I'm curious what character types you think do well in this setting. With 3 combat encounters per adventure, it seems combat heavy. This is not a bad thing IMO. If this combat focus is true, then it seems that certain character types would be successful in this play setting.
In this setting, the ideal combat team would consist of a few high-AC defenders and high-damage melee strikers, a ranged striker, a warlord, and a dedicated healer. I haven't seen any rogues or wizards. I don't know if this is a problem with those character types within 4th edition generally, but I imagine that a deeper and more diverse range of skills would be successful in a long-term campaign.
So, please feel free to comment on party-building strategies for LFR, and what characters you bring every week to contribute to the team's success.
Keith
I concur with Keith; it's very helpful to have a balance across the four primary roles.
I like having 2 leaders in a party...not only do you usually not run out of healing that way, but the buffs that many leaders can provide are great. OTOH, I've seen that once you get above 2 leaders, combats tend to get to be grinds (I once played at a 5-PC table with four leaders and a striker)...you're never in danger of getting killed, but your damage output isn't that great (because you've got leaders instead of strikers or high-output defenders).
I think it's important to keep a balance between melee and ranged combatants, as well. If you have more than 2 or 3 ranged combatants, the ranged characters find that they're always having to shift away from enemies who've gotten into their faces.
And, I totally agree with Keith and controllers...my second LFR PC was a wizard, and I set her aside for about 6 months, not being terribly impressed with her. Then, I learned more about how to play a controller, and started playing her again. I retrained a few powers and feats as she leveled, and now she's 6th level, and a very strong contributor.
If you want two leaders, I suggest only one actual cleric (or strong healing class). Something like Warlord or a class that enables movement or other attacks by the team will be a great asset to play.
Keith
1 defender who can multi-mark well (multiple defenders tend to step on one anothers' toes)
1 ranged striker (not a warlock, unless he's a very effective build)
1 melee striker
1 tactical leader
1 healing leader
1 controller
If multiple prty members have healing on-hand, you can swap out the second leader for another controller or striker. I'm a big fan of 3 strikers - modules usually don't run lon with 3 strikers.
a) Pick a thing to be good at (but not necessarily optimized for, see b)
b) Pick a different thing to be at least competent at
So we see successful characters like
-High defenses fighter (primary thing: attract attacks and shrug them off) who also can lock down a battlefield and prevent enemy movement (secondary thing: control)
-Strength cleric who focuses on healing (primary thing: leader), who also throws out big [W] attacks in bursts and blasts (secondary thing: damage)
-High skills bard (primary thing: skill challenges) who also can heal and buff his allies (secondary thing: leader)
-Big damage barbarian (primary thing: single target damage) who also throws out prone and dazed conditions all the time (secondary thing: action denial)
and many more.
What seems to be less successful, or more precisely, successful less often (but occasionally very successful), are the hyper-optimized-for-one-thing specialists. The king of this is the Pacifist Cleric, a build I'm seeing more and more of and liking less and less. They are decked out for the super-heals, but can really do very little else. And what's worse is that they end up never healing anyone anyway, because their heals are so over-powered that even if a target is below 1/4 health a single Healing Word will waste a dozen HP of overhealing.
What seems to be less successful, or more precisely, successful less often (but occasionally very successful), are the hyper-optimized-for-one-thing specialists. The king of this is the Pacifist Cleric, a build I'm seeing more and more of and liking less and less. They are decked out for the super-heals, but can really do very little else. And what's worse is that they end up never healing anyone anyway, because their heals are so over-powered that even if a target is below 1/4 health a single Healing Word will waste a dozen HP of overhealing.
I guess it is all in the build. I run a Pacifist Cleric, but I don't think I am "hyper-"optimized, just optimized.
I mainly use Astral Seal with him for the lowered defenses, the free healing is just a bonus to making the enemy easier to hit. At third level, other than Healing Word, healer's Mercy and Astral Seal, he has little else in the way of healing powers. Bane and Command for encounters, and Moment of Glory for his daily. Sacred Flame and Divine Aid for granting saving throws. And the feat that grants allies within 5 squares a bonus to their death saving throws...
Yes, he can put out a lot of healing, but he is more than a one-trick pony.
The characters that I, as both a player and GM, dislike, are the hyper-generalists, who may have one stat at 16 or 17, but, in general, suck at most everything. They frequently contribute less than my Pacifist Cleric in combat, and don't have any skills that they are really good at, just a bunch that they are mediocre with. Sure, they can help, a little, in a skill challenge, but thei rmain use, even there, is to fill in because the party doesn't have anyone else who has more than a +2 in the skill involved.
On the originial topic, however, one thing to keep in mind, especially when you have a regular play group, is looking for synergy between characters.
This past Saturday I was playing with a group, and running my relatively new Elf Watcher Shaman, and there was a lot of synergy provided between my Claws of the Eagle, the Cleric's Astral Seal, and the Paladin's melee basic attack. -2 to all defenses, combat advantage all the way around the board, and a melee basic that had a good chance of hitting made for a happy Rogue, and an unhappy solo/elite.
The most successful characters in my neighbourhood are ones that:
a) Pick a thing to be good at (but not necessarily optimized for, see b)
b) Pick a different thing to be at least competent at
I more-or-less agree with this, but I think that the primary role should be a combat role, one of the following:
- Defender (controller-type): One who defends allies by restricting enemy options
- Defender (striker-type): One who defends allies by punishing enemies with damage
- Leader (healing-type): Focused on multiple, effective healing options
- Leader (buff-type): Focused on increasing party effectiveness
- Striker (ranged)
- Striker (melee)
- Controller (AoE): Uses mass damage and/or terrain effects to restrict enemy options
- Controller (Debuff): Uses typically single-target powers to make enemies ineffective
A secondary role can be any of the above plus skill-monkeys:
- Generalist (good at many useful skills)
- Perception (maximized for the most critical skill in LFR)
- Social (Strong at two of the following: diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, insight)
- Physical (Acrobatics, Endurance, Athletics)
- Knowledge (Nature, Arcana, History, Religion, Dungeoneering)
I personally think that having both a primary and secondary role of the same "type" can be just fine, e.g. a controller with both types of power, or a leader with a strong set of both healing and buffing powers and feats to enhance them. But too many players try to do too much, trying to cover three or more roles and being only mediocre at all of them.
Pick one role that 3 of the characters will not cover as their primary role.
Last 2-3 characters are hybrids of that role and some other role.
Example:
Fighter
Wizard
Barbarian
Str|Wis Cleric|Warden - provides off-defender to pull off an opponent off the Fighter without stopping the build from using Righteous Brand.
Dex/Cha Archer Ranger|Bard - really straightforward Ranger who provides something extra
Since you play with random people a good amount, my suggestions on this is -
*Try and take at least one social and one physical skill during character creation.
*It's better to train a skill up that you have no modifiers then a skill you have lots of modifiers in.
This gives you a broader range of skills that you have a greater chance of success on. Instead of just a few skills you're super good at.
*Utility powers that grant skill ability changes can some times be more usefull then the powers that can help deal damage..
* Conditions like daze and blind are not particular common at heroic level, but they become increasingly common the higher level the character becomes. Always invest in items and utility powers that help against conditions.
*It's better to train a skill up that you have no modifiers then a skill you have lots of modifiers in.
This gives you a broader range of skills that you have a greater chance of success on. Instead of just a few skills you're super good at.
I think that's strongly dependent on what everyone around you plays. In order for that to be useful, the following has to be true:
There are numerous stats that no one starts off with at least a 16 in. So an area where people really like starting values of 20s makes this more likely - someone who has an 18 in a secondary stat who levels it to 20 at level 8 is going to be just as good as someone who starts with a 10 and gains training. In a place where someone starts off with a 20, a 15, and a 13, there'll be a lot more chances that this works.
There are classes that are popular that don't have the usual skills for the roles and no replacement classes pop up. As an example, combine Str/Int Tactical Warlord + Str/Con Fighter + Int/Con Wizard + Str/Dex Rogue + Str/Con Barbarian. That party has both Wis and Cha as problem skill areas. Reasonably balanced in combat, but likely to miserably fail skill challenges - both the Str/Con Fighter and Barbarian should strongly consider taking things outside their areas of expertise...
People keep boosting the same skills rather than have a range of choices. In other words, an area where all non-Wisdom characters try to take Perception over say Nature and there are few characters with decent Wisdom for whatever reasons.
I'm curious what character types you think do well in this setting. With 3 combat encounters per adventure, it seems combat heavy. This is not a bad thing IMO. If this combat focus is true, then it seems that certain character types would be successful in this play setting.
Well, most players seem to find the challenge level to be fine or easy, so you don't necessarily need to be super-effective for LFR. There will be some difficult adventures, but most of them are obvious (Specials, Interactives, anything concluding a major quest). Parties that are not optimal can still do well in difficult adventures, or at least complete them (since you can do things like run away - seldom is an adventure going to force you into a TPK).
Three combat encounters isn't necessarily better than two. The adventure will still use the same XP budget, but will spread it over three OR it will have more or fewer skill challenges. An adventure with two combats could have two really hard combats or it might have two normal combats and some difficult skill challenges. Focusing a PC for one scenario over the other is not something I would recommend. In general, the biggest effect you can plan for is that you will have at least two combats and only seldom four or more. Thus, you can pace Action Point usage and dailies that way. But, be wary of not using dailies. The first fight can often be very difficult when players hold back on dailies... but that might be the highest XP fight, right up front, or just plain the harder fight!
In this setting, the ideal combat team would consist of a few high-AC defenders and high-damage melee strikers, a ranged striker, a warlord, and a dedicated healer. I haven't seen any rogues or wizards. I don't know if this is a problem with those character types within 4th edition generally, but I imagine that a deeper and more diverse range of skills would be successful in a long-term campaign.
There are few universal truths, but there are some. It is easier to do well in LFR if you have at least one good defender (sticky, high defenses). It is easier to do well if you have at least one ranged combatant (preferably a strong ranged striker, such as an archer ranger or sorcerer, and having half the party be ranged is often better than having fewer be ranged as you get to ignore terrain somewhat). It is increasingly useful to have skills that are common to traps or trap-like situations (Thievery, Dungeoneering, Arcana, Nature). It is important to be able to have movement options, such as forced movement for multiple allies or shifts/teleportation for getting vulnerable allies out of the way. Control becomes very effective around paragon. Healing is important for some adventures. In those adventures you want one strong healer but you generally want their healing to also come with something else (tactical, preventative, movement, etc.) so that it isn't just about HPs. The negative comments about Pacifist Healers generally come because the build is often really focused on HPs but provides little damage or damage-enhancing or tactical output as compared to other leaders. (Thought it can be great, truly.)
