Group is all strikers, what do I do? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Group is all strikers, what do I do?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
gruse
Jun 21, 2009 22:50:28 Hey all, I’m a bit new to the whole D&D scene and I have a conundrum here. The group I am with is starting up a game soon and I’ve been trying to decide exactly what to play. The problem is that my group as of right now consists entirely of strikers; between three Rangers (two are melee, one is range) a Rogue and a wild Sorcerer. So I am kind of torn at what exactly I should do here in terms of what role to fill given the situation.

I can see the importance a Leader and a Controller can have with this set up and am kind of giving up on thoughts of a Defender at the moment. So I was hoping people would have some advice for me on this matter. Any would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
#2
Novacat
Jun 21, 2009 22:54:28 People who know me would see this coming a mile away:

Warlord!

You can heal, you (almost kinda) tank, and you augment a melee-heavy, striker-heavy party like nothing else could hope to do.

But that's if it was me. Since it is in fact you, rather than me, I have to recommend that you play whatever you want. Let roles work themselves out later. An all-striker party can work.
#3
gruse
Jun 21, 2009 23:09:42 Well with warlord idea would a Tactical or Bravura be a better build choice considering the party? I can see Tactical bonuses to attack being a tremendous help but could Bravura be just as good a call?

As for the roles, I just want to help my party out. I honestly don't think another striker would help much...
#4
rowl
Jun 21, 2009 23:31:40 I agree that Warlord is probably your best option since it can also perform in limited function as a tank/defender. Paladin might also be another option for the same reasons, and probably would work better: higher defenses, better healing, but less buffing/free action granting.

Well with warlord idea would a Tactical or Bravura be a better build choice considering the party? I can see Tactical bonuses to attack being a tremendous help but could Bravura be just as good a call?

As for the roles, I just want to help my party out. I honestly don't think another striker would help much...

Personally, I think Resourceful would be better, but I'm not real strong on Warlord building.

At a glance:
Bravura only works on a hit, and hurts the ally if he misses. I have a problem with any mechanic that you have to pay for (spending an AP) then has the potential to hurt you.
Inspiring is good particularly since the party has no other healer. This is also good if your party is lacking in social skills, but the Sorc should have that covered.
Tactical is solid, but unlike Resourceful it doesn't help on a miss.
Resourceful deals bonus dmg on a hit, but heals on a miss.

It's also gonna depend on the kind of powers you want to use. Plan out the powers you'd take up through like 10th level for each type of Commanding Presence you're interested in and then make a determination which one would seem to work best for your play style and your party dynamic.
#5
gread
Jun 21, 2009 23:52:00 From an optimization standpoint, I would personally go with Taclord. With all those striker companions, particularly multi-attacking rangers, your ability to facilitate to-hit and damage is ferocious. All those melee companions may make a pole-arm a good idea; it could get crowded in there and tough to maneuver. Consider an Eladrin with a greatspear, although I must admit to a certain personal bias speaking there.
#6
daladinn
Jun 22, 2009 7:00:15 i see 3 classes that really stand out for this...

1 - eladrin spear fighter , make sure and get the spear enchanted so you can yoink a guy to ya

2 - eladrin taclord , the teleport 1 square thing is HUGE

3 - shifter straladin , go 18 wis/str and keep pumping both. specialize in your ability to mark for the -2 and your healing.
#7
ethelion
Jun 22, 2009 10:40:28 Warlord for reasons above or Warden. Most probably ES. Good control powers, self healing. Coupled with a Cloak of Walking Wounded, you should do alright.
#8
johnnii
Jun 22, 2009 11:12:04
I agree that Warlord is probably your best option since it can also perform in limited function as a tank/defender. Paladin might also be another option for the same reasons, and probably would work better: higher defenses, better healing, but less buffing/free action granting.

Not to be to nitpicky, but a Paladin won't get up in the same league of healing as the Warlord (perhaps an optimized Hospitaler, but even then...)

I'll echo the choice of Tactical Warlord.
#9
Kerrus
Jun 22, 2009 11:29:21 Might I suggest hybriding as a choice. While imperfect, the hybrid rules would let you do some defending, but also some leadereadering well enough.
#10
kouk
Jun 22, 2009 13:44:56 I don't think you need a controller because between an Archer Ranger, a Rogue, and a Sorcerer you have three sub-role controllers (unless they choose all single target abilities).

