I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here - more a chocolate vs. strawberry vs. vanilla thing. All are delicious ice cream.
For me, I rank them:
1) Leader - I love handing out buffs, saves, heals, extra movement, more buffs, even enabling attacks. I get to do something awesome and fun, and someone else does two. Leaders equal high five moments.
2) Defender - I hate, hate, hate not having a defender in the party. Defenders can do their job in so many ways...with a little extra controlling, or throwing out extra damage, or just being an invincible rock that forces enemies to swing and miss.
3) Controller - My favorite controllers don't apply hard status effects so much as lots of debuffs. Powers that significantly nerf defenses, apply vulnrabilities, etc. lead to that same high-five moment. Carpet bombing lots of enemies simultaneously can also be fun.
4) Striker - Don't get me wrong. I love having good strikers in my group. I just would rather someone else play them.
Your thoughts?
p.s. feel free to throw in hybrids. I don't like playing role-crossing hybrid mixes...but YMMV.
Controllers used to be higher, but there are not enough good ones to pick from compared to the other roles that each have at least 5 different classes that I am interested in playing. For controllers it is wizards and invokers and almost seekers for me, but I am not interested in the other ones out there.
My main thing is I don't like playing one trick ponies and I like playing builds with very strong secondary roles. So no DPR sole focus strikers or leaders who only try to max out healing or only grant attacks. And I won't play the same build more than once.
I think my favorite is Leader, although I generally prefer to be a bit of two roles for extra versatility. But really, it depends more on the character and the class then it does on the role, I can have fun with anything.
I half expected your favorite role to be "Dungeon Master".
I think the Player's Strategy Guide put it as"Strikers are sexy", and the fact is they do have some of the more intersting character concepts, to my mind anyway. For example:
-The Ranger-long range wilderness expert
-The Barbarian-Primal Rage!
-The Warlock-Bound into a Pact with a higher power? Great roleplaying fodder, although the closes to a benevolent patron you can find is Fey or Vestige.
-The Rogue-Swashbuckling derring-do.
-Sorceror- Innate magic (wait a minute, don't we already have an Arcane Striker?)
-Avenger- An intense counterpoint to the cleric, definitely fills in this role for the Divine power source nicely.
-Monk- The definitive bare-knuckles archetype.
-Thief-Another old-school archetype, (back)stabby stabby!
-Slayer-Heavy-Metal hack n slasher
-Hexblade- Like the warlock, but with an awesome weapon choice.
-Blackguard- The "anti-paladin", but not a defender? Lost opportunity to share the spotlight with other roles, in my opinion.
-Feywild Barbarian- Like the barbarian above I assume, but also a switch-hitter. More like these, please! Just because I pick one role at 1st level doesn't mean I'm going to want to stay that way over the course of my career. Granted, I haven't done much with multiclass feats (DM nixed 'em) but to my mind the lack of multiple role options is one advantage the "other guys" still maintain over 4e.
Note to date, the onel power/class combo I have yet to see fiolled with a class is Martial Controller (Hunter comes close but splits the deal with Primal). Why not?
2) Striker. I've pretty much played defenders exclusively so the other three are moretheoretical, but I'm a very optimization based person. While I don't like breaking games, and I doubt I could hold a candle to the fine folks on the CharOp boards, I do still enjoy the mental challenge of seeing how far I can crank a given knob. After defenders and their immortality knob, the most obvious one available is the striker's DPR knob.
3) Leader. My first character was a warlord, and there's something amusing about being able to stack your party with buffs. Plus getting access to in-combat healing is always a treat and I'm in lesbians with the Shaman.
4) Controller. Possibly because they're the opposite of defenders in terms of defenses. Plus in my experience, multi-target effects are nifty and have their uses, but scenarios where they're actually game-breaking enough to justify not focus-firing one thing into oblivion instead are depressingly rare. And status effects are cool, but I dislike save ends effects. Which actually is probably another reason I like defenders so much. They tend to get utility dailies. Sure, 5W damage or massive heals or blind, deaf and dumb (save ends) are cool, but given the encouragement on focus firing, the last one is gonna be kind of eh outside of boss fights. Conversely defenders get stuff like "+2 to AC and shift as minor" or whatever else and I heart utility effects.
- If I know the other players at the table at the start of the game, I prefer a Leader.
- If I don't know the other players in advance, then I prefer a Striker.
My reasoning is that if I know the other players, then teamwork and coordination is likely to be attainable form the start. But if I don't know them, then playing a character that can act unilaterally is more to my liking, because I don't have to rely on synergy. If synergy happens, great; but if not, I'm still going to have fun.
By the way, I'm not interested in which role is "most important" or "can be done without". The question is what you enjoy playing most.
Thanks for the clarification.
I definitely unambiguously prefer the defender role, though I'm not entirely sure what it says about me :P I like drawing in enemy damage and shrugging it off, tying up the enemy while my teammates murder them. I think my favorite development in 4e was the emergence of marks and later related abilities that allowed a defender to be a defender rather than be the worst possible choice of target for the enemy.
I like leaders and controllers for their ability to reshape the battle field, and have options well above and beyond decrementing HP totals.
And yet I play a fair bit of strikers. Outside of their cross-role capabilities, I mostly like them as optimization challenges. *shrug*
Hybrids are my favorite types of characters because I love building wierd quirky things that the devs didn't necessarily foresee. It makes it feel more like it's -my- character rather than an instance of the character someone else envisioned (as is too much the case with my vampire, for example).
I have a bard that I've tried to develop as a dabbler in all four roles. She's effective overall, though definitely as a 5th member type, rather than a solid replacement for a missing role. She's a blast to play.
1) Defender
2) Striker
3) Leader
4) Controller
My current character is a semi-optimized Genasi Artificer|Wizard that uses promise of storm along with arc lightning, nova round tends to feel striker-ish (at least compared to my fellow players), typically hitting a few targets for d6+d8+INT modifier, which doesn't end up being to bad for at wills compared to a ranger.
Once my first two rounds of lightning bursting is done, I switch over to controller or leader as needed.
I'm currently playing an encounter breaking Seeker who loves demolishing my DMs plans.
I really enjoy them all pretty evenly though, and the only one I haven't gotten to play much is teh defender, but I enjoy the tactical nature of the classes.
Didn't think I'd like the leader role, but I LOVE it.
I've got a few great striker concepts I'd like to try (Warforged Barbarian foremost among them) and a couple of Defenders I'd like to try on (Warden and Paladin)
The only role I haven't really found a good character concept for yet is controller, but I really think I'd like to play one tactically.
I have a good Psion concept in mind, but I really don't care for the power point mechanic so I doubt I'll play one.
Anyway, we're only up to level 13 so I've got my Cleric for a while longer, hopefully.
Striker
Controller
Leader
I don't know what it is, but despite their brutal mechanical effectiveness I can never get excited about leaders. I've tried, but every time I make one it ends up as a resounding "meh" before I even start playing it.
Defenders are my big thing. I build them well, I play them well, and it's fun to be a "You can't touch me, or my friends" badass. The Warden and Swordmage that I'm playing are particularly fun. Had a new player to the group see Dimensional Vortex for the first time last night...heh.
Controller
Striker
Defender
Leader and controller are almost even. No wonder my favourite character is a tiefling cunning bard/resourceful magician. Total battlefield control, amazing tactics.
I find most strikers boring. I'm playing an assassin right now. Yeah, I know they're supposed to be weak, but they're fun to play, and can be reasonably effective with some optimization (grave dust assassin,soul thief PP etc). I'd never play a ranger or a charge-spammer, I think they're incredibly boring.
I really don't like the defender role. At all. I love having them in my group for their effectiveness, but I'll never play one myself.
Great topic, JRedGiant1. +1
I DM a lot, so I think when I do get the rare chance to play I'm so excited to be on the other side of the screen I don't care what I am. That said, I think I tend to go for class flavour before class role. Artificers and Monks have always really appealed to me for some reason. If I had to actually answer your question correctly though, I think I'd say Leader. I've always enjoyed healing, I find it fun.
Just looking for people's thoughts. The question is this: as a player, what is your preference for what role you personally play at the table? Striker, leader, defender or controller? If so, why?
p.s. feel free to throw in hybrids. I don't like playing role-crossing hybrid mixes...but YMMV.
1) Leader: By far the most engaging role, when you play a leader you not only have to consider your own abilities, but those of all your allies, as well. Then, like the controller, you have to take in the whole battlefield and undertand it. Your powers aren't quite as situational as a controllers, but are still interesting to try to use to best advantage.
