PDA

View Full Version : [4e+] What is fun about each of the roles?



Kiero
2009-06-01, 06:29 AM
By which I'm saying, those people who've played the various roles, what are the fun bits in playing that one over any of the others?

In playing a defender, do you feel a sense of achievement in withstanding lots of punishment, and preventing the foes getting past you?

In playing a striker, are there interesting things you can do with moving about and smashing things?

In playing a leader, do you get a buzz from everyone working more effectively because of your actions?

Um, controllers do stuff, right?

Tell me about the reasons you chose the class you did, and why that role is fun for you.

I'm particularly interested in experiences playing the three classes that interest me: Ranger (two-weapon), Fighter and Warlord (Tactical). Same power source (Martial) but different roles.

1of3
2009-06-01, 08:30 AM
Even though there is a role mentioned in each class description classes of the same role works out very differently with different classes.


Warlord (Tactical):
First lesson of the warlord: Less healing is necessary, if your enemies die before you do.Taclords are wellspring of offense with the occasional healing.

Taclords are best, in a party with many melee attackers who have good melee basic attacks. Fighters and Melee Rangers are your customers.


Fighter:
Martiality incarnate. You're the one standing on the bridge stopping the enemy army. And you kill stuff.

Other that it depends on your weapons and powers.


Ranger:
Two words: ANIMAL COMPANION. With your trusted friend you can be litteraly in two places at the same time.

Deme
2009-06-01, 09:29 AM
I'd like to add, before we continue, that one thing I love is how all the classes (and sometimes even individual builds) in a role do the role in subtle-y different ways. a Swordmage's defending is not a fighter's defending, or vice-versa. It's not just a matter of different powers or power sources, but a whole different philosophy for the same goal.

That being said...the fun thing about being a ranger is ripping someone completely to shreds. Moving nimbly through the enemies to a very specific person, who the DM has set up as somehow more important...and then completely destroying him. That is a beautiful moment. Generally, the feeling of tearing up the enemy is something really neat.

As a defender, I do find it satisfying when the enemies can't hurt my team, when either they get hurt for trying (or just negated, like with the swordmage), or they have to hit me, but they can't hit me (or it's barely a scratch on my awesome HP).

As a controller, I like making it so that my enemies, while not quite dead, are doomed: they can't do what they want to do; they might as well be stumps with HP. They can't stand so close together, can't send minions, can't move 'cause I can slow them, can't move over here because it's dangerous terrain, ect... It's fun to have so much, well, control.

As for leaders, and particularly warlords... They're not great healers, but they're (in my experience) really fun for getting the most out of your team's round, which means a lot of buffing and extra attack fun.

Hal
2009-06-01, 09:54 AM
Unfortunately, I have only had the chance to play a leader so far in 4e (and in two different campaigns to boot . . . darn those players who refuse to be anything but strikers).

Still, there's something quite satisfying about playing a leader. Knowing that you're the lifeblood of the party, that the barbarian would be a fine red paste without you, is rewarding. When someone is about to go down and you bring them back to health, that's nice.

One of the really nice things is when you can grant combat advantage to a rogue. Yeah, any player will benefit from it, but there's just something special about knowing that you are setting up that rogue to activate a class feature and bring the hurt to your enemies. You get to share in the thrill strikers get when the DM asks, "You're hitting my monster for HOW much?"

SIXIS
2009-06-01, 01:48 PM
I've played a striker and a defender.

My striker rogue loves getting in and maximizing the strategic value of other melee players. With a rogue concerned with always getting combat advantage when working wtih the fighter or paladin, they hit more often. So you deal serious damage, and still get to be mobile and interesting. Moreover I often taunt marked opponents to take attacks of opportunity, especially when they've been marked by the great-axe wielding fighter.

My Defender Fighter deals a high amount of damage consistently, and rarely misses. The real fun, though, comes from the attacks of opportunity or the interrupt attacks on marked enemies.

Korrash
2009-06-01, 02:10 PM
I've currently taken part in two 4e campaigns and I've ended up taking the defender role each time, first as a paladin, and second as a barbarian (by virtue of the other members of the team were a rogue and a wizard.)

I have to say ... I loved it. When I rolled the paladin for the first campaign I of course had no clue what our sessions would bring our way, and when we got half way through our first session I nearly died with pure exhilaration. I was the tank, the meat shield, the self sustaining juggernaut of Avandra, and the campaign was one against the undead. Not only would the enemies find it harder to hit my allies, but the searing strike of radiance that would hit them for even trying quickly established myself as the biggest threat on the field of battle, (thank you undead vulnerability to radiant damage) leaving the Rogue, Wizard, Warlock and Fighter pretty much free to their own devices.