The rangers can "sort of" tank, in that they can make enemies waste time trying to hit them and their melee damage would be hard to ignore. If everyone spreads out the damage the party takes it should be OK.

A leader is almost certainly best. I would have to say Cleric for the raw healing potential, or Warlord to boost attacks (maximizing the strengths of your striker party by making sure things hit). Shaman might be interesting because their healing works over two guys usually, and I doubt there will be a time when the majority of the party isn't banged up. The pet also acts a bit like a defender.

I'd strongly recommend some players change classes though. Five guys all vying for top damage seems like it would turn out pretty damn dull for everyone involved, including the DM. Either monsters die instantly, or they can pretty easily turn the tables on an unbalanced party.
#11
mccowen
Jun 22, 2009 14:44:39 I second, or whatever ordinal we're up to, the tactical warlord suggestion. A leader is definitely the first place to go if you're trying to mix with an all-striker group, and a warlord will nicely complement the three melee characters. Also, this:
I'd strongly recommend some players change classes though. Five guys all vying for top damage seems like it would turn out pretty damn dull for everyone involved, including the DM. Either monsters die instantly, or they can pretty easily turn the tables on an unbalanced party.

You might pull the melee rangers aside and see if you can get one to switch to a tempest fighter. It's got a similar feel and more than respectable damage, and while one defender to four strikers isn't a great ratio, it's (literally) infinitely better than five strikers and NO defender.
#12
kouk
Jun 22, 2009 15:57:48 Problem with Tempest is he might outdamage everybody ><;
#13
quiterjon_dup
Jun 22, 2009 16:24:46 Personally I would go with an Archer Bard
#14
gruse
Jun 23, 2009 1:01:58 I appreciate everyone's voice on the matter. I've decided to try an Eladrin Tactical Warlord with my group from what the majority of people have said and see from there where it takes me. As for the suggestions on getting some of my teammates to change roles, some have said they will but only if they need to remake. So who knows maybe DM will conveniently separate me from the group. Thanks once again all!
#15
CCS
Jun 23, 2009 14:09:23 Play whatever you like without worrying about wether or not a given role is covered. Afterall, everyone else in your group went with that aproach....
#16
Stuntman
Jun 23, 2009 15:37:20 Apparently none of the other players really cared about what anyone else played and balancing the party when choosing their character. Why should you do any different? Just play what you like to play and run with it. There is no rule that says, "the last person who chooses his character has to pick one that is in the best interest of balancing the party even though everyone else who picked their character could care less."
#17
kouk
Jun 23, 2009 17:51:37
Apparently none of the other players really cared about what anyone else played and balancing the party when choosing their character. Why should you do any different? Just play what you like to play and run with it. There is no rule that says, "the last person who chooses his character has to pick one that is in the best interest of balancing the party even though everyone else who picked their character could care less."

No it's not a rule, but quite a few players derive great enjoyment from playing a needed role. All play enjoyment being equal (the enjoyment you get from playing any particular role) the one which best helps the party wins.
#18
bholdr_mage
Jun 23, 2009 20:50:19 Wait no! play a ROUGE!!!!!! It's the pretty striker. If you play a striker too, you can all try attrition as your primary attack plan. Hit and run, hit and run, hit and run.

Tactical warlord is probably your best shot; but I'd break the mold and play an eladrin/elf (not sure) druid.

P.S. Yes, I know how to spell r-o-g-u-e. It's just the most common misspelled class in the game on these forums.
#19
MechaPilot
Jun 25, 2009 23:26:20 My best suggestion is to play whatever it is you think is fun and that you want to play. The role composition of a party is suggested, not required. It is honestly the DM's issue to figure out how to handle a group that does not fill the suggested roles. Which a DM can easily do by altering the roles of the monsters the group faces. Don't let the roles define your character and limit your choices. The roles are there as a guide for the DM to build encounter groups.
#20
volcanon2
Jun 26, 2009 0:30:51 play whatever is fun. dont worry about "roles". the party will do as it will and if you have big problems, the game has a "self-correction" method involving character death.