2) Controller: Also a very engaging role, when you play a controller, you have to take in the whole battlefield and understand it. You aply often very situational powers to tilt things in favor of your party, which is an interesting tactical challenge.
3) Defender: The defender role isn't as fascinating, but it is rewarding. You get to be particularly tough and heroic, taking center stage, standing up to the worst the enemy has to offer, and stepping in to save your buddies. It still has a meaningful tactical dimension, as you need to manuever to enagage or delay or lock down enemies - and choose the right enemies to do that too. You also have to be careful not to over-do the role and get dropped or run out of surges too early in a day.
4) Striker: About as boring as a choice-rich 4e PC can be, the Striker role is all about doing damage. The only meaningful tactic is focus-fire, and it's dead obvious (npi). Most strikers pin all their effectiveness on a single attack roll (maybe two) each round, making a miss extremely frustrating (Leaders & Controllers often have useful Effect lines on even encounters & at-wills, controllers often make many attack rolls with AES, and Defenders generally mark even when they miss). Even a striker who hits on a 3 will miss a single attack roll more often than a controller who hits on an 8 will miss 3 or 4 enemies he targets with an OA.
...
I don't care for the Hybrid rules, themselves, but mixing roles by emphasizing a secondary role or multi-classing can add some interest. The Brawling Fighter, for instance, does a bit of one-on-one melee control, making him more interesting than the usual defender. Some Rogue builds can do that a bit, too. Similarly, the Paladin is such a substantial secondary leader that it has even more to do, tactically, than the average defender. The pre-templar-nerf Devoted Cleric, being both a capable leader and a strong secondary controller could be quite a lot of fun.
Finally, sometimes it is a 'weakness' in a class that makes its aproach to its more interesting. The Rogue is an excellent striker, but the PH1 rogue was mostly limitted to getting its striker damage via CA, typically by flanking, or, with a bit of cheese, Stealth (stealth has since been errata'd), the challenge of getting the Rogue SA damage makes it more interesting to play than a Ranger who simply quarries & shoots or another striker with an automatic damage bonus. Similarly, the Wizard's initial spell selection's emphasis on creature-targetting AEs made it more challenging to play, because placement of allies was so important - and, the monsters could be aware of that and respond to your AEs by getting in very close with your allies (letting the defender mark them and the rogue flank them) - the Invoker and later Wizard powers had more enemy-targetting AEs that could be used with less thought.
4) Striker: About as boring as a choice-rich 4e PC can be, the Striker role is all about doing damage. The only meaningful tactic is focus-fire, and it's dead obvious (npi). Most strikers pin all their effectiveness on a single attack roll (maybe two) each round, making a miss extremely frustrating
I don't like single target massive dpr builds for reason like this. But a lot of classes classified as strikers do a lot more than this. Monks, warlocks, and sorcerers come to mind. As do many barbarians with the effects that come from their rages and avengers who have forced movement tricks built into many oftheir powers. Now I am with you in not really liking classes like bow rangers and thieves and won't even try one of those, altough it is great when someone else in the party wants to play one.
I don't like single target massive dpr builds for reason like this. But a lot of classes classified as strikers do a lot more than this. Monks, warlocks, and sorcerers come to mind. As do many barbarians with the effects that come from their rages and avengers who have forced movement tricks built into many oftheir powers. Now I am with you in not really liking classes like bow rangers and thieves and won't even try one of those, altough it is great when someone else in the party wants to play one.
This is pretty much how I look at it, too.
1) Strikers- I like hitting things hard, but in a way that is interesting and varied. For example, I like monks a ton, because they hit and do something with the targets. It's not just I hit you for 20 hp and I'm done. I like my halfling barbarian because he's like a pinball machine of comedy and death. I get so bored by rangers, who typically don't need any tactics and seem to have few choices to make.
2) Leaders- I like helping out the party. They tend to have a variety of things they need to do any given round, and require a lot of thought. Passifist leaders however make me want to gouge my eyes out in bordom.
3) Defenders- They're self-sufficient and require tactics. This makes them quite a bit of fun.
4) Controllers- They frustrate DMs if played correctly, which I don't enjoy doing. Also, they can make encounter too easy, which also isn't fun. Another potential drawback is that they can instill conditions that aren't needed, without doing any real damage, which simply slows down combat. I also don't like save ends conditions a lot. Also, they tend not to be self-sufficient
Hybrids are my favorite types of characters because I love building wierd quirky things that the devs didn't necessarily foresee.