So needless to say with that as my first experience the Defender role has a special place for me. I'll need to take a stab at the other roles before I render final judgement, but as it stands I am a defender and I am damn proud of it.

Douglas
2009-06-01, 02:21 PM
I've currently taken part in two 4e campaigns and I've ended up taking the defender role each time, first as a paladin, and second as a barbarian (by virtue of the other members of the team were a rogue and a wizard.)
Barbarian is a striker class. Which detail there is wrong, the class or the role for your second character?

Roderick_BR
2009-06-01, 02:30 PM
(...)
As for leaders, and particularly warlords... They're not great healers, but they're (in my experience) really fun for getting the most out of your team's round, which means a lot of buffing and extra attack fun.
It's cool how WotC managed to get the "healbot" stereotype out of the cleric, making him more of a buffer. Turning your party into monsters to kill the other team quicker is more fun than just patching up wounds.

DM Raven
2009-06-01, 02:52 PM
Character roles are defined more by the powers you choose than anything. You can make several swordmages who all play VERY different from one another. I've seen a warlord build that can heal better than many clerics, and I've seen a wizard build that can do more damage than some striker builds.

I've played all the different roles already (though this isn't saying much since each role can be built radically different) and I like controllers the best. As a wizard, I've used my slide abilities to turn the tides of battle on more than one occasion. I've also used my slow and immobilize abilities to save other people in my party and my area spells to manipulate the battle. I also have a pretty nasty combo using Storm Pillar, Visions of Avarice, and Flaming Sphere. (Invisibility doesn't break unless you actually attack. >=p )

My second favorite might be the Swordmage. (Not defenders, just the Swordmage defender) And so far, the bard I made is pretty impressive.

Sir Homeslice
2009-06-01, 03:41 PM
By which I'm saying, those people who've played the various roles, what are the fun bits in playing that one over any of the others?

Hmmm.... As far as typically goes, I'll try to help.

Defenders: You'll take satisfaction in what amounts to basically ruining the opponent's plans in close combat with your mark and associated abilities. And as always, killing that opponent is nice. Defenders can lean towards Strikers or Controllers as subroles: So either you can punish and have your fun by dealing tons of damage or once again, keepig enemies on you and punishing them for not doing that, respectively.

Strikers: Your job is easy and the most find. Find a target, and saturate it with damage. Subroles for Strikers are by far and large Controller. Which means in addition to stabbing kidneys, you also ruin their fun in many different ways.

Leaders: Damage won't be your forte, not for a longshot, but what you do and do well is enable your allies to rape face. Attack roll bonuses, damage roll bonuses, setting up situations, keeping your allies alive, granting extra attacks. As far as party roles go, you're the chessmaster, or the leader of men. No matter how or where you're doing it, you're making people better at their jobs. Leader subroles lean towards Defender or Controller.

Controllers: Plain and simple, controllers exist to ruin the enemy's day. If Leaders set up opportunities for their allies, and make them better at what they do, Controllers exist to specifically deny the opponent everything they've ever dreamed of. Controller subroles are typically only Striker.

That help?

Hadrian_Emrys
2009-06-01, 04:30 PM
I've only played a few classes, but I've found that I am more and more obsessed with a Warlock with Wizard multiclass feats. It's a joy to really only ever need the words "no" and "die" in your OOC vocabulary. :smallbiggrin:

Korrash
2009-06-01, 09:10 PM
Barbarian is a striker class. Which detail there is wrong, the class or the role for your second character?

Neither, yes the Barbarian is a striker class but with a Rogue and a Wizard as the only other members of the adventuring party I'm the only one that can take a hit and I do everything in my power to be sure I take the hits. Constantly I've had to take the opportunity attack from the foe I'm currently facing to turn and save the wizards ass.

Or to clarify, yes you're right, technically a Striker, but serving as surrogate defender.

Artanis
2009-06-01, 09:25 PM
Barbarian is a striker class. Which detail there is wrong, the class or the role for your second character?

Neither. Every class has at least one secondary role that they can fill, albeit not as well as a "real" class of that role. One of the Barbarian's possible secondary roles is as a secondary defender, meaning that they can suffice if the other party members are, say, a Rogue and a Wizard.

