@Fardiz - The main problem is when people attempt to do a different role than they are designed for instead of the role they're supposed to do... Because then they generally end up being crappy at both roles. For example, a fire wizard who only does damaging fire spells and doesn't have any control powers. They're not a controller because they're not actually controlling anything and they just end up being a crappy striker (since the class is not designed to be a striker). If you want to play a striker and do lots of damage, play a striker. Don't play another class as if they were a striker and then ignore the duties of your actual role.
I disagree that all characters need to have a decent damage output regardless of role. Parties work as a team. Each role makes it easier for everyone else in the party to perform their own role. The ultimate goal of most encounters is to kill all the monsters, so yes, a party needs to do damage. But that doesn’t mean each individual character needs to do damage, just the party working as a whole. Let’s assume we have a party of 4 with one character of each role. Instead of performing their role, all of the characters act more like strikers and do lots of damage.
~ The leader uses a power that does more damage instead of one that buffs/heals the party or debuffs the enemy. As a result, the striker missed with their highly damaging attack. Or the striker is down-and-dying on their turn and doesn’t get to attack at all.
~ The defender does a lot of damage instead of using resources to defend the party better. As a result, the striker may be down and dying. Or, the striker’s movement may be hampered because there’s a big meat shield in the way and they can’t position themselves to attack the squishy target in the back that is a huge threat.
~ The controller does a lot of damage instead of dazing/blinding/moving/slowing/immobilizing/proning/etc. As a result, the enemies may be up in the striker’s face so they can’t position themselves the way they wanted (since the enemy isn’t slowed/immobilized/dazed/blind). Or the striker doesn’t have a bonus to attack (from daze/blind) so they might miss with their highly damaging power. Or the enemies aren’t grouped up so the striker can’t attack all of them with their highly damaging burst/blast power.
In all of the above situations, the overall damage output of the party has decreased because the leader/defender/controller are trying to do damage instead of their own role, which makes it harder for the striker to do their role. This is a less effective party than if everyone had been working as a team, each one performing their role.
I also disagree with the assessment that a low/non-damaging character can’t appropriately “deal” with the extra monsters that are added. A leader, defender, or controller can “deal” with extra monsters by keeping everyone alive long enough to kill the extra monsters or by making the striker more effective at killing the monsters. (Yes, non-damaging characters may make the game take longer. But I’m talking about party effectiveness, not speed of play. And note that I said “may.” If the non-damaging character is making it easier for the striker to hit, it may make the game go faster.)
I personally love playing defenders. My defenders have very pathetic damage output but are extremely good at defending. Players frequently look at me amazed and say things like “Wow! I have never played with a real defender before! This is great. I can actually do my job with you around.” The players might giggle a little when I announce how much damage I do, but they appreciate having me around as a pure defender because my character makes it easier for them to perform their own role well.
Lori Anderson WotC Freelancer, LFR author @LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author) NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author) QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author) EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author) ADCP5-2 The Best Defense (co-author) EPIC5-3 *Untitled* (co-author)
It must be that all the wizards I play with are riduculous bloodmage types (though that has recently been seriously nerfed). Instead of moving 3 monsters and slowing them, the monster each take 60+ damage. I would almost always take the latter. As this is about roles within LFR, more damage quickly is what is important to get a paragon game done in a 4hr slot. The people I play with would generally consider a 4-round combat rather a grind. I agree that not all characters have to have a huge damage output, but if enough of them don't then grinds seem extremely likely and you will never finish a game within the alotted time.
Healing abilities are a primary function of leaders. If you tell me that you are a leader and you do not heal (or do something filling the exact same role, like the CON artificer), you are deceiving me. I've played both Charisma paladins and Lifeblood wardens - they look like leaders and can do so for an encounter as I described earlier, but they are not leaders.
