Halfling Swordmage with Rogue multiclass feats
Dragonborn Paladin (Has the dragonborn breath and fury feats)
Half-Elf Inspiring Warlord (Can't remember what he took for his dilletante)
Doppleganger Artificer I think
All level 8
In general I've seen the Controller as the less essential role, but only because so many of the other classes secondary pretty well in Controller.
People say that in general but it really depends on the game and the rest of the group. While strikers are great at taking out single targets controllers will deal with multiple foes at once. It really all depends on what the DM is going to throw at you.
Also a lot of people think that the controller role is about taking out minions so they say that they aren't needed. In reality the controller role is about temporarily disabling or hindering enemies.
In general I've seen the Controller as the less essential role, but only because so many of the other classes secondary pretty well in Controller.
I don't have the experience with 4e to know whether the Striker or Controller is less needed in general. But consider the following:
1. Part of the concept for the Leader (and including the Warlord to have second leader choice besides a Cleric) was so that every party didn't need to have a Cleric
2. The basic game includes 3 different strikers.
3. The basic game includes only one Controller.
4. The new classes introduced through Dragon and FRPG are another Leader, the playtest Artificer, and another Defender, the Swordmage.
5. At present there are 3 choices each of Leaders, Defenders and Strikers, and only one choice of Controller.
It seems apparent that WotC does not see a Controller as being essential to a party. Otherwise they'd have included a second choice for someone who wanted a Controller. If Controllers are essential, WotC has traded having one class every 3.x group needed - the Cleric - for having one class every 4e group needs - the Wizard.
4e seems better thought-out than to have an obvious flaw like that unless Controllers aren't really something every group needs.
People say that in general but it really depends on the game and the rest of the group. While strikers are great at taking out single targets controllers will deal with multiple foes at once. It really all depends on what the DM is going to throw at you.
Also a lot of people think that the controller role is about taking out minions so they say that they aren't needed. In reality the controller role is about temporarily disabling or hindering enemies.
Oh, it always depends on the group, yes, but even those other things the controller does ("control", as opposed to minion-killing) other classes can secondary in just fine. They won't, probably, have any way to "lock down" a single foe (ala Orb), but they'll be trading that for other options.
The controller powers don't really do much in the way of actual control. They are good at popping minions, but most classes can easily deal with what are basically trivial bags of free XP. I can't honestly see any reason to take a wizard over any other class as it stands.
Really? You can't see the use of having someone who can daze everyone in a 5x5 square? At level 3? How about the person who can turn you invisible? Or the person who can create huge walls to block off enemies? None of these things are useful or count as control?
Wizards do next to nothing at level 1 in terms of control, that may as well be a fact. It was stupid to make it so the wizards best/only real control power had no damage and little chance to do anything 1/day, but give them a couple levels and they will begin to do stuff. By level 11+ even if you're not built as a orb-wizard overpowered freak, you will still have control abilities that will make fight much easier.
The problem is that a lot of times no one knows what the wizard is really doing for them. They can see that the enemies are dazed for a turn, but don't really get that it means there's a whole turn where the enemies can do next to nothing. Wizards are far from minion popping wands, we just happen to be good at that too.
I'd go with a warlock; they're strikers with have a number of controller-type powers (although limited in targets when compared to a wizard). That way you've covered both bases.
This is what I would advise for this specific question as well. Plus Warlocks are cool.
In any case you could take a melee striker since you got a warlord that can potentially either give you free attack or use Wolf Pack Tactics to grant you flanking bonuses (great for rogues!).
I suppose the key depends on what you fight more often. If you fight large numbers of smaller opponents, controllers tend to be more handy. If you fight a solo creature by itself, or a number of opponent less than the total number of party members, a striker will be more effective. Both have their uses.
In reality, there are only three roles: offense, defense and support. D&D has decided to split offense into two roles... multi-target offense and single-target offense. In effect, both of those roles are largely expendable so long as the other role is present. A controller can fill in well for a striker, and a striker can fill in well for a controller. It's hard to call which is more expendable.
I suppose the key depends on what you fight more often. If you fight large numbers of smaller opponents, controllers tend to be more handy. If you fight a solo creature by itself, or a number of opponent less than the total number of party members, a striker will be more effective. Both have their uses.
Like in an MMO (I know I know, but still) this is only partially true. Controllers are the 4th type of class that no one likes to talk about. Crowd Control is a very powerful ability in many games and is far more than damaging several creatures for less damage each. The controller role disables or hinders enemies for a round or more at a time, allowing their friends to gain a significant advantage.
At its most extreme, this can manifest in an Orb wizard that can completely lock down enemies for the entire combat. However, even in less of a broken role, the wizard is able to shift the field of battle according to his/her whim. Each of the arcane classes are able to do this somewhat as the arcane power source has a minor control feature. Warlocks, Artificers and Swordmages all have the ability to hinder foes and stop them from doing as much, but its on a smaller scale when compared to wizards.
Now in this case wizards also assault a larger amount of foes and I do believe this is the controllers role as well, but their primary purpose is to shut down (in different ways depending on level and build) foes for a period of time.
I'd go with a warlock; they're strikers with a number of controller-type powers (although limited in targets when compared to a wizard). That way you've covered both bases.