NecroRebel
2009-06-01, 09:31 PM
I generally find Swordmages most fun to play, especially Shielding Swordmages. that class seems to me to have the greatest variety of powers; melee attacks, close blasts and bursts, walls, short-to-mid ranged attacks, even an area burst or two. Thus, no two Swordmages are exactly alike, as power selection can even radically change their subrole, or in some cases even their primary role, from Defender/Controller to Defender/Striker or even Striker/Defender or Striker/Controller. Most other classes require one of a few very specific builds to pull off something like that, so the customization Swordmages get is quite nice.

More generally, though, each role has its boons:

Strikers get to roll a lot of damage. That's always fun, and you're usually the one who gets the bloodying strike and kills. They also tend to be the most mobile or even acrobatic, which lets you pull off fun moves that most others cannot manage.

Defenders are largely fun because they get to say "No!" to enemies so often. No to attacks that target you, no to attacks that target enemies, no to enemy movement, no to enemy damage, no no no. The way you say no changes depending on class, of course, but ultimately you're in a position of denial.

Leaders, on the other hand, get to say "Yes!" to allies a lot. Bonuses to attack, damage, and defenses, extra actions, healing, and all that comes with the classes are all enabling, and it can be a great deal of fun to know that someone pulled something off entirely due to your influence.

Controllers are probably the most complex classes. There seems to be an awful lot of overlap between Controllers and Strikers or Defenders; they either focus on damage dealing, action or movement denial, or a mixture of these. In general, the difference is the "mass" aspect of Controlling; Controllers tend to roll a lot of attack rolls because they're hitting half the enemies every single round.

lordhack
2009-06-01, 10:00 PM
I play a wizard, and one of the most fun things is to take out a large number of enemies, minions or even sometimes big ones, with a single spell. At higher levels, being able to stun lock a solo can make the DM make fun faces.

PnP Fan
2009-06-01, 10:58 PM
So far I've only played the 4.0 Wizard.

I've enjoyed doing the things no one else in the party (4 strikers, with a leader, a defender, and myself) can do. I've enjoyed setting up the villains with special conditions that the strikers can take advantage of. I've enjoyed making the enemies less threatening by weakening them. I've enjoyed removing whole swaths of minions in one judicious use of an at-will power. I've even enjoyed roleplaying conversations with my familiar (even if by RAW, I'm the only one that can hear the conversation with my carnally obsessed tome spirit familiar trapped in a skull).

I'm looking forward to trying the other Controller classes as well.

Kurald Galain
2009-06-02, 05:11 AM
I should point out that I find the division between roles to be rather arbitrary, and that many classes blur the line between two.

That said, I like classes that give me options. For instance, wizards with their huge area effects, movable zones, terrain blocking and status effects can screw with the DM's plans big time, which is always fun. This also goes for other controllers. A well-built defender has the same effect: if the monsters want to get past you, or hit your allies, or what not they have to deal with you first. Fighters excel at this ("you want to move there? No, you're not doing that) as do swordmages ("sure, you can attack my friends, but you'll deal zero damage").

I don't really like strikers, because I like to do other stuff besides damage. This is imho, of course. While I really enjoy having a warlord in the party (and some leader is just mandatory because of the healing needed) when I played one myself I just wasn't doing much. But this was at low level, I expect it to be different from level 6 or so.


Ranger (two-weapon), Fighter and Warlord (Tactical). Same power source (Martial) but different roles.
I've played a 2W ranger and found it boring. Pretty much every combat round was "pick a target, he takes a bunch of damage, next". A taclord will really make the rest of the party happy even if you don't do anything but stand there; you don't really get any spotlight but make the rest of the group better. A fighter is really fun if you can do things like trip, or move up to the enemy caster and force him to stay next to you. I recommend reach weapons.

Mercenary Pen
2009-06-02, 05:34 AM
I'm currently playing an Assault Swordmage as a pseudo-striker. The option to teleport out of the pit you fell into, then flank and annihilate your mark is pretty good fun- especially as it's all part of an immediate reaction.using fullblade for high crit and high proficiency rating

Then there's the whole fake-jedi thing with swordbond. They force you to leave your blade at the door, not a problem, because it will come to you at a moment's notice.

In fact, I'd quite readily say that swordmage is probably my favourite class so far.

Kiero
2009-06-02, 06:53 AM
I should point out that I find the division between roles to be rather arbitrary, and that many classes blur the line between two.