But a helluva lot better than nothing. For example my paladin has 6 lay on hands (for my surge + 18), rightous smite (11 temps for everyone within 5), life-giving smite (heal one ally within 10 for a surge +6) warding blow (save for everyone within 5), divine mettle (save with +6) hand of the gods (+6 to attack rolls for everyone adjacent to me), and astral thunder (enemies within 3 get a -6 to attack rolls) I also have two encounter-long stances: healing font (heal 1d6*6 for an ally within 10 each time I hit) and deathguide's stance (each time an enemy is bloodied or reduced to 0 with 5 of me I heal an ally for 11). My medic's amulet gives each target of my healing powers a save against on going damage. I have virtue which is a surge worth of temps, which I can give to an ally through my shield of shared fellowship and honoured foe for more temp producing. I also have wrath of the gods for an encounter long damage bonus. Oh and my mark heals the person attacked for 16 surgeless too whether they are hit or missed (each time they are attacked).
Buffing, debuffing, saving throws and healing. Who isn't a leader again?
@Veleria – I am probably most annoyed with people stepping out of their roles by pretending to be strikers because it’s what I see most frequently, but I also dislike seeing people step out of their role and pretend to be something other than a striker.
One of the problems with people dabbling between roles is that it steps on the toes of anyone who did stay within their role. If I bring a healing leader to the table and half of the party has “dabbled” in leader with lots of healing powers*… Then my character has become pretty useless at that table and/or all of the resources the other characters spent to dabble in leader (feats, items, whatever) are wasted. On top of that, because the other characters are trying to do my job, they’re not focusing on doing their own job and investing resources into doing that well. Similarly, if a non-controller character has a lot of control powers, my controller is going to feel a lot less useful. (Dazing/slowing/whatever an enemy twice doesn’t do anything.) I haven’t really seen anyone pretend to be a defender, other than just being tough. But still, if your melee striker spent tons of resources being super tough then there’s almost no point for my defender to protect you and it’s frustrating because I feel like I’m not needed in the party. If, instead, the striker had focused resources on doing damage, then both characters would both be doing their jobs more effectively.
If people are crossing between the roles, then there can be significant overlap in some areas and holes in other areas which just leads to a less effective party overall. If a character is dabbling in another role, that means they are less effective at their primary role – resources (feats, powers, items, standard actions, etc.) are spent on the secondary role which means the primary role suffers.
I understand why people would want to build more versatile characters for LFR – you never know what kind of party you are going to be in so everyone tries to build their character as a jack of all trades. But, in general, I don’t think parties composed of cross-role characters are ideal.
I definitely agree with John – if your character does something wacky, be upfront with everyone about what your character’s real role and capabilities are. This is especially important during mustering and when everyone is deciding which role to play. There are certain things people expect you to be able to do when you say you are a striker, leader, defender, or controller.
* Yes, I know leaders do more than just heal, but we’ll just go with this as an example for a minute.
Lori Anderson WotC Freelancer, LFR author @LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author) NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author) QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author) EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author) ADCP5-2 The Best Defense (co-author) EPIC5-3 *Untitled* (co-author)
Gah. I've played at a number of tables that have had parties that were lopsided as all get out, and done fine. I've played at tables that were "balanced" and got TPKd.
It's not that important.
Let's take Grog, a Warlock|Arti. I muster as a striker, not a striker/leader. Because that per-encounter temp HP buffer goes on me. And I don't have Punishing Eye, I have frost sigil. Which I use on my weapon. My main "leading" capacity is a Warlock power I have ("you're a demon")
Yes, I may be doing it wrong. I don't care. It's my character, and he's a capable melee striker, if no ranger. He also happens to be as durable as your average defender and a very capable meatshield (not defender though. I've always, always, during mustering clairied that he's no defender).
If you want to build against type, I'm fine with that. I don't need to only line up with parties that balance perfectly. If you're a paladin who thinks he's a leader, sounds good to me. Do what you have fun doing. And hey, some of you were complaining that the mods are too easy anyway.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
One of my characters started out as a fighter who multi-ed into cleric, a lot, so I could be a group's backup leader or replacement under dire circumstances. Under an initial plan, he'd have had 3 encounter heals at 11th, plus 1 daily. But, I never found groups needed the heals (Perhaps nowadays I'd not have minded it, since MM3 has changed things up a bit), so I switched to multi-paladin and got better at defending (lots of multi-mark, Honored Foe, etc).
Too much better, to a certain extent. I quickly found I wasn't playing nice when grouped with a second defender... which was happening too much.
So, I took the extra resources and put them into damage, and now the warlord I often group with likes me better. Good enough for me. It does help that an awful lot more feat options came out since the PHB days, and Menacing Glare and even Kirre's Shout so Call of Challenge is no longer quite overwhelmingly better, and the mods got a bit harder too. Funny how the landscape changes.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
It must be that all the wizards I play with are riduculous bloodmage types (though that has recently been seriously nerfed). Instead of moving 3 monsters and slowing them, the monster each take 60+ damage. I would almost always take the latter.
Meh. Damage only matters when the creature is actually dead. It doesn't matter if a monster is at full HP or is at 1 HP when their turn comes up. If they are still alive and kicking, they're still as effective at "extremely hurt" than they were at the beginning of the combat when they were untouched. (And, in fact, many creatures become more nasty when they are bloodied.) It doesn't actually matter if I do 5 damage or 200 damage to a monster, unless that extra damage kills them before their turn. I would rather a controller make it so a monster cannot be effective on their turn than just do damage to them. If they are melee monsters, moving them and slowing them so that they cannot attack anyone in the party on their turn is extremely effective. If they are ranged monsters, moving them next to your defender so they have to provoke and/or can't attack the target they want and/or so they're in a position that the strikers can gut them is extremely effective. 60 damage only makes a difference this turn if they kill the monster this turn. Real controller effects, used wisely, can make a difference every turn. (My husband and I play a team of very controller-y controllers and they are extremely effective... The monsters can never do anything they want to do and we make it easy for the rest of the party to make mince-meat out of them.)
Also, people over-kill monsters all the time, sometimes by significant amounts. If a monster has 61 HP left, the controller does 60 damage to it, the 1-HP monster takes a turn and wrecks the party, and then the striker crits it for 65 damage, then the controller has completely wasted their attack and done nothing at all. I'd much rather if the controller had done something to hamper the monster so he didn't have free reign to position himself perfectly and do horrible things to the party.
As this is about roles within LFR, more damage quickly is what is important to get a paragon game done in a 4hr slot. The people I play with would generally consider a 4-round combat rather a grind. I agree that not all characters have to have a huge damage output, but if enough of them don't then grinds seem extremely likely and you will never finish a game within the alotted time.
I disagree that damage is always the key to finishing combat quickly. Let's say the controller does damage instead of immobilizing that melee guy in the corner. Since the controller didn't do enough damage to kill the guy, on his turn the monster walks up into the middle of the party and does a huge burst attack that does lots of damage and has lots of control effects. Now striker #1 is down and dying and striker #2 is a melee character who is prone and immobilized away from any monsters. Because the controller choose to do damage instead of controlling the monster in a way to make the monster ineffective, now both of the party's strikers are ineffective. Two striker attacks will be much better than one damaging controller attack. Also, the leader probably spends their turn healing the dying striker and giving saves to everyone when otherwise maybe they could have given the party a big buff to damage or extra attacks. The defender might be less effective now too because the monster is in the middle of everyone now and it's harder to defend against burst/blast attacks. But if the controller had immobilized the melee BBEG in the corner then the defender would have been able to protect the party better.
I think people have a negative view of controllers doing control powers because many people play controllers ineffectively. Immobilize the ranged monster way in the back that wasn't planning on moving anyway? Useless. Slow the melee monster who is already standing next to his desired target? Useless. Slide the charging monster from one square he can charge from to another square he can charge from? Useless. Knock the ranged monster prone so now all your ranged allies have -2 to attack it? Useless. Make a monster grant combat advantage when the rogue is already flanking? Useless. Daze a monster that is already dazed? Useless. Put up a zone that ends up hampering the party more than the monsters? Worse than useless. Controllers are difficult to play well. I have seen players do all of these things. Yes, I'd rather have a controller just do damage than do something completely useless or something that harms the party more than it helps them. But what I'd really prefer is a controller who is effective at controlling the battlefield and hampering the enemies so that everyone else can do their job.