If you reaaaly want to "balance" stuff, play a Bard. You get to do stuff that helps the strikers do more damage and not die AND you can heal. That or a cleric.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 gruse Jun 21, 2009 22:50:28	Hey all, I’m a bit new to the whole D&D scene and I have a conundrum here. The group I am with is starting up a game soon and I’ve been trying to decide exactly what to play. The problem is that my group as of right now consists entirely of strikers; between three Rangers (two are melee, one is range) a Rogue and a wild Sorcerer. So I am kind of torn at what exactly I should do here in terms of what role to fill given the situation. I can see the importance a Leader and a Controller can have with this set up and am kind of giving up on thoughts of a Defender at the moment. So I was hoping people would have some advice for me on this matter. Any would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
#2 Novacat Jun 21, 2009 22:54:28	People who know me would see this coming a mile away: Warlord! You can heal, you (almost kinda) tank, and you augment a melee-heavy, striker-heavy party like nothing else could hope to do. But that's if it was me. Since it is in fact you, rather than me, I have to recommend that you play whatever you want. Let roles work themselves out later. An all-striker party can work.
#3 gruse Jun 21, 2009 23:09:42	Well with warlord idea would a Tactical or Bravura be a better build choice considering the party? I can see Tactical bonuses to attack being a tremendous help but could Bravura be just as good a call? As for the roles, I just want to help my party out. I honestly don't think another striker would help much...
#4 rowl Jun 21, 2009 23:31:40	I agree that Warlord is probably your best option since it can also perform in limited function as a tank/defender. Paladin might also be another option for the same reasons, and probably would work better: higher defenses, better healing, but less buffing/free action granting. Well with warlord idea would a Tactical or Bravura be a better build choice considering the party? I can see Tactical bonuses to attack being a tremendous help but could Bravura be just as good a call? As for the roles, I just want to help my party out. I honestly don't think another striker would help much... Personally, I think Resourceful would be better, but I'm not real strong on Warlord building. At a glance: Bravura only works on a hit, and hurts the ally if he misses. I have a problem with any mechanic that you have to pay for (spending an AP) then has the potential to hurt you. Inspiring is good particularly since the party has no other healer. This is also good if your party is lacking in social skills, but the Sorc should have that covered. Tactical is solid, but unlike Resourceful it doesn't help on a miss. Resourceful deals bonus dmg on a hit, but heals on a miss. It's also gonna depend on the kind of powers you want to use. Plan out the powers you'd take up through like 10th level for each type of Commanding Presence you're interested in and then make a determination which one would seem to work best for your play style and your party dynamic.
#5 gread Jun 21, 2009 23:52:00	From an optimization standpoint, I would personally go with Taclord. With all those striker companions, particularly multi-attacking rangers, your ability to facilitate to-hit and damage is ferocious. All those melee companions may make a pole-arm a good idea; it could get crowded in there and tough to maneuver. Consider an Eladrin with a greatspear, although I must admit to a certain personal bias speaking there.
#6 daladinn Jun 22, 2009 7:00:15	i see 3 classes that really stand out for this... 1 - eladrin spear fighter , make sure and get the spear enchanted so you can yoink a guy to ya 2 - eladrin taclord , the teleport 1 square thing is HUGE 3 - shifter straladin , go 18 wis/str and keep pumping both. specialize in your ability to mark for the -2 and your healing.
#7 ethelion Jun 22, 2009 10:40:28	Warlord for reasons above or Warden. Most probably ES. Good control powers, self healing. Coupled with a Cloak of Walking Wounded, you should do alright.
#8 johnnii Jun 22, 2009 11:12:04	I agree that Warlord is probably your best option since it can also perform in limited function as a tank/defender. Paladin might also be another option for the same reasons, and probably would work better: higher defenses, better healing, but less buffing/free action granting. Not to be to nitpicky, but a Paladin won't get up in the same league of healing as the Warlord (perhaps an optimized Hospitaler, but even then...) I'll echo the choice of Tactical Warlord.
#9 Kerrus Jun 22, 2009 11:29:21	Might I suggest hybriding as a choice. While imperfect, the hybrid rules would let you do some defending, but also some leadereadering well enough.
