I apologize if there is already a thread for this, but I went back three pages and didn't see one.
Short replies that don't reallye xplain your opinion are really not helpful to a discussion.
They should only do it when it makes sense, and in this case, this is one that makes sense.
Yup. The design philosophy seems to be: Make stuff that fits a concept, not stuff that fits an empty hole.
So, don't just feel the need to make a Leader/Controller because there isn't one, but if there is a concept that would work perfectly as a Leader/Controller then don't hold back.
The Berserker works perfectly as a Defender/Striker. It is well made, doesn't seem to overshadow classes of other roles (I'm glad they don't let you freely switch back and forth), and the concept makes sense.
Maybe you could tack this on to the Wrathful Runepriest as a feat?
Besides, the runepriest is fiddly enough as is.
You need to give something to the leader half, not just take away the striker half. And if you're using the signature powers of the leader to enter the leader-state, then you need to have something happen to the powers as well in order to have being a leader actually mean something. THPs, saving throws, or bonuses to defenses when you hit. Something. Runepriest has lots of good examples, but you do need to legitimately gain something that you didn't have before.
Otherwise, you're no more a leader than you were in striker mode, you just have expended your healing.
Just wondering what people's opinions are. With the Berserker being a Defender/Striker, does that mean we might see a Leader/Controller or Leader/Defender (A warlord subclass comes to mind here)?
The 'new direction' design philosophy is very much a sort of a 'we'll do whatever we want,' rather than a systematic aproach, so, no I don't think we'll see a lot more role-switching classes, just any old classes, PrCs or multiclasses that haven't already been done twice that might lend themselves to that kind of thing. A self-buffing Cleric Leader/Striker, for instance, might be in the offing someday. WotC balked at 'grid filling' classes by Source & Role (though, at this point, is has done so), and that was only 20 intersections of grid (not counting Shadow). Now that the new direction has implied that a subclass of any class could be of any role - or any two roles - the theoretical grid has expanded to something like 400. Talk about opening up design space. ;)
What would your favorite combination be or how do you see them pulling off a certain combo?
A dynamic I often see in successful (ie, fun, rather than frustrating) 4e combats is slow-open/quick-finish. The Berserker is perfect for this: he starts off as a Defender, limitting enemy options, and finishes a Striker, cutting down bloodied foes. I suppose anything-else/Striker would work in that context. Really, many existing builds and classes already work will in that context, 'secondary' strikers, leaders or controllers who set up combos to finish off enemies that become more dangerous when bloodied, that sort of thing.
Also, the Berserker works because it's a hard switch, it goes Defender->Striker and doesn't go back until the fight's over. Other concepts - a Wizard with both Controller & Leader spells, for instance - would be more problematic, unless there was some reason they couldn't switch back and forth.
I'm a bit skeptical of that actually, because once you've used your healing powers you're now 1) not a leader and 2) not a striker. The important part about the berserker, and why it's an awesome class, is that you get a full-bore shift from one role to the other without diminishment.
On the other hand, we do have a certain power on the Warlord (Marshal? Damnit marketing
) already that works the other way around - the more of your healing power you use, the more strikery the daily becomes. I could see a leader/striker working entirely on that principle: the harder you lead the more strikery you become. Although such a ramp-up class might be kind of sketchy in terms of high end optimization since it's so nova-focused.Anyway, I don't know if they'll make more classes like it, but the dynamicism of the berserker is really awesome.
WotC seems very aware of the popularity of strikers - if they do come out with more dual-role classes, you can bet that one half will always be striker. But I don't think its very likely to happen again.
Honestly I think a big reason for making Berserker dual role is because the people who want to play strikers vastly outnumber anyone else. Now a guy can play a defender and still get that ego-boosting Big Hit later on in the fight.
WotC seems very aware of the popularity of strikers - if they do come out with more dual-role classes, you can bet that one half will always be striker. But I don't think its very likely to happen again.
That's not just because of popularity, though. Really, what does a role switch to Controller mean, exactly? Contollerism is nebulous and fluffy on single-role classes, let alone dual-role.
Defender and striker have clear, defining attributes: higher AC, some form of mark punishment; lower AC, higher damage, no mark punishment. Leader and especially controller don't have those sort of defining attributes. Sure, every leader has a heal spell, but it's been quite well established that healing isn't what makes a leader good.
Defender/Striker works because of the abrupt turn off / turn on of the two parent roles. Other combinations will be significantly more difficult to execute.
On a side-note, I'd be a bit worried if this were a direction WotC takes 4E. Anything but x role/striker, or to a slightly lesser extent, x role/defender would be unusual to make them functional/balanced. Although, if WotC has something in the their dev table like a Warlock Controller/Striker that uses controlly powers against healthy creatures and switches to striking when targeting bloody creatures, I'd get hyped.
"Enemies in burst take 1d6+blah. Alliies in burst gain THP equal to the damage delt"
Flavor it as draining energy. (Sorta steps on the toes of an AOE cleric though)
A controller/leader could be easy. "Enemies in burst take 1d6+blah. Alliies in burst gain THP equal to the damage delt" Flavor it as draining energy. (Sorta steps on the toes of an AOE cleric though)
THP granting that powerful is likely to not exist.
and there are already more then a few wizard powers that do damage and grant temp HP.
hell, the new moon coven wizard encounter does exactly that, but without damage being used to determine THP.
Not having even taken a look at the berzerker, I will note that basic 4e design calls for any hybred class of any type to be at best equal, and preferably inferior to a pure class. If the bezerker is actually good as striker and defender, why do we have have both classes?
But it's not as good as a striker and as good as a defender at the same time.
And the reason you have classes like that is because it adds variety to the game. This isn't a competitive game where if something is 5% more powerful than something else then you never see anything else.
Not having even taken a look at the berzerker, I will note that basic 4e design calls for any hybred class of any type to be at best equal, and preferably inferior to a pure class. If the bezerker is actually good as striker and defender, why do we have have both classes?
The Berzerker is a defender only until it uses a primal attack power, then it loses all defender features and becomes a striker until the end of the encounter.
Not having even taken a look at the berzerker, I will note that basic 4e design calls for any hybred class of any type to be at best equal, and preferably inferior to a pure class. If the bezerker is actually good as striker and defender, why do we have have both classes?
But it's not as good as a striker and as good as a defender at the same time.
An insufficient defense. If we posit that there are times early in the encounter where the party needs a defender more than a striker, and that this changes later in the fight, our defender-striker berzerker becomes superior to solo classes that can't make that switch. So our multi-class must be an inferior defender and/or striker.
And the reason you have classes like that is because it adds variety to the game. This isn't a competitive game where if something is 5% more powerful than something else then you never see anything else.
5%... Thats a +1 to hit maybe, and we see loads of people searching hard for such an edge. We don't see everybody doing it in part because the math can be pretty hard, but D&D is a "competitive" game for our purposes here. You may not be going one on one, but you still want to be the party stud, not to mention wanting to have the edge vs the monster.
no idea but a leader defender that heals/buffs others when he gets hit might be fun. like you want to get hit...the 'sadist'?
You're thinking masochist (one who enjoys being hurt). A sadist is someone who enjoys dealing out pain to others (i.e. any Striker class).
I could see a divine class for such a dual role, maybe an Aescetic class. A priest who partakes in seemingly masochistic acts such as self-flogging or starving oneself. He takes damage and diverts enemy attacks to himself and channels it into some form of healing/buffing for his allies.
Not having even taken a look at the berzerker, I will note that basic 4e design calls for any hybred class of any type to be at best equal, and preferably inferior to a pure class. If the bezerker is actually good as striker and defender, why do we have have both classes?
But it's not as good as a striker and as good as a defender at the same time.
An insufficient defense. If we posit that there are times early in the encounter where the party needs a defender more than a striker, and that this changes later in the fight, our defender-striker berzerker becomes superior to solo classes that can't make that switch. So our multi-class must be an inferior defender and/or striker.
Except he can't match every situation. What if the boss calls for back up once he's bloodied and the berserker has gone striker mode? Even in a more 'normal' scenario, and enemy could realize the defender is no longer a defender, and just go for the squishies.
Meanwhile a fighter could do both roles at the same time to a rather effective degree.
It should be noted that you still have the same feat pool, so your feats either make you a better tank, a better striker, or just make you alittle better at each.
Not having even taken a look at the berzerker, I will note that basic 4e design calls for any hybred class of any type to be at best equal, and preferably inferior to a pure class. If the bezerker is actually good as striker and defender, why do we have have both classes?
The berserker is no better a defender than a Knight, and no better a striker than the regular Barbarian. Even if it does turn out to be as good as both, it's kept in line because it can't be both at once, and it can't switch back and forth (to be virtually both at once). It starts as a Defender, and switches irrevocably to Striker for the rest of the encounter. That's some interesting and potentially useful flexibility, but shouldn't be game-breaking.
Though, really, I agree that the description of 'being both Defender & Striker' raises some definite warning flags.
Not having even taken a look at the berzerker, I will note that basic 4e design calls for any hybred class of any type to be at best equal, and preferably inferior to a pure class. If the bezerker is actually good as striker and defender, why do we have have both classes?
Even if it does turn out to be as good as both, it's kept in line because it can't be both at once, and it can't switch back and forth (to be virtually both at once). It starts as a Defender, and switches irrevocably to Striker for the rest of the encounter.
That might balance it, if there is no pattern of a defender being more useful at first, but a striker being more useful later in the fight. Since I can't say with any certainity there is a time when either is better, moch less that a certain pattern is better, I'll have to let my betters decide that. But there is definitely cause to worry about game balance here.
Not having even taken a look at the berzerker, I will note that basic 4e design calls for any hybred class of any type to be at best equal, and preferably inferior to a pure class. If the bezerker is actually good as striker and defender, why do we have have both classes?
Even if it does turn out to be as good as both, it's kept in line because it can't be both at once, and it can't switch back and forth (to be virtually both at once). It starts as a Defender, and switches irrevocably to Striker for the rest of the encounter.
That might balance it, if there is no pattern of a defender being more useful at first, but a striker being more useful later in the fight.
There may certainly be circumstances - monsters that become more dangerous after being bloodied, for instance - where switching to striker to finish a fight faster could be advantageous. And, the class does have the option of going striker almost immediately, or staying a defender throughout a fight, if either role seems particularly needed under the circumstance. Though, staying Defender means avoiding the use of primal attack powers (and having no primal attack powers means not being able to go striker until bloodied).
But there is definitely cause to worry about game balance here.
Certainly. Though the berserker at least sticks to the 4e AEDU structure, so no source of imbalance, there. Also, the role-switching aspect is a source of interest, so at least we get something in return for any class balance we might give up in allowing it.
But it's not as good as a striker and as good as a defender at the same time.
And the reason you have classes like that is because it adds variety to the game. This isn't a competitive game where if something is 5% more powerful than something else then you never see anything else.
Well, certain feats are 5% better at making you hit stuff, and they're generally considered powerful enough that you never should see anything else before them by at least some people
+1 to hit does increase the chance that when you roll a d20 you hit, yes, but it does not increase your hit rate by 5%.
If you were hitting on an 11 before (50% hit rate), then +1 will increase that to hitting on a 10 (55%), which is a 10% increase in hit rate.
When I say 5%, I mean 5% in terms of things like DPR. People aren't going to cry foul when you play a 95 DPR striker instead of a 100 DPR striker. It's not going to make any difference in actual play, since most standards are designed to die in 3-4 at-will hits. A 5% increase in DPR doesn't actually do anything much of the time. A 5% increase in hit rate, on the other hand, does considerably more.
Math error.
I didn't see any math going on so I don't see how there could be a math error. "5% better at making you hit stuff" is actually syntactically nonsensical since it's a comparitive with no indirect object so that's quite an assumption you're making regarding its meaning
But it doesn't mean you hit 5% more often.
Correct