That said, I like classes that give me options. For instance, wizards with their huge area effects, movable zones, terrain blocking and status effects can screw with the DM's plans big time, which is always fun. This also goes for other controllers. A well-built defender has the same effect: if the monsters want to get past you, or hit your allies, or what not they have to deal with you first. Fighters excel at this ("you want to move there? No, you're not doing that) as do swordmages ("sure, you can attack my friends, but you'll deal zero damage").

I don't really like strikers, because I like to do other stuff besides damage. This is imho, of course. While I really enjoy having a warlord in the party (and some leader is just mandatory because of the healing needed) when I played one myself I just wasn't doing much. But this was at low level, I expect it to be different from level 6 or so.


I've played a 2W ranger and found it boring. Pretty much every combat round was "pick a target, he takes a bunch of damage, next". A taclord will really make the rest of the party happy even if you don't do anything but stand there; you don't really get any spotlight but make the rest of the group better. A fighter is really fun if you can do things like trip, or move up to the enemy caster and force him to stay next to you. I recommend reach weapons.

I think you're my polar opposite in terms of preferences. :smallsmile:

Lots of options doesn't equal fun to me (one of several reasons controllers don't interest me at all), it's more tedious stuff to master to get to the playing of the game. I like simplicity, I like not having to worry about six different things at once. Move and kill (up close, not at range) sounds like my kind of fun, which is why I'm leaning so heavily towards the two-weapon Ranger.

Artanis
2009-06-02, 09:15 AM
I should point out that I find the division between roles to be rather arbitrary, and that many classes blur the line between two.

*points to the Barbarian* Case in point.

..."secondary leader" my rear.

Rebonack
2009-06-02, 10:19 AM
I've only gotten to play a star-lock thus far, but with just a little thought in the power selection I was able to have plenty of fun.

What's this? A green dragon? Oops, a zone of darkness is gnawing on your hind end now. What? You want to walk out of the AoE damage? Sorry, just teleported you back in.

Managed to keep him in there for a good six rounds with the ranger plunking away with arrows and the fighter holding off the big lizard's minions.

It was hilarious to role-play. The dragon got pretty pissed before he realized how screwed he was.

Awesomologist
2009-06-02, 11:31 AM
I like playing just about everything but controllers. As kurald said, a lot of classes cross into other rolls. With my local group we dropped the primary controller and just went with a Defender (sub-Controller), 3 Strikers (2 sub Controllers), and a Leader. We haven't missed having a controller yet.

That being said when we do play tests the Druid has always impressed us so far. One of the guys will be taking over as DM and is starting Scales of War. I think we may actually see a Druid make an appearance.

(If you have a group that can meet more than once a week, go pick up Dungeon Delves and have a blast play testing new stuff. Its the only way you're going to get to learn about all the classes.)

Nahal
2009-06-02, 05:16 PM
Having played striker, defender and controller so far, I've honestly found that the key to me enjoying the character is more about having a little versatility than the specific role.

I've got a cha-based paladin whose powers allow him to protect allies as an offset for the general paladin lack of stickiness, and function as one of the party faces. I also have an epic-level sorc with pretty nasty damage output (especially on a crit) who is a solid social combatant and has a few agility-based talents that make him more survivable. I also briefly had a doppleganger darklock. I think my next class will be a shielding swordmage, just cause I like the flavor.

Bottom line, so long as I can give my character primary, secondary and tertiary talents I'm happy. To than end I favor classes whose primary stat is useful both in and out of combat, and whose secondary stat can be used with a couple feats and some gear to add a unique and useful twist to the class. I'm not partial to any particular role (though I'm far less fixated on wizards than I was in 3.5e), though in terms of power sources I tend to avoid martial just because I've found Int, Wis and Cha-based classes to be easier for my Rule of 3 chargen tactic.

Ninetail
2009-06-03, 12:10 AM
I tend to like controllers and leaders. Manipulating the battlefield, strengthening allies, weakening enemies... that just never gets old.

The bard, which combines both roles, is threatening to become my new favorite. The invoker and druid are both pretty high up there, too.

Even when I play a striker, I tend to choose the fey warlock or sorcerer, and pick powers that give me a fair degree of control.

Danin
2009-06-03, 06:58 PM
I found the warden very enjoyable. I generally find being on the front lines provides a more dynamic and exciting, not to mention the pride in knowing that you save the lives of your friends on a daily basis.

Other than that I found the leader to be interesting. I've always been a bit more of a team player.

Talyn
2009-06-03, 11:11 PM
I've played two characters in 4e so far. This is very sad, because I've been playing more or less once a week since it came out - I just run the games. That being said.