Honestly that's probably my biggest beef with hybrids. Well not that, that's what I love, but the fact that the devs seemed to have like pre-emptive stuffed their throats full of safety valves. Like, I know it's probably better than some broken Ranger-Rogue shenanigans or something, but if I had a nickel for every time I had a zany idea that was shot down by "When you use a {Class} power."
Defender or Controller its a tie
Striker... umm... can I transform it in to a controller pretty please. Except strangely the Avenger which I like better than some Defeders or Controllers.
That being said, any member of my ling time group will tell you my favorite role is melee. My warlord, rogue, and fighter. Even the short lived laser cleric kept himself in the thick of things, and it took a couple levels of relearning to keep my control heavy wizard on the edge of combat.
Keep roles in the hands of WoW kiddies. I hate all roles equally. Keep roles in the hands of WoW kiddies.
You do realize that "roles" predate WoW by decades, don't you? Even in the era of Basic D&D, fighters and dwarves were encouraged to take the front lines, clerics were encouraged to help buff and heal the party, and magic-users stayed in the back, using effects like Sleep and Fireball on the monsters.
And I can't really place the rest. I enjoy dealing damage, but I also enjoy punishing, but I also enjoy controlling. It's hard to rate them, so I think the best way to rate them is based on characters that I want to play in the close future:
2. Defender - This is due to the Berserker Barbarian
3. Controller - This is due to the new Druid build and the new Witch build
4. Striker - I have some laying around, haven't really been playing them, though
I hate all roles equally. Keep roles in the hands of WoW kiddies.
You do realize that "roles" predate WoW by decades, don't you? Even in the era of Basic D&D, fighters and dwarves were encouraged to take the front lines, clerics were encouraged to help buff and heal the party, and magic-users stayed in the back, using effects like Sleep and Fireball on the monsters.
Are you trying to imply that World of Warcraft borrowed things from early D&D?
2: Defender (mainly with strikerish leanings)
3: Leader (storm warpriest all the way)
4: Controller (why do we have these again? jking
)I hate all roles equally. Keep roles in the hands of WoW kiddies.
You do realize that "roles" predate WoW by decades, don't you? Even in the era of Basic D&D, fighters and dwarves were encouraged to take the front lines, clerics were encouraged to help buff and heal the party, and magic-users stayed in the back, using effects like Sleep and Fireball on the monsters.
Those are not examples of roles as they are now presented in 4e and WoW. They are fantasy archetypes. The paladin and ranger in previous editions had nothing to do with the roles they have now been assigned to. The Paladin was more about role playing a LG holy warrior and had next to nothing to do with being a defender or Tank in combat.
I don't agree that roles predate WoW at all. I think games like WoW helped define and pratically coined the terms "Tank", "DPS", "Kiting", AoE, etc. I never heard these terms at any D&D table before the advent of MMORPG's like WoW. In fact, I truely hated Wow (at the time) for how it pigeoned holed everyone character into a combat role. What was even more upsetting in those games was how people got upset at you for not being a good tank or not being a good DPS. In all my years of playing D&D (before WoW) I never heard anyone complain about someones character from the perspective of a combat role. In fact, in my games it was considered very rude to lower someones character to simply a combat function alone. I know many people who had great characters that completely sucked in combat, but we never critized their 'build'. We never thought in terms of a 'build' or role anyway. All 4e did was take a look at WoW and say, "hey, lets copy that and coin our own terms (Tank= Defender, DPS=Striker) just like WoW and redesign our system around it".
I hate all roles equally. Keep roles in the hands of WoW kiddies.
You do realize that "roles" predate WoW by decades, don't you? Even in the era of Basic D&D, fighters and dwarves were encouraged to take the front lines, clerics were encouraged to help buff and heal the party, and magic-users stayed in the back, using effects like Sleep and Fireball on the monsters.
Battlefield roles were the core of the original military units that inspired Chainmail. The naïveté of thinking there was something other than military roles inspired it all takes a form of stubbornness you really cant fight.
2. Striker: Cutting a bloody swath through baddies is therapeutic.
3. Leader: 4e has really added a butt-ton of incentive to play 'healers'. Warlords and Runepriests combine melee combat (which I love), and buffing (which I can like).
4. Controller: I like that a Controller with the right spec can drop a massive group of minions and clear the map for the Strikers to get at the Brutes. I don't like keeping track of so many secondary affects.