. Players should be able to make the characters they want and expect them to work the way they imagined. When the player you're describing created a fighter character they probably imagined them doing certain things. They should be able to create a character that does the things they imagine doing. IMO, the character creation system should be open enough that a player is able to create what they want. Its not unreasonable to imagine a fighter type, armor and sword, being a dealer of damage. In a more open system groups of players who enjoy more tactical play can still make those characters. I just don't like hearing my players not having a good time because they feel they are "playing their character wrong." Its their character. It should play the way they want it to and be reasonably good at it.