So, please feel free to comment on party-building strategies for LFR, and what characters you bring every week to contribute to the team's success.
If building a single PC that will insert themselves into random groups, I generally try to have a primary and secondary area, as was mentioned, with the primary one that is applicable to my role. If I'm a leader, other than a Tactical Warlord or similar iconic buffer, I want to make sure I cover healing. If I'm a striker (outside of some warlocks) I need to address damage. I then try to boost my good skills so I will be a strong contributor when those situations come up. I try to be effective, but with the reality that I have plenty of breathing room for RP choices because LFR is not that hard.
If building a team from scratch, you can really be effective. You can plan for all sorts of synergies. Take a look at the ranged-focused shaman in Primal Power or the new ranged Warlord in MP2 for ideas of what could be done to enhance two ranged strikers (or another role with a strong ranged basic, such as a controler). I recently ran a great table of dwarves that all had Rings of Sympathy, so they were constantly chain-saving by making a save, activating the property to grant someone else a save. The daily on the ring just made it all the stronger. But, aside from such high thinking, just making a table of all the skills and making sure each one is covered will be really effective for skill challenges. You can also work on covering roles.
One issue worth noting is that some classes do not duplicate well. Two warlocks can be an issue (low damage, curse issues unless they both take a feat). Two bards can be an issue (certainly three would be rough). These tables can still triumph, but it is not ideal.
I will also advise to build a character that mimicks the way you play the game. For instance, if you are very aggressive, then a charging barbarian might fit well with you. Many times I have seen a player play a character that does not fit them personality wise because another player rocked with that kind of character but their performance is below standard.
As stated earlier, LFR is not designed to be hard, in fact it is rather easy so basically anything you come up with will be ok. However, you do have the responsibility to know your powers of the character and able to apply those powers and features in various situations.
For example damage oriented rogues work really well with super sticky fighters that can prone the baddies.
My particular favorite for LFR is the Ranger which just does a broken amount of damage. I happen to prefer a Melee Ranger, but Ranged Rangers do well also. If you pair a Melee Ranger up with a Leader that can give out surge-less healing that's an excellent combo. If you prefer Ranged, then you may even pair them with a controller that prevents anything from getting near you.
Definitely work on synergizing the pair of characters together, and I think everything else will fall into place.
Yes, working together as a pair in that way makes perfect sense, and is something I hadn't exactly thought about. We can be our own combat duo. Great suggestion.
Something to consider doing is to do 2 hybrids who both share one role and then do separate other roles. As an example, if you both play Leaders and then one of you picks a Striker and the other person a Defender, you'll make almost any table function - yet at the same time, you're not like the hybrid leader all by yourself who doesn't actually provide a full-blown Leader function.
So as an example:
Drow Archer Ranger|Bard
Longtooth Shifter Warden|Warlord who takes Warden's Armored Might as the Hybrid Talent feat - with 18 Str/Wis, you should have a 19 AC at 1st level with Hide/Heavy Shield.
i.e. any party you go to, you'll have 1 solid leader, you'll be able to provide striker damage, and your Warlord can mark a target, has defender level AC...And Intuitive Strike works really really amazing well with a Drow Archer...
The best part is that no matter the group, the barbarian keeps doing its thing, but the warlord can buff up a good party in addition to just the barbarian.
It is wise to have a party that is balanced amongst the 4 roles. While many players avoided controllers at first, I think as they advance into paragon tier adventures, they will find that controllers are very useful.
Keith
I'd have to disagree with you, Keith, based on my experience playing recent LFR adventures. Some recent adventures (I'm looking at you, Battle Interactive) have emphasized DPR (or DPS) over anything else. Being able to lock down the battlefield is secondary to putting the monsters down. (I played the BI as a 14th-level wizard and very nearly walked away from the table.)
The teams that I've seen do better in recent adventures have been very striker-heavy. (As in one defender, maybe one leader, and the rest strikers in a mix of melee and ranged.) The more synergy, the better.
I'd have to disagree with you, Keith, based on my experience playing recent LFR adventures. Some recent adventures (I'm looking at you, Battle Interactive) have emphasized DPR (or DPS) over anything else. Being able to lock down the battlefield is secondary to putting the monsters down. (I played the BI as a 14th-level wizard and very nearly walked away from the table.)
I've seen people say this, but it confuses me. The first encounter is all about mobility -- being able to daze, slow, or immobilize the monsters is a huge deal. The second encounter becomes significantly easier if you can evade the ground troops. Not to mention the advantage gained if you can move the archers off the wall.
I'd say the last encounter rewards control as well. One path to success is killing all the monsters quickly, but there's also value in restricting their ability to get to a certain target.
Either way, in a closely timed fight, if you can't resolve your turns quickly, and win the fight quickly, then you may feel left out in the cold. Personally, I find damage is very important, but I'm always happy to have a variety of control effects around too.
I'd have to disagree with you, Keith, based on my experience playing recent LFR adventures. Some recent adventures (I'm looking at you, Battle Interactive) have emphasized DPR (or DPS) over anything else. Being able to lock down the battlefield is secondary to putting the monsters down. (I played the BI as a 14th-level wizard and very nearly walked away from the table.)
And yet, the Paragon table of the BI I ran, in which there were controllers with some very nasty area affects were also successful.
I suspect that if the party isn't balanced, ie has damage output, mob control as well as healing, it will not do well. However, as with many things, a good defense is equivalent to a good offense, so parties that focus on offense (damage) will also do well. I've said it before, damage output by PCs in 4E can wreck the game. That's not the only way that you can wreck the game, but it is the most common because it is frakkin' -easy- to do (WotC, I'm looking at/blaming -you-).
And in a timed environment, with the goal being "kill stuff", yeah, DPR is going to win. Does it make the mods bad? Probably not. But then at your BI you should have been warned "This mod is all about combat, all the time. If you're not interested, go play something else." Perhaps the next BI will feature goals such as "hold/capture the flag", or "capture prisoners" or "prevent X" (incidentally, the BI did include at least one such encounter). Such goals might see strikers and DPR'ers less useful and controllers and defenders that can make things "stick" more so. *shrug*
This was not a problem with players taking too long to deliberate their actions. The problem was that DPS was the benchmark for success, so every non-striker potentially detracts from the success level of the team. Had I known *that* going in, I might have done something else.
I'm trying to think of which encounter you're talking about, tirianmal. I recall only two encounters which differed significantly from the standard DPS-meter.
Without throwing out too many spoilers, one was the last encounter in which, in retrospect, I should have stood up and interrupted the coordinator's flavor text, since half the premise of the encounter requires forcing the characters to be surprised into inaction, and my character took the Divine Oracle PP.
The other was the "ritual casting" encounter, which brings out another host of problems I had with the mod--regardless of what they say, it's another DPS-meter. Even though I was good at the minion-kill portion (with my at-will AoEs), I found it insulting to be relegated--as a Paragon-level arcane caster--to playing bodyguard to the "competent" ritual caster.
The other was the "ritual casting" encounter, which brings out another host of problems I had with the mod--regardless of what they say, it's another DPS-meter. Even though I was good at the minion-kill portion (with my at-will AoEs), I found it insulting to be relegated--as a Paragon-level arcane caster--to playing bodyguard to the "competent" ritual caster.
Wow. I just don't get this. Even the most competent folks in the world are just sometimes the wrong person to be doing X. Either because they aren't the experts or even most knowledgeable at something. Even a Nobel Prize winning Biologist isn't going to be the right person to perform open heart surgery.
Just because you're a Paragon PC, doesn't make you THE go to girl/guy for everything. Just, no.
If you feel insulted by that, if you feel like the spot light can and should only be on your PC (and I'm not saying it wasn't in this challenge) then ... *shrug* sorry, you're not playing the same game I am.
The other was the "ritual casting" encounter, which brings out another host of problems I had with the mod--regardless of what they say, it's another DPS-meter. Even though I was good at the minion-kill portion (with my at-will AoEs), I found it insulting to be relegated--as a Paragon-level arcane caster--to playing bodyguard to the "competent" ritual caster.
I absolutely disagree with this on a couple levels. First, no fight against only minions can be described as a "DPS-meter" - your ability to succeed at eliminating foes depends purely on your ability to damage multiple targets, something that shows a relatively strong preference for controllers.
Also, I didn't get the impression that the PCs were "playing bodyguard to the 'competent' ritual caster". I viewed it as an optimization of resources. The PCs were capable of defending the other casters, where the other casters were only able to cast the ritual. As a result, the PCs needed to do the defending, even if their ability to cast the ritual was superior to that of the NPC (not to mention that in order to succeed at the encounter, the PCs are required to assist the ritual caster).
The other was the "ritual casting" encounter, which brings out another host of problems I had with the mod--regardless of what they say, it's another DPS-meter. Even though I was good at the minion-kill portion (with my at-will AoEs), I found it insulting to be relegated--as a Paragon-level arcane caster--to playing bodyguard to the "competent" ritual caster.
Wow. I just don't get this. Even the most competent folks in the world are just sometimes the wrong person to be doing X. Either because they aren't the experts or even most knowledgeable at something. Even a Nobel Prize winning Biologist isn't going to be the right person to perform open heart surgery.
Just because you're a Paragon PC, doesn't make you THE go to girl/guy for everything. Just, no.
If you feel insulted by that, if you feel like the spot light can and should only be on your PC (and I'm not saying it wasn't in this challenge) then ... *shrug* sorry, you're not playing the same game I am.
I can agree with the first point, and it's true that I'm not the go-to guy for everything. However, when we help the caster complete the ritual in three rounds and then have to stand around defending him for another seven rounds for no other reason, I have a problem with that. And that's exactly what happened at my table.
We could provide endless examples, but the net effect is to keep the PCs out of unwanted danger, to ruin the tactics of the monsters, and to enable the defeat of the monsters. In my tables of P2, this worked really well. When you do control well, it frees PCs up to set the tone rather than having to react. Conditions can really make it favorable on PCs... combat advantage (whether by daze or prone or stronger) can let blows hit. Attack penalties on a monster attack that would stun, daze, or immobilize can be huge. Forced movement can turn a combat around.