YES! Great pick mccowen. Warlock would be perfect here, as the Dragonborn already has the minions covered via breath weapon. You'll want to focus on status effects applied at range. Warlock and Dragonborn (the pally) could combo to fill the controller role while still letting the Warlock act as a striker when needed. You'll also help fill the ranged combatant gap.
Like in an MMO (I know I know, but still) this is only partially true. Controllers are the 4th type of class that no one likes to talk about. Crowd Control is a very powerful ability in many games and is far more than damaging several creatures for less damage each. The controller role disables or hinders enemies for a round or more at a time, allowing their friends to gain a significant advantage.
At its most extreme, this can manifest in an Orb wizard that can completely lock down enemies for the entire combat. However, even in less of a broken role, the wizard is able to shift the field of battle according to his/her whim. Each of the arcane classes are able to do this somewhat as the arcane power source has a minor control feature. Warlocks, Artificers and Swordmages all have the ability to hinder foes and stop them from doing as much, but its on a smaller scale when compared to wizards.
Now in this case wizards also assault a larger amount of foes and I do believe this is the controllers role as well, but their primary purpose is to shut down (in different ways depending on level and build) foes for a period of time.
The end result with crowd control is that you're still playing an offense-focused role. Even in the case of strikers, one of their big advantages is the ability to weaken a single target. Controllers do the same with multiple targets. Philosophically it's the same objective... the only difference is the medium by which it is done (strikers use direct-target effects while controllers target areas). The end result is the same... they are both roles built around punishing the opposition through damage or effects, while defenders are built around manipulating the opposition to protect allies, and leaders are built around enhancing and supporting allies
Elf 2W Fighter w. Initiate of the Faith
Dwarf Barbarian (using a template and powers made by myself as well as some community made stuff. He uses the shifter 'blooded regen/bonus damage' as his rage.)
Eladrin Archer Ranger (only at about 1/2 of our games. The fighters teenage daughter who loves playing when she's home but she's not home very often lol)
We have a striker and a combo defender/leader. About half the time we have a second striker and I had my heart set on playing a Half-Elf Warlock w. Sneak of Shadows, but striker/striker is not what is needed by the group. So in the end I decided on going with what I wanted.. but with some controller to help fill in the gap in the group. Warlock (especially Feylock it seems) has a lot of single-target cc, so I picked up some aoe cc wizard powers.
Half-Elf Feylock w. Arcane Initiate. I grabbed Ray of Frost for my Half-Elf power and Thunderwave on Arcane Initiate.
So in the end I recommend going with what you want, but if the group really needs something (like we didn't have any healers so the fighter picked up Initiate of the Faith,) simply 'multiclass' into it.
The end result with crowd control is that you're still playing an offense-focused role. Even in the case of strikers, one of their big advantages is the ability to weaken a single target. Controllers do the same with multiple targets. Philosophically it's the same objective... the only difference is the medium by which it is done (strikers use direct-target effects while controllers target areas). The end result is the same... they are both roles built around punishing the opposition through damage or effects, while defenders are built around manipulating the opposition to protect allies, and leaders are built around enhancing and supporting allies
That;s why I said it was a partial truth. The wizard is indeed an offensive role. They also have bigger and better status effects in general compared to strikers for their level and they have utilities that are often times usable to control the battlefield as well. Walls, for example, can change the entire face of the battlefield and give you a new level of control that strikers just don't get.
But you are right that they are both offensive roles.
Well the party is...
Halfling Swordmage with Rogue multiclass feats
Dragonborn Paladin (Has the dragonborn breath and fury feats)
Half-Elf Inspiring Warlord (Can't remember what he took for his dilletante)
Doppleganger Artificer I think
All level 8
the listed group covers the bases decent.
the swordmage listed could do some decent damage if done right
the pally can do a decent job with his breath against minions
the warlord can do some healing
the arificer probably has some control.
I would say a something that has some striker in him.
warlock, 2 handed fighter or a ranger.
what concept sounds fun/do you like to play?
People say that in general but it really depends on the game and the rest of the group. While strikers are great at taking out single targets controllers will deal with multiple foes at once. It really all depends on what the DM is going to throw at you.
Also a lot of people think that the controller role is about taking out minions so they say that they aren't needed. In reality the controller role is about temporarily disabling or hindering enemies.
in know that in my game last week I through 25 minions at my 2nd lvel party "big epic fight to save children taken into slavery" and the wizard killed close to 2/3rds of them
..flaming sphere used well is surprisingly good by the wayJust wondering. My party already has a paladin, a swordmage, an artificer, and a warlord and I haven't made a character yet. Which does this party need more - a controller or a striker?
None of the above. What this party needs is an interesting character. Or, in the event there's already one or more of those, another one. Doesn't matter what class/role they are.
Beyond that you should be playing whatever you think'll actually be fun. Because if your not having fun then there's really no point, is there?
None of the above. What this party needs is an interesting character. Or, in the event there's already one or more of those, another one. Doesn't matter what class/role they are.
Beyond that you should be playing whatever you think'll actually be fun. Because if your not having fun then there's really no point, is there?
Quiet you. What do you think this is? Some kind of ROLE-playing game? ;)
I was assuming that the person didn't have a character in mind or perhaps their group tends to develop characters over time and was wondering which of the two would work better.
Absent that, with as many melee attackers you have (swordmage, paladin, warlord), go ranged striker. Warlock or Archer. And if you go warlock, multiclass into wizard.