A good, balanced party where everyone is performing their role can finish paragon games in a 4hr slot even though not everyone is doing decent damage. As far as grinds go... A fight feels much more grindy to me if my melee striker is spending the entire combat prone/immobilized/slowed/whatever because the rest of the party isn't performing their own roles wells. There's a ripple effect to everything. If the controller, leader, and defender are doing damage instead of focusing on their roles, then the whole party works less effectively and also slower. This is even more true in paragon tier where monsters have a lot more tricks and impose a lot more status effects. Doing things to protect the strikers and your other allies from status effects can make the combat go faster because now they can have useful, effective turns.
Lori Anderson WotC Freelancer, LFR author @LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author) NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author) QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author) EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author) ADCP5-2 The Best Defense (co-author) EPIC5-3 *Untitled* (co-author)
I would say such situations as you suggest are few and far between in LFR. More often the leader is asking "anyone need healing?" "nope" "anyone need a save?" "nope" "Well a guess I just use my at-will and do a pittance of damage. Remind me why I am here again..."
I would say such situations as you suggest are few and far between in LFR. More often the leader is asking "anyone need healing?" "nope" "anyone need a save?" "nope" "Well a guess I just use my at-will and do a pittance of damage. Remind me why I am here again..."
And now we have returned full circle to the original topic of this thread. (You quoted me almost exactly from my very first or second post in the thread.)
Leaders generally don't work too well in LFR because the typical LFR game has a random group of players thrown together. It's not really possible to build a leader that is universally effective in every party composition. Since the party composition will be constantly changing, it's also not possible to tailor a leader to the needs of a specific party.
Part of the problem is that LFR players typically build versatile, self-sufficient characters that don't need to rely on other party members. This is probably a smart move since you don't actually know what party you will be in... But it does make leaders generally feel pretty useless in LFR.
I guess my bigger frustration is that I enjoy party synergy and people performing their roles and working together as a well-oiled machine... But that's just not possible with LFR and the random party compositions. Which is unfortunate, but I suppose there's nothing anyone can do about it (other than playing LFR as if it were a home campaign with the same group of players all the time).
Lori Anderson WotC Freelancer, LFR author @LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author) NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author) QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author) EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author) ADCP5-2 The Best Defense (co-author) EPIC5-3 *Untitled* (co-author)
Healing abilities are a primary function of leaders. If you tell me that you are a leader and you do not heal (or do something filling the exact same role, like the CON artificer), you are deceiving me. I've played both Charisma paladins and Lifeblood wardens - they look like leaders and can do so for an encounter as I described earlier, but they are not leaders.
I think it is about being honest about your capabilities. If you do another role other than your class, let people know that. If you don't do part of a role, let them know that too.
A Half-Elf Int/Wis Invoker who has Direct the Strike, Versatile Master, Bravura Leader, and Resourceful Leader and is a Flame of Hope is in many ways a Leader - he grants +Int to hit on his targets when he spends an action point to the entire party, he grants BAs, and when people spend an action point, they do +7/11/15 damage per attack - a 12th level Resourceful Presence Warlord with a 21 Int only does +11 damage himself...)
Sure, he can't actually really heal, but in many ways, he's a top-tier Leader simply due to the +Int to all attacks - when multi-attacking strikers get +5 to hit, +16 damage...at say 14th...So if a player with such a character sat down and said, "I'm an Invoker who also happens to be a Leader, but I can't heal." - I'd be okay with that. If they said "I'm a Controller who is also a Leader." and then the party let a Leader go to another table on that basis, it would potentially be very annoying.
I would say such situations as you suggest are few and far between in LFR. More often the leader is asking "anyone need healing?" "nope" "anyone need a save?" "nope" "Well a guess I just use my at-will and do a pittance of damage. Remind me why I am here again..."
Get an at-will that does something other than damage. I often find my Ardent in that situation, and when I do, I pop a defence debuffer, or a 'stop-the-enemy-shifting' power whilst he's adjacent to a melee striker, or I've got a daily active that weakens people I stand next to, or a zone handing out massive defence bonuses... You should always have something useful to do, otherwise you're a poorly-built leader.
The one type that can really have trouble is the lazy build - if no-one else has any basic attacks worthy of note (unlikely, but possible) you're going to struggle a lot of the time. It's not a situation that's ever come up in my game.
(You quoted me almost exactly from my very first or second post in the thread.)