I would not classify the BI as favoring striker damage more than regular play (which, itself, does favor striker damage - the best control is death). The BI seemed, to me, to have plenty for all the roles. If anything, the encounter variety meant more for every role.
I have no problem with the BI being mostly combat. The problem I have (at least, the one that's relevant...there were others) is that after the real-time limit (and I realize those are necessary to keep it in the allotted time slot), the coordinators and GMs met. The only question seemed to be, "How many did they kill?". And because we hadn't killed everything by that time--even though it was clear in every encounter that the monster were going to lose--my table was consistently hosed.
I agree that more victory conditions would have been great. However, there was more being tracked than just kills. Kills were one of several things being tracked for encounters. It is a good indicator of success, but in most encounters it was topped by a different objective (wall view, NPC survival, etc.).
This was not a problem with players taking too long to deliberate their actions. The problem was that DPS was the benchmark for success, so every non-striker potentially detracts from the success level of the team. Had I known *that* going in, I might have done something else.
Again, I disagree. I do so on two grounds. First, the encounters as written and as scored at D&DXP are predominantly about something other than destroying foes, but then include destroying foes as a secondary measure. The caster example is perfect - you could let the waves hit and still keep the caster alive and win. The second combat is another - you could reach the wall and accomplish the main objective. In general, it makes sense for killing foes to matter - this is a big battle... seeing what is going on across the wall is of paramount importance, but you won't have succeeded if you left tons of monsters on top of it!
Second, while killing foes quickly is always fantastic, there were a lot of situations where all roles could shine. My tables would have done very poorly without a leader. They would have done poorly without flexible PCs that had great movement capabilities, clever utilities to change the tide of battle, and great defensive and tanking capabilities. I would look forward to playing ADCP2-1 with any of my PCs (I have all roles except a defender). While I did well with my striker, it was in no way due to my ability to inflict traditional measures of DPS. In fact, my controller side is what was really helpful... and even my defensive abilities.
Without throwing out too many spoilers, one was the last encounter in which, in retrospect, I should have stood up and interrupted the coordinator's flavor text, since half the premise of the encounter requires forcing the characters to be surprised into inaction, and my character took the Divine Oracle PP.
Didn't happen at my tables at D&DXP.
The other was the "ritual casting" encounter, which brings out another host of problems I had with the mod--regardless of what they say, it's another DPS-meter. Even though I was good at the minion-kill portion (with my at-will AoEs), I found it insulting to be relegated--as a Paragon-level arcane caster--to playing bodyguard to the "competent" ritual caster.
This is the perfect example of where DPS did not matter in any way at all. A PC with an optimized single-target at-will was no better off than a PC making an acrobatics check! It is also a perfect example of one of the definitions of control (AoE) making a huge difference!
The other was the "ritual casting" encounter, which brings out another host of problems I had with the mod--regardless of what they say, it's another DPS-meter. Even though I was good at the minion-kill portion (with my at-will AoEs), I found it insulting to be relegated--as a Paragon-level arcane caster--to playing bodyguard to the "competent" ritual caster.
Wow. I just don't get this. Even the most competent folks in the world are just sometimes the wrong person to be doing X. Either because they aren't the experts or even most knowledgeable at something. Even a Nobel Prize winning Biologist isn't going to be the right person to perform open heart surgery.
Just because you're a Paragon PC, doesn't make you THE go to girl/guy for everything. Just, no.
If you feel insulted by that, if you feel like the spot light can and should only be on your PC (and I'm not saying it wasn't in this challenge) then ... *shrug* sorry, you're not playing the same game I am.
I can agree with the first point, and it's true that I'm not the go-to guy for everything. However, when we help the caster complete the ritual in three rounds and then have to stand around defending him for another seven rounds for no other reason, I have a problem with that. And that's exactly what happened at my table.
On the other hand, part of the point of this is that the PCs are the heroes, even if there are 250 of them assembled. As in a lot of dramatic fiction, the main characters--those are the PCs, not the NPCs--are the go-to people for a lot of stuff. We (or at least I) play these games in part to develop a heroic character.
My BI experience was an 8-hour reminder that I was not playing the right character for the job, which invoked a feeling of being dead weight and decidedly unheroic.
Fortunately for the whole experience, apparently my table was the only table where this feeling manifest. If that's truly the case, my apologies for raining on the parade.
But the lesson I learned from the BI is that I would not play it again with anything other than a striker.
I have no problem with the BI being mostly combat. The problem I have (at least, the one that's relevant...there were others) is that after the real-time limit (and I realize those are necessary to keep it in the allotted time slot), the coordinators and GMs met. The only question seemed to be, "How many did they kill?". And because we hadn't killed everything by that time--even though it was clear in every encounter that the monster were going to lose--my table was consistently hosed.
I agree that more victory conditions would have been great. However, there was more being tracked than just kills. Kills were one of several things being tracked for encounters. It is a good indicator of success, but in most encounters it was topped by a different objective (wall view, NPC survival, etc.).
It would have been nice to know that at the time, but it was in no way clear. Every indication we got from our DM was that he was only asked about kills.
Without throwing out too many spoilers, one was the last encounter in which, in retrospect, I should have stood up and interrupted the coordinator's flavor text, since half the premise of the encounter requires forcing the characters to be surprised into inaction, and my character took the Divine Oracle PP.
Didn't happen at my tables at D&DXP.
It happened at every table at DDXP. What happened in the flavor text before you even got to roll initiative? Sounded to me like, at the very least, a surprise round sneak attack. That doesn't even count the pre-initiative corral-and-burn some tables complained about--thank God our DM at least didn't hose us that way.
But I'll take responsibility for not playing my character correctly in that one very public instance.
Without throwing out too many spoilers, one was the last encounter in which, in retrospect, I should have stood up and interrupted the coordinator's flavor text, since half the premise of the encounter requires forcing the characters to be surprised into inaction, and my character took the Divine Oracle PP.
Didn't happen at my tables at D&DXP.
It happened at every table at DDXP. What happened in the flavor text before you even got to roll initiative? Sounded to me like, at the very least, a surprise round sneak attack. That doesn't even count the pre-initiative corral-and-burn some tables complained about--thank God our DM at least didn't hose us that way.
I don't see anything in the adventure text that suggests foes get a surprise round, nor do I recall playing through one or running one. I do recall things happening to NPCs and foes appearing (gaining position), but that's all. I don't find it surprising that foes get to be on the map. I also don't find it at all strange to have PCs in the center given what was happening (the dinner). But, maybe I'm just not recalling or I'm missing something?
Surprise rounds are rather uncommon in 4E. R&D has asked LFR authors to remove ambush situations from the adventure if it happened more than once in an adventure. In most fights neither side is supposed to be surprised. High perception is mostly useful to spot the traps and during a fight the lurkers.
In case of the BI there is only one fight were "surprise" even matters, and that is about harming/wounding a NPC to tell a story than anything else. The PCs themselves are not the target of the "surprise" action. The fact that we were dealing with 28 tables also make it incredible hard to adapt the scene on the fly based on one PC's abilities (especially considering the huge time pressure we were on on Friday). Besides the story aspect to that scene, I really wonder how a character would react before that event. Attacking the powerful important NPC before he can trigger the fight is not going make your character happy and that is assuming the character somehow even knows exactly what is about to happen.
Surprise rounds are rather uncommon in 4E. R&D has asked LFR authors to remove ambush situations from the adventure if it happened more than once in an adventure. In most fights neither side is supposed to be surprised. High perception is mostly useful to spot the traps and during a fight the lurkers.
In case of the BI there is only one fight were "surprise" even matters, and that is about harming/wounding a NPC to tell a story than anything else. The PCs themselves are not the target of the "surprise" action. The fact that we were dealing with 28 tables also make it incredible hard to adapt the scene on the fly based on one PC's abilities (especially considering the huge time pressure we were on on Friday). Besides the story aspect to that scene, I really wonder how a character would react before that event. Attacking the powerful important NPC before he can trigger the fight is not going make your character happy and that is assuming the character somehow even knows exactly what is about to happen.
This is the part I'm talking about. And that we were dealing with many tables was the main reason I didn't interrupt the flavor text during the game, even though I otherwise might have. But being able to save the guy from being backstabbed might have helped me feel like I were actually contributing, even if the villains later killed him.
And the assumption that the character at least has an idea of what's going to happen is exactly the point of the Foresight feature of the Divine Oracle PP.
And the assumption that the character at least has an idea of what's going to happen is exactly the point of the Foresight feature of the Divine Oracle PP.
He knows something bad is about to happen, not necessarily what. It can also be argued that since in this case the bad thing does not effect the DO his foresight ability is not triggered. There is a line somewhere (cannot remember whether it was in an actual book, Dragon or somewhere else though) about the number of targets that PCs can choose to be allies, something along the lines of there being no hard number, but that common sense should be applied with in mind that D&D is about small groups and not armies. Regardless, this is not the place to discuss what can and cannot be done in regards of the DO.
And the assumption that the character at least has an idea of what's going to happen is exactly the point of the Foresight feature of the Divine Oracle PP.
He knows something bad is about to happen, not necessarily what. It can also be argued that since in this case the bad thing does not effect the DO his foresight ability is not triggered. There is a line somewhere (cannot remember whether it was in an actual book, Dragon or somewhere else though) about the number of targets that PCs can choose to be allies, something along the lines of there being no hard number, but that common sense should be applied with in mind that D&D is about small groups and not armies. Regardless, this is not the place to discuss what can and cannot be done in regards of the DO.
Certainly, though, I can make the case that the main guy is an "ally", and he was certainly within range, given where we started on the map.
Anyway, lesson learned...
I hope you're still reading....I'm going to answer your originating post a bit differently. I've played more than my fair share of LFR (and even with some of the very repliers on this list) and I may disagree with much of what they have said.
1) In LFR, for the most part, you don't need a balanced party to succeed. There is no data or proof that exists that suggests a balanced party (all roles covered) will be any more successful and an unbalanced one (missing a defender, leader, or striker). In LFR, balance is optional. People recommend it because it seems safer, but that isn't necessarily true.
All of the following parties will have a wonderful time playing in most LFR mods:
4 strikers, 2 controllers
3 defenders, 3 strikers
2 defenders, 2 leaders, 2 controllers
6 strikers
5 defenders, 1 controller
3 leaders, 2 strikers, 1 controller
In fact, those combinations above are parties that I've played with in just last year. No TPKs (total party kills, no deaths). The only deaths I've seen in the last 18 months have been at "balanced" parties.
In short, all sorts of crazy combinations work just fine. Don't worry about 'balance'. It's a myth.
The key, and perhaps some of the true joy, will be figuring how to win based on party composition...maximize your strengths to win. You might find a lot of fun in that.
2) I, personally, am a roleplayer first, combat-munchkin second and my first wish for you and your wife is to play the exact character that you want to play, rather than what others think you should play. Find a concept in your head and play that...don't confine yourself to what others think is an ideal.
3) For the love of whatever god I pray to, toss out the concepts that tie a particular class to a particular role (defender, striker, leader, controller). Instead, play your character as your character and not as however you think others think your character should be played. Play a front line controller or battle alchemist or archer-bard or healer-invoker. If you dream it, you can do it.
3a) Whatever you decide to be and however you decide to play it, try to be good at it. Want to be a front line character, be it and play it whatever class you choose. Don't let anyone else place limitations on how you play...just do it well and have fun with it.
4) In LFR, you'll rarely have control of your party composition...you'll be playing at game stores or conventions or wherever. To be a good player at this game, one thing you'll need to master and accept is how to adjust your party to be effective when you don't have a leader/defender/whatever.
When you get your fighting feet beneath you, you'll be able to competently win most battles in most modules with little difficulty. As it stands now, the mods aren't very challenging...and they times that they are, you can just play a lower level.
If you're at a table with 5 strikers, maybe you take turns standing out in front while the rest of the party reduces enemy numbers quickly. With 4 controllers, maybe you isolate the monster groups the other 2 party members can gnaw on enemies on at a time.
There are millions of fun ways to 'win' this game...you don't need balance to enjoy them. In fact, I would argue that it's much more fun without 'balance'.
-Pain
We still consider it far safer to have a leader and a defender at a table, but we don't worry too much if they aren't there.
If you dream it, you can do it.
True, but experience is a factor here. I can make a concept like "melee Warlock" work now, but it sure would have been difficult in September 2008 for me to make it work (even if all of the options had been available).
I don't find myself in full agreement with Painlord, but I have noticed that parties without a leader tend to never end up needing one, while parties with a leader frequently do...only a personal observation, but it seems to play out at the tables in my area.
We still consider it far safer to have a leader and a defender at a table, but we don't worry too much if they aren't there.
This depends on the adventure. I think half of the recent adventures I have run (across several tiers) are extremely difficult without a leader.
The characters of my wife and I are both now Level 3. We're both strikers (her ranged, as a warlock; me, melee, as a barbarian). So, that pairing has worked well, and probably has helped out our groups a lot.
I'd agree that bringing a healer makes things really easy. So, leaders have helped. I think there's a solid base of 4 characters that I see as necessary: 1 melee striker, 1 ranged striker, 1 leader, and 1 defender. Anyway, that's what I'm seeing, based on our adventures to date.
I'm not sure every character would succeed in LFR. I had developed an elf ranger as my first character. I'm not sure I'd bring him to LFR; he seems squishy now. I'd want some tanks in front of me, that's for sure.
I certainly don't think that it's all strikers all the time. I do think that people should be conscious of their ability to do damage, no matter what their role. So my two defenders and two leaders can do plenty of damage. My controller is less good at damage, but I'm very happy with his actual control all the same.
This depends on the adventure. I think half of the recent adventures I have run (across several tiers) are extremely difficult without a leader.
I have to agree with this. Later adventure writers seem to have locked on better to how to challenge parties, and this often results in damage to PCs. Those that don't have healing will find themselves falling over a lot/too much.
SPECs and ADCPs ... I highly recommend not trying these without leaders. Again, possibly doable, but you risk TPK'edness.
Anchovy_Pizza--
I sometimes get a little sad when a newer player is introduced into this game and instead of reinforcing the concept of fun and how and to have it, they are pushed into 'balance' and you have to play XY or Z to make the party work.
It's not true and I don't believe it. (I'm not saying that you do or any of the previous posters here do either...just making a point.)
I think there is somethings we can agree on:
1) The point of LFR is to have fun.
2) Everyone's concept of fun is different.
That's not so radical.
What is radical, I suppose to some, is that balance really isn't necessary. You'll notice in the previous 3 responses above, Mr. Revenge, Mr. AlphaStream, and Mr. Egg, all don't really mind playing with a leader or a defender. They probably have in the past and probably will do so again in the future. Those experienced players will tell you that balance isn't mandatory or required. They may feel 'safer' to have a defender or leader, but I suspect that wouldn't stop them from playing most mods. I really, really doubt it.
Trust me, I've played this game as much as anybody, I've been to DDXP and I've played with the big boys at big tables and with new players at new tables...TPKs happen at balanced tables and happen at unbalanced tables. Player deaths happen at balanced tables and unbalanced tables. Every individual character brings a set of skills/powers/feats/magic into each mod...sometimes they will have the necessary tools to 'win' or they won't. Some encounters will be made easy because one character has power Y, while other tables will struggle through the same.
That's very rare though...I see very few TPKs or player deaths.
For me and the groups that I play in, the conventions I've attended, the mods are, for the most part, too easy and not challenging. In fact, there are plenty of posts and posters that bemoan that LFR is too easy in general for players.
When you really truly become experienced at this game, you'll see that what kills players or creates TPKs isn't caused by balance or lack thereof, but random things that you really don't have control of. You'll have bad luck or the Judge will roll hot. You'll have a leader but people will still die. It happens...it has nothing to do with balance. Or the presense of a defender or striker. Sometimes things happen.
If you want to play your elf ranger, play it. He'll be fine. You may take a few lumps as you learn to position and play him most effectively, but that's fine...it's part of the game. I find it absolutely silly that you may not play the character you want because you don't have a defender in front of you. Do your ranger thing and take down your foes quickly...that'll solve the problem. Or wait for the controller to provide some area control to protect your flank. Or concentrate fire with the other strikers to take down the nearest melee threat.
The only thing you can control is what you play and how you play it. Figure out how you want to have fun and do that. That's what you should be concentrating on.
-Pain
I sometimes get a little sad when a newer player is introduced into this game and instead of reinforcing the concept of fun and how and to have it, they are pushed into 'balance' and you have to play XY or Z to make the party work.
It's not true and I don't believe it. (I'm not saying that you do or any of the previous posters here do either...just making a point.)
I think there is somethings we can agree on:
1) The point of LFR is to have fun.
2) Everyone's concept of fun is different.
That's not so radical.
What is radical, I suppose to some, is that balance really isn't necessary. You'll notice in the previous 3 responses above, Mr. Revenge, Mr. AlphaStream, and Mr. Egg, all don't really mind playing with a leader or a defender. They probably have in the past and probably will do so again in the future. Those experienced players will tell you that balance isn't mandatory or required. They may feel 'safer' to have a defender or leader, but I suspect that wouldn't stop them from playing most mods. I really, really doubt it.
Trust me, I've played this game as much as anybody, I've been to DDXP and I've played with the big boys at big tables and with new players at new tables...TPKs happen at balanced tables and happen at unbalanced tables. Player deaths happen at balanced tables and unbalanced tables. Every individual character brings a set of skills/powers/feats/magic into each mod...sometimes they will have the necessary tools to 'win' or they won't. Some encounters will be made easy because one character has power Y, while other tables will struggle through the same.
That's very rare though...I see very few TPKs or player deaths.
For me and the groups that I play in, the conventions I've attended, the mods are, for the most part, too easy and not challenging. In fact, there are plenty of posts and posters that bemoan that LFR is too easy in general for players.
When you really truly become experienced at this game, you'll see that what kills players or creates TPKs isn't caused by balance or lack thereof, but random things that you really don't have control of. You'll have bad luck or the Judge will roll hot. You'll have a leader but people will still die. It happens...it has nothing to do with balance. Or the presense of a defender or striker. Sometimes things happen.
If you want to play your elf ranger, play it. He'll be fine. You may take a few lumps as you learn to position and play him most effectively, but that's fine...it's part of the game. I find it absolutely silly that you may not play the character you want because you don't have a defender in front of you. Do your ranger thing and take down your foes quickly...that'll solve the problem. Or wait for the controller to provide some area control to protect your flank. Or concentrate fire with the other strikers to take down the nearest melee threat.
The only thing you can control is what you play and how you play it. Figure out how you want to have fun and do that. That's what you should be concentrating on.
-Pain
This depends on the adventure. I think half of the recent adventures I have run (across several tiers) are extremely difficult without a leader.
I have to agree with this. Later adventure writers seem to have locked on better to how to challenge parties, and this often results in damage to PCs. Those that don't have healing will find themselves falling over a lot/too much.
SPECs and ADCPs ... I highly recommend not trying these without leaders. Again, possibly doable, but you risk TPK'edness.
I politely agree and disagree with you, Mr. tirianmal.
Truly, especially for ADCPs and Spec, there are TPKs and player deaths at a lot of tables...I bet most of them had leaders and healers. There is no guarantee that a leader is going to stop TPKs.
There are some really difficult fights out there, but some parties will breeze through them when others fail. Is it the presence of a leader or defender or striker or controller that allows for that? Nope...it's just that sometimes one character or another will have the key that makes things easier.
For instance, the notorious stairwell from Spec1-3 P1 is a breeze if you happen to be lucky enough to have the right party for it. Others will struggle for every step.
I do believe that every character and every class has access to healing (a healing strike, temp HP, laying on hands, or multiclassing for a healing effect) or healing-type effects from items (potions, healer's sash, etc.). I build my characters to have a bit of that. I think that's wise playing.
I wonder, tirianmal, if you would really balk at playing a mod when your party wasn't balanced. Suppose you sat down with 5 random strangers at a convention, and didn't know what they were playing. Suppose they were all competent, intelligent players....would you find a way to win and have fun?
I think you'd kick butt. And it wouldn't matter what people were playing.
I'd rather go into a mod where everyone is playing the character that they want to play than people feeling like they need to play X, Y, or Z class in the name of 'balance'. It's foolish.
-Pain
Truly, especially for ADCPs and Spec, there are TPKs and player deaths at a lot of tables...I bet most of them had leaders and healers. There is no guarantee that a leader is going to stop TPKs.
Again, presence or absence of leaders is not a transitive logic. Please folks, stop applying bad logic. Just because the presence of a leader failed to prevent a TPK at one of these tables does not argue for the absense of a leader having a similar non-effect. If anything, as healing goes down, harder mods get even harder. Sometimes much harder.
There are some really difficult fights out there, but some parties will breeze through them when others fail. Is it the presence of a leader or defender or striker or controller that allows for that? Nope...it's just that sometimes one character or another will have the key that makes things easier.
For instance, the notorious stairwell from Spec1-3 P1 is a breeze if you happen to be lucky enough to have the right party for it. Others will struggle for every step.
But one can say that of any module. If an all radiant party goes into one module they might cake walk it if there's a bunch of undead and radiant vulnerable enemies. But the same module with a party unable to do radiant damage might fall over dead.
However, the SPEC mods are in general tougher on the raw, measurable metric of XP budget. Plan accordingly. And that stairwell fight still gives me shudders. Now that I've played it, I'm sure I can bring a character that will deal with it better, but that's forewarning. You don't always get that.
I do believe that every character and every class has access to healing (a healing strike, temp HP, laying on hands, or multiclassing for a healing effect) or healing-type effects from items (potions, healer's sash, etc.). I build my characters to have a bit of that. I think that's wise playing.
First off, you're suggesting MCing ... effectively if someone is MC'd into a leader/healer class, then they are, for my purposes, a Leader. Albeit perhaps a less effective one.
So, sure, every character -might- be able to help a comrade. If your class doesn't have healing (rogues?), they can MC into classes that do, but not everyone will want to spend feats to do that, and if they haven't, and they find themselves in a party with no healing, what then? As for Potions and First Aid, etc: potions can't possibly be in the same class of healing as Leader-healing, as it takes so many actions to apply a potion to a downed comrate as to bind up one or more PCs in a combat. Applying a First Aid check, is likewise dangerous as it means that someone has to take a standard action. And potentially draw an OA.
I wonder, tirianmal, if you would really balk at playing a mod when your party wasn't balanced. Suppose you sat down with 5 random strangers at a convention, and didn't know what they were playing. Suppose they were all competent, intelligent players....would you find a way to win and have fun?
I think you'd kick butt. And it wouldn't matter what people were playing.
Yes, yes I would balk. And have. And by balanced I mean that I would look at the PCs we have and make a decision based on what I think the challenge is. I have in fact played a mod with 6 strikers. At level 1-4.
And it sucked. We survived (if you define such as kicking butt, so be it), but we really didn't like doing it. But had it been SPEC 1-3 H1? I would have said no thank you.
I'd rather go into a mod where everyone is playing the character that they want to play than people feeling like they need to play X, Y, or Z class in the name of 'balance'. It's foolish.
And that is -your- choice, but don't call me or mine foolish for not wanting to sit at a table for four hours and not have fun because we spend half the fights unconscious and struggling. Your fun != my fun. (edit, as you yourself have said)
You'll notice in the previous 3 responses above, Mr. Revenge, Mr. AlphaStream, and Mr. Egg, all don't really mind playing with a leader or a defender. They probably have in the past and probably will do so again in the future.
(Please, no Mr. for me. Teos, Alphastream, several appropriate insults, but no Mr. unless we are at work!)
I'm a big fan of leaders and controllers. I play mostly leaders and I really like how they work in 4E. I like enabling and I like tactical play. I would generally prefer to play a leader in any LFR, and the BI is no exception. I have not played a defender yet, for whatever reason, but a Battlemind is on deck.
now, I'll add to that that having the DPR makes the combats go faster, especially if your DM isn't always willing to call a fight. So a striker heavy configuration - with striker-like defenders/leaders/controllers is going to kill things FASTER, but not necessarily BETTER (or more reliably).
I can't emphasize enough the importance of teamwork - which many times means forgoing using the "awesome" power you've really wanted to try out (i'm looking at you, every wall in the game) and instead do the tactically optimal task of assisting an ally, or setting an ally up for something. Players that work together well are way better than individually optimized players that are simply occupying the same table - a huge change from 3rd edition.
So in answer to the original poster: the best thing to do is think about how (either in how you build or play your characters) they can work well TOGETHER (or at least avoid things that obviously impede each other). Know your obvious weaknesses - and think about how to deal with them, or what kinds of allies you'll need to cover them (or what things you might need your allies to do to cover for you).
Class does not necessarily equal role, but it's important to understand HOW you play your PC, and communicate that to the other players. There is an assumption that if you say "i'm a cleric" that you'll heal people when they need it. If you're NOT going to do that (you're a battle cleric, and you need those heals to keep yourself alive, or what have you) - TELL the other players that. Similarly, if you're a defender-class that typically plays a striker-role, communicate that so that the squishies aren't surprised when you run off and leave them exposed (or drop like a glass cannon in front of them).
I love my melee defender wizard, my melee striker/bard, my controller artificer, etc.
in conclusion - the stairwell in SPEC1-3/P1? Arcane Gate FTW baby!
I do find balance (at a strictly class role level) to be an overrated concept, but a party capable of many things is more likely to be successful than a party of more limited scope.
As a gameday coordinator, wrangling 6 tables per slot at a gameday, I do make a token effort at balancing tables. But I definitely don't break my back to do it (and I'll override balance to accomodate the 2-3 personality mismatches in the club - I'd rather have 2 leaders/no strikers at one table and 3 strikers/no leaders at the other than have people who don't get along at the same table). The dad can play with his two sons regardless of their PCs (luckily they play Defender/Striker/Controller, which they chose for the very purpose of playing together all the time).
Specifically for the example of two people who intend to play together with random other people, I stand by my suggestion to find ways for their characters to synergize together. This is the option I would personally find the most fun.
It is easier for beginners to build characters that perform in the role they are expected to fill. Of course it isn't impossible to go against expectations, it is just that success in such a case (if you measure success by the character's in-game mechanical contributions) is much less likely for someone with less experience.
I suggest that each time you make up a new pair of characters, build them each with the other in mind. For example, as it is now you have a melee striker and a ranged striker (a good 'damage combo' to bring to a table). Perhaps later you will want to play a defender, then a controller or a leader might be a good companion, etc. That way you will always have at least one well balanced pair at any table.
For success at an LFR table, I've found that the common trait of successful groups is that each player knows their character extremely well, and has arranged things so that they can contribute something to any situation. If everyone at the table knows their character well, and as a group they adjust their tactics, then most adventures go very well. I've played the 'all striker' and 'all leader' tables with equal enjoyment - it just took some very creative tactics, and some skilled players to make it work.
In theory you had two judges (for two tables). You invite one judge to play with the 3 other people, and send the 5 "friends" home.
And you think I'm kidding.
You know, there's another solution that hangs those 5 inflexible types out to dry.
In theory you had two judges (for two tables). You invite one judge to play with the 3 other people, and send the 5 "friends" home.
And you think I'm kidding.
Wow. I should have thought about that one at DDXP 2009 when, for SPEC1-2, we had a table of SIX unwilling to have anyone split off and a table of three that couldn't find a fourth player.
In the end, we found a released judge to fill the table of three. Interestingly, the table of four - all strikers - finished the adventure; the table of six - role-balanced - quit halfway through. Even when you have a "balanced" table, playing as a team is important...
You know, there's another solution that hangs those 5 inflexible types out to dry.
In theory you had two judges (for two tables). You invite one judge to play with the 3 other people, and send the 5 "friends" home.
And you think I'm kidding.
Wow. I should have thought about that one at DDXP 2009 when, for SPEC1-2, we had a table of SIX unwilling to have anyone split off and a table of three that couldn't find a fourth player.
In the end, we found a released judge to fill the table of three. Interestingly, the table of four - all strikers - finished the adventure; the table of six - role-balanced - quit halfway through. Even when you have a "balanced" table, playing as a team is important...
To be fair John, our table of four was only able to get to the end of encounter 9, we ran out of time before we could start the final fight =) We had 2 rangers and 2 rogues; 10 rogue, 9 ranger, 8 ranger 7 rogue. We played the game of "whoever on our team had highest initiative picks a target and we make it dead" then "whoever is next after the target dies picks a new one to make dead".
But if through revisionist history we want to say we finished that mod, I'm ok with it =) anyone who is familiar with it may realize we could have finished if we hadn't run out of time.
Although I hold some reservations on Ibixat surviving the last encounter, but thats just because I am the vindictive sort ..... well ok maybe not..
Its not as if I don't understand the sentiment of wanting to play with your friends, S.O., per or neighbor's cousin once removed, but when it causes 3 other people to have to sit out. Well lets just say my understanding tends to go out the window
I've played LFR a few times now, and it's helping me learn the 4th edition rules. I haven't played D&D for about 25 years, so I didn't have any strong notions of how this edition should play. It's also got my wife playing, so that's a plus. My groups (random players from week to week) and experiences have been positive and fun overall.
I'm curious what character types you think do well in this setting.
So far in my experience in LFR:
Needed in every mod I've played:
DPS (or DPR, damage dealer, striker whatever you can to call it.)
Perception
Diplomacy
Needed in at least half the mods I've played:
Leader (Healer)
Defender
Athletics
Insight
Stealth
Thievery
Needed in less than half the mods I've played:
Leader (Tactical)
Acrobatics, Arcana, History, Nature, Religion
Roles not needed in any mod I've played:
Controller
So the most effective, or at least needed roles/skills needed in LFR would be a healer/striker with a high Perception/Diplomacy skill. Perception is wisdom based and Diplomacy is charisma based. Samples classes that fills these roles are ranger and cleric.
Once those two roles are filled the rest of the party is pretty much a crap shoot of what you think the mod will need.
I guess the next criteria just as if not more important, is what kind of character do you have fun playing? I keep playing controllers even though about all they contribute is the odd ritual or skill challenge. No party I have played in has ever cared about locking down foes, creating choke-points or for that matter even focusing fire so his effectiveness is reduced considerably. But I have fun with him. It was funny that the only time he's been complimented is when he novaed and went striker for a round.
Needed in less than half the mods I've played:
*snip*Arcana*snip*
Really...maybe it depends on your definition of "needed", but, IME, Arcana shows up as a viable skill-challenge skill in most adventures I've played, and can be very useful (as can Nature) in IDing opponents, not to mention disarming magical traps and effects (though, admittedly, those appear in am minority of adventures).
I keep playing controllers even though about all they contribute is the odd ritual or skill challenge. No party I have played in has ever cared about locking down foes, creating choke-points or for that matter even focusing fire so his effectiveness is reduced considerably.
Sooo different from my experience. One of my characters is a wizard; I've focused my daily attack powers on those sort of lock-down spells (Phantom Chasm, Visions of Avarice, etc.), and my fellow players really seem to love it when those go off, as spells like those can really take "choice" out of the NPC's hands.
I wonder what levels he has played at, because the lack of a striker is most keenly felt at paragon and up (although even at heroic a well played striker can mean a big difference in a fight).
Fixed that for you.
(I have a 15th-level wizard whom I've not played in about six months, partly because he's been nerfed in almost every update in the last year, and partly because he's seen too many LFR mods that have been written specifically to render controllers ineffective.)
You haven't fixed anything*. It wasn't the point I wanted to make since I my personal experience (and from Kenobi's post I think I am not the only one) is that the other three roles are felt equally at all levels unlike the controller which tend to be more difficult to replace at paragon levels. A good controller can have an immense impact on how the battle goes. It is just that striking is a lot easier. A striker is also not nearly as dependend on others for their effectiveness as the controller, although a badly played striker can definitely cause a huge drain on the leader's resources.
Personally I strongly dislike multiple alpha-strike strikers at the table and that dislike is actually increasing with level. I hate it when a fight is over in two rounds (as a DM and from experience in various on-shots and the home campaign as a player), even more so when each striker takes 5 minutes to resolve their turn due to rolling multiple attacks and needing to add big numbers while the non-strikers just need 30 seconds. Controllers, and to a lesser extend leaders and defenders, need a couple of rounds to shine and I wonder whether the dislike for some of these roles is not because they roles are ineffective, but because the strikers can be too effective. The fact is that the paragon game I recently run with just one striker (who was more or less disposed in two fights due to the monsters' controll effects (no daze or stun, merely through forced movement) at that) the controller was extremely effective. Than again, I am a thinkerer, so I prefer situations that require me to plan, so I am naturally dispossed against the striker role...
* I find the habit of some posters to post these so-called fixes incredibly irritating. They are putting words in the mouths of the original posters even though a simple I disagree with explanation would suffice. It would certainly be less rude.
Personally I strongly dislike multiple alpha-strike strikers at the table and that dislike is actually increasing with level. I hate it when a fight is over in two rounds (as a DM and from experience in various on-shots and the home campaign as a player), even more so when each striker takes 5 minutes to resolve their turn due to rolling multiple attacks and needing to add big numbers while the non-strikers just need 30 seconds. Controllers, and to a lesser extend leaders and defenders, need a couple of rounds to shine and I wonder whether the dislike for some of these roles is not because they roles are ineffective, but because the strikers can be too effective. The fact is that the paragon game I recently run with just one striker (who was more or less disposed in two fights due to the monsters' controll effects (no daze or stun, merely through forced movement) at that) the controller was extremely effective. Than again, I am a thinkerer, so I prefer situations that require me to plan, so I am naturally dispossed against the striker role...
I think there's an important distinction to be made here. In a home game, where time is not a factor, controllers can shine. In a typical LFR mod (especially at a con), time is a factor, and controllers are not nearly as effective as strikers. As it's too often said on these forums, "dead is the best control." LFR is a timed miniatures event, and DPR is king.
The sole exception is the table of friends who have optimized as a team. But this runs counter to the idea of playing with new people at a con.
I still love the wizard class, but I'm not sure I can play one in LFR...which gives me the irritation of knowing my highest-level character will never again see play.
* I find the habit of some posters to post these so-called fixes incredibly irritating. They are putting words in the mouths of the original posters even though a simple I disagree with explanation would suffice. It would certainly be less rude.
I'll admit, you're right about this. Although it's not a habit, I just couldn't resist trying it once.
I want to play at your table, where a controller is welcome and effective...it's just that the idea runs so counter to my LFR experience that it rides the razor's edge between joke and slap in the face.
LFR is a timed miniatures event, and DPR is king.
I cannot say this is my general experience. There is more than enough RPing and the majority of people hardly have optimized characters, let alone, optimized tactics. Granted, running paragon level adventures with more then 4.5 hours is definitely more fun, but it is certainly doable in general. It requires some skill from the DM, and active participation from the players, but both combat and RP can be sped up without actually loosing much in one or the other. Mind you, it is not easy, and it requires cooperation from the players, but it is doable for most LFR adventures I have run.
LFR is a timed miniatures event, and DPR is king.
As we look at ways to transform the campaign, I expect this will become significantly less true (assuming people feel it is true right now). As story and PC choices matter more and more and we also look at more things, like say high level adventures timed for two or three rounds so you have time to finish, DPR will no longer be king; if it is right now.
LFR is a timed miniatures event, and DPR is king.
As we look at ways to transform the campaign, I expect this will become significantly less true (assuming people feel it is true right now). As story and PC choices matter more and more and we also look at more things, like say high level adventures timed for two or three rounds so you have time to finish, DPR will no longer be king; if it is right now.
I would be interested in seeing how you plan to accomplish this - I would think that you'll be at the mercy of your authors.
One way to help move toward this (but only a small piece of the puzzle), is to perhaps build more rigor into your module proposal acceptance process - require authors to not only submit the story and outline proposal, but a sample combat encounter from the proposed adventure as well, formatted in the LFR template (to demonstrate their ability to follow the template as well as their ability to craft an acceptable encounter).
LFR is a timed miniatures event, and DPR is king.
While this is one way of doing things and will be extremely effective against many combat enounters, having balanced parties and good tactics is generally more powerful (though not necessarily as fast) and above all much more robust. Tactics do become more than just "concentrate fire" though.
I cannot say this is my general experience. There is more than enough RPing and the majority of people hardly have optimized characters, let alone, optimized tactics.
I see a good deal of character optimisation. Optimal tactics however are rare (of course that has a lot to do with the RP).
Granted, running paragon level adventures with more then 4.5 hours is definitely more fun, but it is certainly doable in general. It requires some skill from the DM, and active participation from the players, but both combat and RP can be sped up without actually loosing much in one or the other. Mind you, it is not easy, and it requires cooperation from the players, but it is doable for most LFR adventures I have run.
Indeed. When we've sat down to ta timed Special and suddenly everyone is paying attention and taking their combat turns quickly, they go by very much faster. RP.. well that takes as long as it takes except when you have to wait for the GM to check the module.
I find the habit of some posters to post these so-called fixes incredibly irritating. They are putting words in the mouths of the original posters even though a simple I disagree with explanation would suffice. It would certainly be less rude.
It works better great with strikethrough. Preserves the original and makes clear the point of disagreement. Maybe still rude; couldn't tell ya.
It works better great with strikethrough. Preserves the original and makes clear the point of disagreement. Maybe still rude; couldn't tell ya.
It makes a point, but it is still rude, and if others start quoting these posts it can become confusing with who said what. Mind you, as far as netettiquette goes it is minor.
I want to play at your table, where a controller is welcome and effective...it's just that the idea runs so counter to my LFR experience that it rides the razor's edge between joke and slap in the face.
Being the current controller at (one of) Madfox11's Home Campaign table(s) I can tell you that indeed a controller is welcome and can be effective. But as ImaginaryFriend can attest to: I could be a lot more effective...if I didn't include partymembers in my blasts every other attack or so. ;)
But back to LFR. I have not played as much LFR lately (and none at Paragon Tier) yet, but what I have seen so far is that "sadly" the strikers rule. Still the often mentioned balance of roles can be important. If the dice don't roll your way with a striker-team, you will miss the Leader and Defender sorely. But if they roll average or higher, you kill whatever is a threat without getting hit too often. With all the books/builds out today though, no striker has to be the same. Even a ranger, warlock, barbarian, rogue party can be diverse in skills and characters and fun to complete a module with.
I prefer different roles to be present because I like to see something more than BLAST BLAST BLAST BLAST, next round, BLAST BLAST BLAST BLAST, next round. But in the 20-odd games I have played in LFR in vastly different groups I have not seen any party with more than 3 strikers (and more than 2 of Controller/Leader/Defender-role). So even though the striker might be effective, people still choose diversity because that is the magic of this game.
That is why I love D&D so much: Having fun while completing a challenge set before you TOGETHER with a variety of people. Each game/combat/encouter is a challenge on its own. The many options and variety in characters, people, dicerolls and DM's make a game different every time (even replays).
As said before in this thread, in LFR I would also focus on being good at your role and above average in some off-skill (highest skill on my healing Cleric of Sune is Thievery). If you end up in a group...start worrying a little if there is no striker present at all...but otherwise you'll make it (might take a little longer). And imho everyone should have a few characters/roles/levels with them, which is facilitated even more by the new character creation rules for LFR (allowing building at 5th, 8th, 11th level).
I have not played as much LFR lately (and none at Paragon Tier) yet, but what I have seen so far is that "sadly" the strikers rule.
I think one of the reasons striker classes shine so much in LFR is that a lot of people play other roles as if they were strikers. (I know, I know - this isn't universally true, but it seems fairly prevalant.) If most players are just trying to do as much damage as possible, regardless of what role they're actually playing, of course the real strikers are going to out-do them.
For example, I've seen plenty of fire wizards that are just designed to do a lot of damage. Since they're not designed to do a lot of "controlling," they're not all that useful in situations that require a true controller. And since they'll never be able to do as much damage as a true striker, they're overshadowed by any strikers at the table. So then they end up feeling frustrated and inadequate.
Similarly, I've seen plenty of defenders that are focused on doing as much damage as often as possible and are not as good at keeping their party members safe. For example - lots of people love the Fighter level 5 daily power Rain of Steel. But all it does is damage. In my opinion, having Rain of Steel up actually makes you a worse defender because it just gives enemies one more reason to want to get away from you (if they can) and go attack your friends. But plenty of people take Rain of Steel because it does damage and doing damage is fun. I've been at tables where someone is playing a "true defender" and other player's eyes go wide during the combats - "Wow! They're not attacking me! This is great! I've guess I've never played at a table with a real defender before."
Leaders are hard in LFR. You really need to know what type of party you're playing with to design the most effective leader. I've played a very healing-focused leader in LFR only to discover that I was in a very optimized party that never needed healing. So I just spent most of my turns feeling useless. I've also seen tactical warlords that were playing in a party where no one had any good basic attacks - and the warlords were having a miserable time. Since leaders buff and help their party members, it's hard to create a very effective one without knowing what kind of group you'll be playing with next. Versatile leaders are probably the best for LFR.
You simply can't control enough of the battlefield to feel really effective. If you add in melee strikers runing up to immobilised mellee monstersyou could very easily get the impression that they aren't worth having.
However somewhere in H2, they start to shine and by H3 a couple of them can totally dominate some of the hardest combats (well Sleep or Silent Malediction can do that at level one but it isn't terribly likely when you only have the one shot).
The answer is quite simple Dave, you are writing all adventures starting in Q1 2011.
Okay, but I want a bigger cubicle then!
Similarly, I've seen plenty of defenders that are focused on doing as much damage as often as possible and are not as good at keeping their party members safe. For example - lots of people love the Fighter level 5 daily power Rain of Steel. But all it does is damage. In my opinion, having Rain of Steel up actually makes you a worse defender because it just gives enemies one more reason to want to get away from you (if they can) and go attack your friends. But plenty of people take Rain of Steel because it does damage and doing damage is fun. I've been at tables where someone is playing a "true defender" and other player's eyes go wide during the combats - "Wow! They're not attacking me! This is great! I've guess I've never played at a table with a real defender before."
I'll have to disagree with your assessment of Rain of Steel. Remember that it's a fighter power. Getting away from a fighter is hard; it can be stopped if via movement, and triggers an attack when marked if via shifting. The enemy would have to expose itself to an attack that deals more damage than the Rain of Steel, and then be just as open to being attacked by the fighter the next round.
Really? Your fighter just did Come and Get It, pulling 3 enemies adjacent, and turned on RoS. You think they won't give up one combat challenge attack to shift away and charge your allies to avoid being bunched up for auto damage? ;)
I'd call that a huge win on the part on a lot of Fighter builds...I'd kill for a DM who did that on a regular basis
I think one of the reasons striker classes shine so much in LFR is that a lot of people play other roles as if they were strikers. (I know, I know - this isn't universally true, but it seems fairly prevalant.)
It's actually a lot like your experience with your healing focused leader... as you find things are increasingly unnecessary or other things would work better, you change focus. My initial 'build' on my fighter was building towards war priest and heavy blade opportunity, with the intention to be a lockdown defender with very strong backup heals (3/enc), but I've since gravitated towards dealing more damage (I'm often _not_ the only defender, I've found that having a very strong damage output makes my combat challenge and opportunity attack taken far more seriously), picked a paragon path that lets me defend even when I'm dazed with things like my AP immobilizes, almost every hit slowing, and multiclassed for divine challenge and sanction to provide a double incentive not to ignore me.
It might also help that I don't find 'fun' the pure control moves like Pinning Smash, Ring of Personal Gravity, Anvil of Doom, etc. For pretty much the same reason I've avoided Feyslaughter before - I actually want to see the enemy's tricks and I want the combat to move around _some_.
I like the moving around and burst attacks most. Makes your fighter _much_ better at locking down a single target, or a group if you get them clustered, but a group sanctioned, slowed, and adjacent to mine is still unlikely to go after the party.
As far as Rain of Steel goes, I'm not sure whether to blame it or blame the other powers at that level, but the comparison is pretty mean if you don't care for perma-immobilize. Especially with respect to defending your allies against minions. And it's _worse_ when you consider Unyielding Avalanche since that gives you autoslow, AC and save bonus, regen, etc. I like, say, Tempest Dance or Driving Attack at 1st, but I'm more iffy on 5th level.
Then there's the other thing that I actually don't want every single enemy attacking me all the time. Spreading the damage and status effects around a _little_ is helpful. And I'm okay having the whining little warlock take a little damage, oh noes ;)
I find that fighter marks do the job pretty well without needing to spend all my powers on control. I also like to have a variety of action types: if you don't have a stance up you're missing an opportunity.
Fighters who do like to Rain or Avalanche every fight may want to look into 'Mobile Challenge' to stop people from shifting away and charging. Doesn't work completely, but eh.
...though RoS is likely to be the one time I don't want to do it as I don't want to be drawn away from other enemies. Definitely doesn't mean I wouldn't spend a feat on it.
Is it new or am I just slow? ;)
Similarly, I've seen plenty of defenders that are focused on doing as much damage as often as possible and are not as good at keeping their party members safe. For example - lots of people love the Fighter level 5 daily power Rain of Steel. But all it does is damage. In my opinion, having Rain of Steel up actually makes you a worse defender because it just gives enemies one more reason to want to get away from you (if they can) and go attack your friends. But plenty of people take Rain of Steel because it does damage and doing damage is fun. I've been at tables where someone is playing a "true defender" and other player's eyes go wide during the combats - "Wow! They're not attacking me! This is great! I've guess I've never played at a table with a real defender before."
I'll have to disagree with your assessment of Rain of Steel. Remember that it's a fighter power. Getting away from a fighter is hard; it can be stopped if via movement, and triggers an attack when marked if via shifting. The enemy would have to expose itself to an attack that deals more damage than the Rain of Steel, and then be just as open to being attacked by the fighter the next round.
I'm not saying that Rain of Steel is a bad power. I'm saying that Rain of Steel is a bad power for defending anything. It certainly synergizes well with other fighter powers if you're trying to do damage. But a monster with 75% of its hit points is still just as much of a threat to the safety of your allies as a monster at 25% of its hit points (and many monsters become more dangerous when they're bloodied). It doesn't matter if a monster has 100 hit points or 15 hit points - they're still alive and kicking.
Yes, getting away from a Fighter is hard. But that just means that Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority are good defender features. I agree. But that has nothing to do with RoS. Turning on RoS changes the cost-benefit analysis for the monsters. Standing next to a Fighter, the monster (well, the DM) thinks "Well, I could try to hit this guy who's hard to hit or I could try to move away from him to attack his ally which would mean he'll attack me. I don't want to take damage, so maybe I'll just stay here and try to hit him." With Rain of Steel up, the monster is much more likely to decide to ignore the Fighter's mark and go attack his allies because the cost benefit analysis has changed to "take auto-damage every round and still not be able to hit this guy or take damage from one attack and probably be able to damage his ally." A monster with high defenses is particularly likely to ignore the Fighter's mark if he has RoS up because the Fighter can only punish the guy for ignoring his mark if the Fighter actually hits. This same monster might have stayed and attacked the Fighter if he didn't have RoS going because there wasn't a particular reason not to (they weren't taking auto-damage every round).
Really? Your fighter just did Come and Get It, pulling 3 enemies adjacent, and turned on RoS. You think they won't give up one combat challenge attack to shift away and charge your allies to avoid being bunched up for auto damage? ;)
I'd call that a huge win on the part on a lot of Fighter builds...I'd kill for a DM who did that on a regular basis
A true defender shouldn't want his mark to be ignored. Sure, the Fighter can punish the guy for ignoring him with damage, but if the ally is still hit then the defender is not doing his job. Unless there's some weird feat I don't know about that immobilizes guys when they take damage or something, there's nothing defender-y that Rain of Steel does for a Fighter that they couldn't already do anyway.
It might also help that I don't find 'fun' the pure control moves like Pinning Smash, Ring of Personal Gravity, Anvil of Doom, etc. For pretty much the same reason I've avoided Feyslaughter before - I actually want to see the enemy's tricks and I want the combat to move around _some_.
That's totally fine. This is a game, after all, so people definitely should be taking powers that they enjoy. If someone takes Rain of Steel because it's fun, that's fine. I just don't buy the argument that it's a superb defender power.
As far as Rain of Steel goes, I'm not sure whether to blame it or blame the other powers at that level, but the comparison is pretty mean if you don't care for perma-immobilize.
That may be true. Although Pinning Smash (permanently immobilizes a target as long as you are next to it) can be an excellent defender power and also can let you do a lot of damage if you like that kind of thing. For example, I played my Fighter in the 18th level special one-shot adventure at DDXP last year. I used Pinning Smash on the BBEG who was a caster. The caster didn't have any teleporting or forced movement powers, so it was stuck next to my Fighter for the entire combat. Each time it was the BBEG's turn my Fighter got to attack him twice (he was provoking with an area attack against my allies) and there was nothing at all the DM could do about it. Pinning Smash is also great at keeping fliers on the ground or preventing guys that have shifting attack powers from moving around.
Especially with respect to defending your allies against minions.
I don't think Rain of Steel does a better job at defending your allies against minions than just being a Fighter. Rain of Steel only damages an enemy if they start adjacent to you. Well, how did the minion get adjacent to the Fighter in the first place? Maybe the Fighter did Come and Get It but missed some minions. Ok, so the minion can either die at the beginning of its turn if RoS is going, or it can get attacked by the Fighter if it tries to attack an ally or move away. Not wanting to die, the minion is likely to respect the mark and attack the Fighter. So all Rain of Steel really does is defend the Fighter against minions because without RoS they'd likely die anyway if they ignore his mark. (Although RoS could be useful in a situation where the minions aren't attacking anyone but are just powering the ritual in the room or something.)
Then there's the other thing that I actually don't want every single enemy attacking me all the time. Spreading the damage and status effects around a _little_ is helpful. And I'm okay having the whining little warlock take a little damage, oh noes ;)
Fine, but then you're not being a good defender. ;)
By the time you move away, you've already taken the RoS damage. You think our controller is going to let you stay away?
I find that fighter marks do the job pretty well without needing to spend all my powers on control. I also like to have a variety of action types: if you don't have a stance up you're missing an opportunity.
The controller's movement powers have nothing at all to do with Rain of Steel. (They could do the same thing even if RoS wasn't up.) Suppose a monster, pissed off about taking auto-damage every round, shifts away and charges an ally. So he took the RoS damage at the start of his turn, took damage when the Fighter hit him for moving away, hit the ally, and then took damage when the controller sends him back to the Fighter the next round. All that's happened is that the enemy has taken a bunch of damage and the ally got hit. And maybe the initiative order was such that the ally (let's just call them a ranged striker) couldn't do anything useful on their turn because they had an enemy in their face. Maybe the ranged striker couldn't shift away because they were dazed or immobilized or in difficult terrain. So now the ally has to decide between being ineffective for that round or attacking and provoking (and who knows, maybe the monster's opportunity attack has a nasty status effect attached to it). Also, now the controller has to waste their turn sending the enemy back to the fighter and the leader has to waste their turn fixing up the ranged striker (who probably doesn't have nearly as many healing surges as the Fighter does).
Again, if you want to do Rain of Steel because you think it's fun, that's fine. I just don't agree with the argument that Rain of Steel is a good defender power (i.e. a power that defends).
If a Fighter is using Rain of Steel, they're not really defending their allies and they're also not doing as much damage as a striker would. So they may feel inadequate as a defender and as a striker because they're doing a mediocre job at both. Any one role not doing their job typically makes the other roles much less effective. Party balance (with people actually playing the role of the class written on their character sheet) is key.
My original point was this:
I think one of the reasons striker classes shine so much in LFR is that a lot of people play other roles as if they were strikers. (I know, I know - this isn't universally true, but it seems fairly prevalant.) If most players are just trying to do as much damage as possible, regardless of what role they're actually playing, of course the real strikers are going to out-do them.
It's a vicious cycle. If everyone at the table is focused on doing damage instead of locking down opponents (controller) or protecting weak allies (defender) or buffing/debuffing/removing status effects/etc. (leader), then the party needs to do damage as quickly as possible to be successful. One tactic (fairly common in LFR) is just to do as much damage as possible and kill the opponents as quickly as possible. With that tactic, anyone who's not a striker will feel inadequate and it turns 4e into a "who wins initiative" game (which, in my opinion, is boring). This type of alpha-strike tactic is also severely hampered by control-heavy encounters or encounters with unusual terrain/features/etc.
Really? Your fighter just did Come and Get It, pulling 3 enemies adjacent, and turned on RoS. You think they won't give up one combat challenge attack to shift away and charge your allies to avoid being bunched up for auto damage? ;)
I'd call that a huge win on the part on a lot of Fighter builds...I'd kill for a DM who did that on a regular basis
A true defender shouldn't want his mark to be ignored. Sure, the Fighter can punish the guy for ignoring him with damage, but if the ally is still hit then the defender is not doing his job. Unless there's some weird feat I don't know about that immobilizes guys when they take damage or something, there's nothing defender-y that Rain of Steel does for a Fighter that they couldn't already do anyway.
No, a true defender shouldn't care if the opponent ignores his mark or not. Because either decision is a bad choice for the opponent - and quite possibly a trap based on which one the enemy chooses to do. The problem with Rain of Steel for some fighters is that the decision to violate the mark is insufficiently bad - one takes a CC, but then everyone shifts and charges and attacks the focus fire target. Many Fighters do this unconsciously via having high defenses and hp vs. CC/Combat Superiority and then Rain of Steel makes the decision clear.
But not all Defenders offer up that kind of choice...
At 12th level, my Defender will have the following options in play:
My marks are at a penalty of -4 to hit. Maybe an additional -2 depending on what I did.
My melee basic will do a slide 4 and slow. So an opponent triggering my CC via shift will not actually get a chance to shift as they'll end up in an illegal square to shift via interrupt. If they're a melee target, it is quite possible that I can put them in a position where the only legal target of an attack is to charge me while running. At higher levels, they may actually lose their attack or the rest of the round as a result.
If I attack someone with a specific power, they'll have a -5 to hit me and I'll grant CA.
If they attack me, as an interrupt, I can give myself a +4 to all my defenses and maybe do a little damage.
See how Rain of Steel doesn't necessarily change the equation? What's the best decision? Attack my friends at a -6 to hit if you're lucky enough to be able to attack them in the first place? Or take a mere d10+some bonuses and attack me at only -2(well, except for the guy at a total of -7 before CA)
Because Rain of Steel (or Unyielding Avalanche or Force the Battle or...) may be just put right back on you when the fighter moves adjacent on his turn, the general goal for monsters marked by a rain of steeling fighter should be to either drop the fighter or use conditions to turn off or mitigate the stance (immobilize and daze, frex). Otherwise, you can perhaps hope to scatter in such a way that he can't hurt everyone, but that implies lowered damage from spreading out that you're probably already conceding the battle.
In general, if your monsters _can't_ drop the defender if they're all allowed to focus fire on it, then you may as well just run and regroup anyways cause it's impossible to win. One reason I like the damage at least partially spread out is the assumption that the fight is challenging enough they can take the defender.
That's not always the case in LFR, but it often can be.
LFR is a timed miniatures event, and DPR is king.
As we look at ways to transform the campaign, I expect this will become significantly less true (assuming people feel it is true right now). As story and PC choices matter more and more and we also look at more things, like say high level adventures timed for two or three rounds so you have time to finish, DPR will no longer be king; if it is right now.
Uh...trying to get this back on topic.
The best role in LFR is striker because DPR is king. :p
Most of my gameplay has been the heroic tiers. It doesn't really change that much at Paragon other than higher static mods. And the DPR characters have more dailies and encounters with which to go nova with. I have no experience with LFR epic...if it even exists.
Most of the other roles usually have enough control as well as their primary roles as striker/defender/leader that an actual pure controller is not necessary. In fact because simply delaying the enemy with a pure controller doesn't make them dead any faster but rather prolongs the combat the risk of losing (failing the mod) increases.
With my wizard, sure I can lay down slides, dazing, stuns, slow, prone and immobilization. All of this helps. But none of those effects prevent the foe from still attacking. My rogue can also daze, stun, knock prone, slide, and immobilize BUT he does it while doing 3x the damage which also kills them monsters much faster.
And right with the DPR-heavy focus most combats currently last 2-3 rounds. Replace your striker with a pure controller...and suddenly that combat goes for 7+ rounds. The defender has to take more punishment, the leader runs out of healing...etc. and the whole party is that less prepared to take on the next fight...and the next.
I even tried a variant of the wizard and made him more striker-oriented (storm-genasi). All of his big control spells while quite effective as disabling (and damaging) the foe...also made it very difficult for the damage dealers to hit the enemy. Or the party defenders had to take friendly fire in order to get in range of the enemy.
We had to actually drop the control to fight the enemy. I suppose one solution would be to make controllers more party-friendly.
I even tried a variant of the wizard and made him more striker-oriented (storm-genasi). All of his big control spells while quite effective as disabling (and damaging) the foe...also made it very difficult for the damage dealers to hit the enemy. Or the party defenders had to take friendly fire in order to get in range of the enemy.
We had to actually drop the control to fight the enemy. I suppose one solution would be to make controllers more party-friendly.
That's more of an AoE Striker than Controller. A properly played controller can be absolutely brutal. I was at a table with 3 Wizards, an Archer Ranger, and myself(Bard with very heavy focus on control). The 1st combat went so horribly for the enemy that the DM called the combat after the 1st round - they were all out of range, slowed, immobilized, and/or prone - none of them could actually get an attack off and we clearly weren't coming closer to them.
The other issue is that it sounds as if the melee types weren't anticipating what the controllers would need to do - you pick your positions in such a way that the controller has options(or the controller readies/delays such that the melee types shift out of the way of the boom)
I even tried a variant of the wizard and made him more striker-oriented (storm-genasi). All of his big control spells while quite effective as disabling (and damaging) the foe...also made it very difficult for the damage dealers to hit the enemy. Or the party defenders had to take friendly fire in order to get in range of the enemy.
We had to actually drop the control to fight the enemy. I suppose one solution would be to make controllers more party-friendly.
That's more of an AoE Striker than Controller. A properly played controller can be absolutely brutal. I was at a table with 3 Wizards, an Archer Ranger, and myself(Bard with very heavy focus on control). The 1st combat went so horribly for the enemy that the DM called the combat after the 1st round - they were all out of range, slowed, immobilized, and/or prone - none of them could actually get an attack off and we clearly weren't coming closer to them.
The other issue is that it sounds as if the melee types weren't anticipating what the controllers would need to do - you pick your positions in such a way that the controller has options(or the controller readies/delays such that the melee types shift out of the way of the boom)
I wasn't there so I cannot speak to that. I have never had a DM call a combat after I immob/stunned/dazed all of the foes with a sustained lockdown and our party had ranged strikers.
Since you cannot count on coordination in LFR I was addressing what roles I have run into that are always needed in my play. Teamwork is nice and it makes the game more fun. I am giving advice for what I have run into the majority of the time.
I wasn't there so I cannot speak to that. I have never had a DM call a combat after I immob/stunned/dazed all of the foes with a sustained lockdown and our party had ranged strikers. Since you cannot count on coordination in LFR I was addressing what roles I have run into that are always needed in my play. Teamwork is nice and it makes the game more fun. I am giving advice for what I have run into the majority of the time.
It was obvious that all 4 controller types were going to dump area control attacks onto all the enemies, who were all stuck in burst 1 formation as well. Not to mention, the ranged striker was going to shoot them. It was really bad for all of them.
If you have a controller who is focused on actual control and melee types who respect what that controller does, you'd be amazed that you ever played without one. Enlarge Spell+Twist of Space = burst 2 repositioning + slow as an example. Sets up all kinds of burst 1 attacks or mass-marking possibilities.
The ideal balance, from my experience is:
1 ranged striker (not a warlock, unless he's a very effective build)
Hey, now, I'm a Warlock and I can contribute quite well, thank you very much.
I will freely admit that it is difficult to build an effective Warlock. The CharOp boards will help with that. If you do have an ineffective Warlock in your group, steer him over there. I'll also advise this: buff your Eldritch Blast as an RBA. This is what I'm doing and it works great. He'll want one of the 'if you do X you get +damage' feats (such as Empowering Shadows) and a good Wand, too.
PH1 apparently thought the Warlock was going to be a 'status-effect striker'. That concept didn't work out, alas.
And I'm okay having the whining little warlock take a little damage, oh noes
I'm not the Warlock in question, but pre-MINI2-3 I was always willing to "take one for the team". Now I'm willing to take ONE for the team. If that one is from a certain Gnome Rogue, I'm done (and likely in dire need of a Pacifist Cleric.) But I'll think about taking another for the team if I'm still standing. Oh, and by the way, my secondary stat is CON so I'm not supposed to be a total squishy.