#10 kouk Jun 22, 2009 13:44:56	I don't think you need a controller because between an Archer Ranger, a Rogue, and a Sorcerer you have three sub-role controllers (unless they choose all single target abilities). The rangers can "sort of" tank, in that they can make enemies waste time trying to hit them and their melee damage would be hard to ignore. If everyone spreads out the damage the party takes it should be OK. A leader is almost certainly best. I would have to say Cleric for the raw healing potential, or Warlord to boost attacks (maximizing the strengths of your striker party by making sure things hit). Shaman might be interesting because their healing works over two guys usually, and I doubt there will be a time when the majority of the party isn't banged up. The pet also acts a bit like a defender. I'd strongly recommend some players change classes though. Five guys all vying for top damage seems like it would turn out pretty damn dull for everyone involved, including the DM. Either monsters die instantly, or they can pretty easily turn the tables on an unbalanced party.
#11 mccowen Jun 22, 2009 14:44:39	I second, or whatever ordinal we're up to, the tactical warlord suggestion. A leader is definitely the first place to go if you're trying to mix with an all-striker group, and a warlord will nicely complement the three melee characters. Also, this: I'd strongly recommend some players change classes though. Five guys all vying for top damage seems like it would turn out pretty damn dull for everyone involved, including the DM. Either monsters die instantly, or they can pretty easily turn the tables on an unbalanced party. You might pull the melee rangers aside and see if you can get one to switch to a tempest fighter. It's got a similar feel and more than respectable damage, and while one defender to four strikers isn't a great ratio, it's (literally) infinitely better than five strikers and NO defender.
#12 kouk Jun 22, 2009 15:57:48	Problem with Tempest is he might outdamage everybody ><;
#13 quiterjon_dup Jun 22, 2009 16:24:46	Personally I would go with an Archer Bard
#14 gruse Jun 23, 2009 1:01:58	I appreciate everyone's voice on the matter. I've decided to try an Eladrin Tactical Warlord with my group from what the majority of people have said and see from there where it takes me. As for the suggestions on getting some of my teammates to change roles, some have said they will but only if they need to remake. So who knows maybe DM will conveniently separate me from the group. Thanks once again all!
#15 CCS Jun 23, 2009 14:09:23	Play whatever you like without worrying about wether or not a given role is covered. Afterall, everyone else in your group went with that aproach....
#16 Stuntman Jun 23, 2009 15:37:20	Apparently none of the other players really cared about what anyone else played and balancing the party when choosing their character. Why should you do any different? Just play what you like to play and run with it. There is no rule that says, "the last person who chooses his character has to pick one that is in the best interest of balancing the party even though everyone else who picked their character could care less."
#17 kouk Jun 23, 2009 17:51:37	Apparently none of the other players really cared about what anyone else played and balancing the party when choosing their character. Why should you do any different? Just play what you like to play and run with it. There is no rule that says, "the last person who chooses his character has to pick one that is in the best interest of balancing the party even though everyone else who picked their character could care less." No it's not a rule, but quite a few players derive great enjoyment from playing a needed role. All play enjoyment being equal (the enjoyment you get from playing any particular role) the one which best helps the party wins.
#18 bholdr_mage Jun 23, 2009 20:50:19	Wait no! play a ROUGE!!!!!! It's the pretty striker. If you play a striker too, you can all try attrition as your primary attack plan. Hit and run, hit and run, hit and run. Tactical warlord is probably your best shot; but I'd break the mold and play an eladrin/elf (not sure) druid. P.S. Yes, I know how to spell r-o-g-u-e. It's just the most common misspelled class in the game on these forums.
#19 MechaPilot Jun 25, 2009 23:26:20	My best suggestion is to play whatever it is you think is fun and that you want to play. The role composition of a party is suggested, not required. It is honestly the DM's issue to figure out how to handle a group that does not fill the suggested roles. Which a DM can easily do by altering the roles of the monsters the group faces. Don't let the roles define your character and limit your choices. The roles are there as a guide for the DM to build encounter groups.
#20 volcanon2 Jun 26, 2009 0:30:51	play whatever is fun. dont worry about "roles". the party will do as it will and if you have big problems, the game has a "self-correction" method involving character death. If you reaaaly want to "balance" stuff, play a Bard. You get to do stuff that helps the strikers do more damage and not die AND you can heal. That or a cleric.