Character one - Polearm Fighter. I really, really enjoy being able to be a "sticky" defender but still have enough mobility to give myself a sense of grace. Also, the most fun I've had at a D&D session in a long time was standing on the roof of a carriage sinking into mud and holding off a warband of ogres while the party's warlord extricated the princess trapped underneath me.

Character two - star-pact warlock. Seriously, this guy is just cool. Awesome fluff for his abilities and background, and it's just fun to point at a monster and shout "DOOM!" at the top of your lungs when you curse them.

Gralamin
2009-06-04, 12:00 AM
Defender: You take the hits and let the others get their jobs done.
Striker: You like to kill things
Leader: You like to change the course of the battle through your allies
Controller: You like to change the course of the battle through your enemies or terrain.

Thats how I look at it, and I usually play Leaders and Controllers.

Artanis
2009-06-04, 11:01 AM
There's a thread on the CharOp forums that, as part of it, mentions what its OP considers the general fundamentals of each role. I don't share his view about Defenders, but I seem to be the only one, so I'll post it anyways. The gist is:


Controllers:

* Buffing - help your allies' capabilities
* Crowd control - handle many enemies at once
* Debuffing - hinder enemies' capabilities
* Positioning - forced enemy movement

Defenders:

* Consistent damage - low/no-resource damage output
* Crowd control - handle many enemies at once
* Fire drawing - get enemies to attack you
* Stickiness - keep an enemy from getting away

Leaders:

* Buffing - help allies' capabilities
* Debuffing - hinder enemies' capabilities
* Healing - healing, duh
* Positioning - free ally movement

Strikers:

* Burst damage - hurt things fast
* Consistent damage - hurt things for a long time
* Focus fire - focus on one target
* Mobility - get where you want to go





(As an afterword, my objection regarding the "standard" Defender view):



Everybody talks about "stickiness" as though it's the one and only way to keep allies safe. As though the ONLY way to do a Defender's job is to keep enemies from ever moving away in the first place. Furthermore, whenever anybody so much as hints that the Warden, Swordmage, or Paladin are even remotely competent, people point to the Fighter's damage output as making enemies want to attack it while utterly ignoring everything that the other Defenders do to make enemies want to attack them.

I look at it like this: the Defender's job is to keep allies healthy without the party Leader using his healing. Taking hits is the most obvious way of doing this, of course, and the oft-mentioned stickiness is another. But one look at the Shielding Swordmage tells me that stickiness is only one way of going about this, rather than the One True Way that many people seem to think it is.

The Fighter makes enemies want to attack him with damage. The Fighter makes enemies unable to hurt allies with his ability to stop movement with an OA. You disobey the mark, you get hurt. If you try to get away, you get hurt and stop moving anyways. If you get away though, the Fighter runs over and smacks you to death.

The Shielding Swordmage makes enemies want to attack him with the fact that attacking allies is pointless. The Shielding Swordmage makes enemies unable to hurt others with his Aegis. You disobey the mark, you do nothing, so might as well attack the Swordmage. And let's not forget how sticky you are when you've got eight status effects on the enemy and are bouncing them around the battlefield with forced movement.

The Paladin makes enemies want to attack him with a bit of damage PLUS (and this is often TOTALLY ignored) the ability to make it pointless. They don't make the enemy unable to attack allies, but they make the enemy unable to permanently hurt them because they'll heal the ally right back up. Ever heard the phrase "kill the healer first"? Yeah.

The pre-AP Assault Swordmage just blows. Swordmages' damage sucks pre-AP, so trying to use it as the primary deterrent just kinda doesn't work.

I'm not terribly familiar with the Warden, Ensnaring Swordmage, or post-AP Assault Swordmage.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing that the Fighter is the best or the Paladin is the worst. It just really, really irks me when people COMPLETELY ignore what the other Defenders have going for them. I mean, they could at least pretend to care about it, even if only for long enough to dismiss it as being insufficient.

Exarch
2009-06-04, 12:22 PM
I'm a fan of Leader classes. I started out as a Tactical Warlord, played a Cleric, theory-built a Bard and Fighter. I've enjoyed them all, but the Warlord class still has a special shine to me. They're the brains behind the brawn...who have some of their own brawn. 1st Daily is a Brute Strike that gives bonuses to hit (sure, it's not Reliable...but whatever). Clerics healing is ridiculous, but the class is also an amazing buff. I didn't go too far with one of these, so I can't say too much unfortunately.

And if nothing else, being a Leader let's me yell at the other members of the party and be in character. :smallbiggrin: