[4e]Building the best party.

[Vortling]

Since there's been a small paradigm shift between 3.5 and 4e I'd like to examine the new focus of 4e: The party. Specifically I'd like to look at which classes and races synergize the best within the limits of the 5 person group to create a group capable of handling challenges with aplomb.

My initial thoughts on this party building exercise. I don't believe a wizard will be necessary. Based off my own experience and words from others the controlling job can be handled fine with the right other classes. Warlock and rogue are also out as they are simply inferior strikers to the ranger. I'm iffy on the cleric as well but that may simply be my own experiences with the class.

That leaves: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, and Warlord. I'm not sure if there should be one or two leaders but I know there needs to be at least one. As far as the rest go I'm looking at a Fighter, a Paladin, and two Rangers. One ranged ranger and one TWF ranger.

So what are people's overall thoughts on constructing this party and possible multiclassing options?

[Yakk]

The cleric heals way better than the warlord. This may or may not be useful.

What levels are you talking about?

[quillbreaker]

The wizard does excellent AoE and can also have one of the highest armor classes in the group. I'm not sure I'd chuck the wizard. And I'd think you'd want someone in your group that has Ritual Magic without blowing feats for it - that's a wizard or a cleric, and nobody is waving banners for the cleric at this moment.

[Edea]

I'm thinking at any level; maybe specify which levels you're referring to when making the party suggestion. For example, a level 1 party probably doesn't need a Wizard. A level 21 party, on the other hand, would do very well to have one.

Also, the swordmage class might be an option for a defender, especially the Shielding Aegis version.

[SadisticFishing]

Paladin/Morninglord
Cleric/Radiant Servant
Star Warlock/Student of Caiphon
Wizard. Find some radiant powers.

RAWR DAMAGE.

Synergy for the win.

[THAC0]

So far my group has played from level 1-6 with different combinations.

What works best for us is:

1 controller
1 striker
1 leader
2 defenders

We've found with only 1 defender, the squishies tend to get overrun.

Currently we're playing with:

1 fighter, 1 paladin
1 inspiring warlord
1 warlock
1 wizard

Another effective party composition we've tried traded the warlord for a cha-based cleric, and the warlock for a rogue.

We had a ranger once, I wasn't impressed. But then, that particular character was not well designed or played, so it might not be a fault of the class.

The wizard is incredibly useful if you have a player than can make best use of the tactical decisions.

Additionally, warlord can be effective, but this requires good tactics and teamwork.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Wizards are good for AoE, which is essential for dealing with lots of minions. Don't worry too much about "control," and make sure your Orbizard has some good single-target lock-downs.

Synergy-wise, a TacLord and 2 Rogues might be optimal. If the Rogues provide their own flanking buddies, then they can kill pretty much anything with great rapidity, and the TacLord can boost their to-hit to obscene levels. Personally, I'm not certain if Ranger>Rogue, but if you can ensure mutual CA like this, the double-rogue should be superior to mixed Rangers.

That leaves a Defender. Here I'd go with a Dwarven Fighter since they heal very well, and if you give them a Halberd they can provide area melee control and do pretty good damage. Maybe have him keep a Maul as his back-up weapon for when some extra DPR is needed, if you'd like.

You're correct about Warlocks, and while Rangers are nice, they always target AC. Rogues are going to be more reliable at hitting (particularly twin Daggermasters!). Paladins aren't needed when you have a TacLord buffing the crap out of everyone, and you don't need a second Leader (sorry cleric!).

So yeah, some thoughts. :smallbiggrin:

[Crow]

A few notes:

The cleric is the party's best option for in-combat healing. Even with healing surges and the warlord's abilities, a party with a cleric is going to have much more stamina. This is important, as monsters now have much more staying power than before as well. In addition, the cleric's buffs have great utility for almost any member of the party.

The Warlock is a sub-par striker in terms of straight damage only. They're ability to inflict nasty status effects on targets gives them increased utility over the rogue and ranger. They are also even better than the ranger at staying out of trouble, which gives them (in monster terms) a sort of "lurker" role, and allows the defenders and leader to focus their efforts on fewer party members if neccessary.

While the rogue has greater one-shot potential (damage-wise), the ranger is very likely to out-damage a rogue over the course of a campaign due to getting more attacks, in addition to less stringent requirements to activate their extra damage.

Our group is using:

Cleric
Rogue
Rogue/Warlock
Ranger/Warlord

If I had to choose a party all for myself:

Cleric
Warlock
Ranger
Fighter
Warlord

[ghost_warlock]

The Warlock is a sub-par striker in terms of straight damage only. They're ability to inflict nasty status effects on targets gives them increased utility over the rogue and ranger. They are also even better than the ranger at staying out of trouble, which gives them (in monster terms) a sort of "lurker" role, and allows the defenders and leader to focus their efforts on fewer party members if neccessary.

Yes. Especially as you climb in levels, it's best to think of a warlock as a secondary controller moreso than a straight striker (more so for star/fey pact than infernal, btw; I haven't studied the dark pact enough to say where it falls with regard to this). Also, warlocks have a few powers that don't do a lot of damage, but increase the damage other party members can do thanks to granting combat advantage to allies or inflicting vulnerability-all on the target.

[Gralamin]

I've personally found that the following groups work very well together:
Tactical Warlord, Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric
Tactical Warlord, Wizard, Paladin, Warlock, Cleric

If you wanted a ranger in a group, I'd actually recommend:
Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, Warlock

In addition, I would expect the following group to work very well:
Tactical Warlord, Wizard, Swordmage, Warlock, Cleric.

The reason for this is strictly, looking at any non-leader class, Power sources synergize internally quite well. The reason leaders are an exception is not only do they Synergize with there power source, they are also synergize very well with almost any other sort of character. This is because a leader improves everyone else in some fashion, and thus can benefit in almost any party.

[Yakk]

They are also even better than the ranger at staying out of trouble, which gives them (in monster terms) a sort of "lurker" role, and allows the defenders and leader to focus their efforts on fewer party members if neccessary

Except, of course, you want your players to be soaking up a measured amount of damage. Everyone has healing surges and HP -- ideally, you efficiently use every party member's.

Then again, if you have two surge-heavy defenders, this might not be the case.

[Tengu_temp]

I think the best group would be the classic four-man setup of fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard, with a strength-focused warlord as the fifth, hybrid party member - this way you get plenty of healing, plenty of damage, plenty of tanking and decent controlling abilities.

[MartinHarper]

I'd go with a party based on kiting. Ranged powers only (preferably range 11+so they outrange everyone in the monster manual), lots of slowing powers like Dire Radiance and Ray of Frost. Probably looking at Wizard, crossbow Rogue, longbow Ranger, Star Pact Warlock, and laser Cleric.

Edit: the idea is to kill most monsters down with only at-will powers and no healing surges. Then all the Encounter/Daily powers can be picked with a view to surviving the odd occasion where the party get jumped.

[Tempest Fennac]

What exactly does Healing Word do? I don't play 4th Edition, but I remember someone mentioning a while back that they could use it out-of-combat for infinite healing (that could be worthwhile if you're having problems deciding which Leader to use).

[Oracle_Hunter]

What exactly does Healing Word do? I don't play 4th Edition, but I remember someone mentioning a while back that they could use it out-of-combat for infinite healing (that could be worthwhile if you're having problems deciding which Leader to use).

It triggers someone's Healing Surge and gives 1d6+WIS HP in addition. Basically it makes out-of-combat healing more efficient (but by no means infinite). Inspiring Word just gives Surge+1d6 HP, so clerics are much better at healing.

[Criz Reborn]

It triggers someone's Healing Surge and gives 1d6+WIS HP in addition. Basically it makes out-of-combat healing more efficient (but by no means infinite). Inspiring Word just gives Surge+1d6 HP, so clerics are much better at healing.

Where does it say that? Im looking at both abilities and they each say they give an additional 1d6

[Saph]

Where does it say that? Im looking at both abilities and they each say they give an additional 1d6

Page 61, "Healer's Lore". Every time the Cleric uses a healing power, it heals extra HP equal to the cleric's Wis.

Note that this doesn't just apply to Healing Word, it applies to ALL their healing powers, like Cure Light Wounds and Healing Strike. Hence Clerics are the best healers by a long way. I'd pick one over a Warlord simply for this reason.

- Saph

[The Mormegil]

Lazer Clerics heal REALLY well. Expecially at low-levels (try out Beacon of Hope... AMAZING!). They also have friendly AoEs. They are good against brutes, lurkers, artillery, controllers, minions, solos and elites.
Melee clerics are tanky. They are good against brutes, lurkers, solos and elites.
Fighters are good defenders for many-monsters encounters. They are good against skirmishers, minions, brutes, lurkers.
Paladins are good, on the other hand, against solos and elites, brutes, lurkers.
Ranged Rangers are pure damage. They are good against controllers, artillery, elites, solos, brutes, skirmishers.
TWF Rangers are quite useless.
Rogues are reliable hitters. They do quite good damage and quite good status effects. They are good against soldiers, lurkers, skirmishers, artillery, controllers, elites and solos.
Warlocks are good because of mobility, lurking abilities and controlling abilities. They are good against soldiers, lurkers, skirmishers, artillery, controllers, minions, elites and solos.
Wizards are good at AoEs and Orbizards are good at single target kills. They are good against skirmishers, artillery, controllers and minions.
Tactical Warlords are good at granting tactical advantages and to hit bonuses. They are good against soldiers, controllers, solos.
Inspiring Warlords aren't that good. Best have a cleric.
Assault Swordmages aren't good enough. Shieling Swordmages are good for single-target marking, mobility and AoEs. They have the best ACs. They are good against soldiers, controllers, artillery, skirmishers, lurkers, minions, elites, solos, brutes.

So, according to my analysis the best party will certainly have a Shielding Swordmage, a Lazer Cleric, a Warlock, a Rogue and a Ranged Ranger. Which is WRONG. Crap.

According to MY EXPERIENCE, the party should have a Shielding Swordmage, a Lazer Cleric, a Warlock, a Tactical Warlord, and a Fighter. Good synergy between each of them, good AoEs, good melee capacities, good tactical exploiting, Ritual Casting, diversified skills, good healing... Perfect. The only difficulty is that they don't have great damage potential. The Swordmage has got low DPR, the Cleric has got low DPR, the Taclord has got low DPR, the Warlock has got a fair DPR but not that high, the Fighter has got a fair DPR, but isn't a Striker. On the other hand, they can handle most of the tougher monsters with status effects and Shielding marking from far away, while dealing low but constant (thanks to the Taclord) damage.

[Mando Knight]

One game I played had three leaders and a Paladin, the actual setup was
2 Clerics
1 Warlord
1 Paladin (me)
1 Rogue

One of the clerics ended up sustaining over 100 points of damage in one encounter... even though he was only level 3 and the rest of the team was level 1...

[Hzurr]

One thing that I've noticed in the Cleric-less party I'm DMing, is that when you have a Warlord, having a Paladin as one of the defenders helps offset the healing the party would have otherwised received with a Cleric in the leader role.

I'm DMing a pretty large group, and we actually have all 3 strikers in the party, and it seems that the Warlock is by far the least effective (although that also might be because his rolls are horrible. It's uncanny).

The ranger (TWF) has been tearing things up, although he also has needed the most healing out of anyone in the group. The BS Rogue hasn't been as effective, but every so often she'll deal out so much damage it makes my head hurt (I don't remember the exact combo, but it's the one that does her sneak attack + dex + str + cha. It's hard-core).

Our wizard has a pretty good head for tactics, and has been making excellent use of thunderwave and ray of frost (that ray of frost saved their bacon during one encounter, since it kept a kobald from being able to run for help). Needless to say, it seems like a controller with a smattering of intelligence is extremely necessary.

Our Warlord has been moderately effective. Now, part of this was because the player hasn't been able to be there as much, and the guy we had filling in didn't have a good sense of what the Warlord could do. Once he figured that out, the warlord became much more usefull.

So, based on what I've seen, I'd recommend:
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger (ranged)
Warlord
Wizard

Other options would be to switch the warlord for a Cleric, and make the ranger a TWF.

As far as races go, I'm definately saying Human for the wizard (that extra at-will is too awesome), and aside from that I'd recommend a dwarf for one of the defenders (the "Second Wind" as a minor action is exceptionally usefull),
and that the party should include a dragonborn (enlarged dragon's breath as a minor action to clear a room of minions? Yes Please) and a half-elf (the group bonuses are just too nice to pass up). Tieflings...meh. Eladrin and halflings could be ok, but I haven't seen either one in play, so I really couldn't say. Elfs aren't bad.

[Charity]

Party of 5

Dragonborn Hammer fighter - for a smidge of aoe, a dollop of striker, with some heafty defender thrown in.
Elven laser cleric - king of healing plus some good buffs and aoe
Drow Paladin heading toward morninglord - good buffs, ancillary healing and reasonable damage output and good synergy with the clerics radiant powers.
Bugbear ranger heading for pit fighter - good manouverability high survivability and masses of damage.
Gityanki wizard with a smattering of warlock - great aoe and debuffing.

[TwystidMynd]

I feel that part of the hypothetical party's situation that is being ignored is the length of a day.

If the DM of this party is the type of DM who throws 3 encounters per day, then Healing Surge rationing will not be as big of a deal. Some of the proposed party make ups have low-damage strikers, or no strikers at all. For these parties, combats will be long and drawn-out, causing them to spend, on average, more healing surges than a similar but striker-heavier party.

For DMs that throw 6 or more encounters per day, strikers and controllers gain in importance, because they can do their jobs using at-wills, whereas Leaders drop in effectiveness the longer an encounter goes on, due to slowly losing their healing abilities. Furthermore, Strikers and Controllers ensure that fewer healing surges are needed, since more things drop, and things drop sooner each round.

So, my point is that, depending on the type world the DM is running, different parties might be "best."

[Oracle_Hunter]

Party of 5

Dragonborn Hammer fighter - for a smidge of aoe, a dollop of striker, with some heafty defender thrown in.

Why Dragonborn instead of Dwarf? Dwarves get Dwarven Weapon Training (+2 damage) a CON bonus (for Hammer Feats) and can Second Wind as a Minor Action... not to mention Dwarven Toughness.

If you're going Dragonborn, I'd give him a Halberd instead for Deadly Axe goodness.

EDIT:

I feel that part of the hypothetical party's situation that is being ignored is the length of a day.

If the DM of this party is the type of DM who throws 3 encounters per day, then Healing Surge rationing will not be as big of a deal. Some of the proposed party make ups have low-damage strikers, or no strikers at all. For these parties, combats will be long and drawn-out, causing them to spend, on average, more healing surges than a similar but striker-heavier party.

For DMs that throw 6 or more encounters per day, strikers and controllers gain in importance, because they can do their jobs using at-wills, whereas Leaders drop in effectiveness the longer an encounter goes on, due to slowly losing their healing abilities. Furthermore, Strikers and Controllers ensure that fewer healing surges are needed, since more things drop, and things drop sooner each round.

So, my point is that, depending on the type world the DM is running, different parties might be "best."

While I agree that low-damage strikers (or controller-y) parties will suffer Surge loss over long battles, I think the double-rogue combo is the way to go. With a good Defender and a Warlord they can easily isolate and kill individual baddies in 1-2 rounds apiece (more for elites, of course).

Are people really hating on the double rogue? What's wrong with 'em?

[Yakk]

Two rogues is sub optimal

A rogue wants lots of flanking options to get easy combat advantage. Every other rogue eats a flanking option.

2 rogues + 1 melee means that ... either the rogues are each flanking the same target with each other, or one rogue gets no flanking, or the one melee is seriously surrounded.

1 rogue + 2 melee means that the one rogue has two distinct spots to flank an opponent, or more.

I'm not saying it won't work -- and the "double-rogue death squad" could be a useful way to take out back-line opponents. But a Ranger+Rogue could probably do it about as well.

Note that twin strike >~= rogue at-will damage, barring a target with a really crappy reflex defense. Ranger per-encounter powers aren't that good, damage-wise, and then Ranger dailies tend to be way too good.

[Crow]

Except, of course, you want your players to be soaking up a measured amount of damage. Everyone has healing surges and HP -- ideally, you efficiently use every party member's.

Then again, if you have two surge-heavy defenders, this might not be the case.

I will have to disagree with you there. I've found that ideally, you want none of your party members soaking up damage.

Now as a DM, it's different. Then I want the players to take all sorts of damage. :smallwink:

[Yakk]

Meh, monsters are going to be dealing damage to someone if they aren't being actively controlled by a PC's powers.

Given that the damage is incoming, you don't want the monsters to be completely ignoring any single party member. You want everyone to take a bit of monster-attention and soak it in their HP.

You do want the defenders (with their high HP, good AC, and lots of high-value healing surges) to take more damage than the other party members.

Ie, if you are taking 100 damage on a 5 member party, having the Defender take 60 and everyone else take 10 (even if the other members take 20% more damage than the defender, upping the total to 12 each), than having the Defender take 100 damage all by themself.

This is, as I've mentioned before, quite key to generating encounters where the party is on the edge of defeat. By having monsters switch between "pound on one target" when they are too weak, and "spread damage out" when they are too strong, you can custom-tailor an encounter on the fly without cheating on dice rolls, HP totals, or the like. It isn't hard to justify that kind of behavior in a roleplay sense, either. :-)

Of course, that's DM theorycraft, not player theorycraft. However, it does point out that a relatively high HP Ranger who can be attacked is often better, defensively, for the party than a lower HP Warlock that cannot be attacked.

[TwystidMynd]

I haven't played a metric ton of games, but I did level from 1 to 6 as the only Rogue (Trickster) in the party. Part of the way we had a Fighter and a Taclord, and later the Taclord got replaced by a Wizard.

Throughout play, I found that it was very difficult to get into a flanking position while maintaining a "safe distance" from the baddies. This actually usually meant that I was taking hits from whatever the Fighter didn't have a chance to mark, because I was in the middle of the scuffle.

With the Taclord, a cool maneuver that we figured out was that, through combinations of sliding abilities, we could frequently "yank" the Biggest Baddie out from a group, and double-team him away from his buddies, and focus-fire him down while the Fighter tanked the rest. This became much more difficult to do when we traded the Taclord for a Wizard, but with two Trickster Rogues I think it would probably be possible again.

[Awesomologist]

First of all I'd like like to note that there is no such thing as a "Best Party". You'd be surprised at how much of it has to do with the creativity and skill level of the players around the table.
That being said I've experienced some groups that work really well.

Note: All of these groups were played in the Heroic Tier. Results may vary at higher tiers.

Group 1
Dwarf Fighter (player went with 2H hammers but we figure axes are feasible)
Halfling Rogue
Dragonborn Paladin (sword and board)
Eladrin Warlord (Tactical)
Human Wizard (Control)

Group 2
Dragonborn Paladin (sword and board, Slightly different build than group 1's but not significantly so)
Eladrin Swordmage (Assault Swordmage)
Dwarf Cleric (Devout)
Tiefling Warlock (Infernal)
Human Wizard (Control)

Group 3
Eladrin Swordmage (Assault Swordmage)
Dragonborn Warlord (Inspiring)
Eladrin Ranger (Two-Weapon)
Teifling Warlock (Infernal)
Human Wizard (Control)

All three groups played fairly well together. Group 1 was able to get by with Paladin and Warlord heals. Group 2 had excellent synergy between the Swordmage and Warlock while the Paladin defended the Cleric and Wizard. Group 3's Ranger played "whack-a-mole" shifting and moving around the Warlord's Target, while the Swordmage was very effective at moving the front line. Same synergy existed with the Warlock and Swordmage.

A few notes on specific classes:
1) We've found the Rogue and Two Weapon Ranger fairly interchangeable in that they're both mobile and deal a lot of great melee damage.
2) The Warlock and Archer Ranger are also similarly interchangeable as ranged damage dealers.
3) An Inspiring Warlords are almost as good of a healer as the Cleric, but we have not tested the endurance of this build.
4) Swordmages, of either build, make better secondary defenders than primary ones but their mobility is fantastic in situations were extra mobs come into battle or if a mob can get past the primary defender. Their synergy with ranged damage dealers is unmatched in my honest opinion.
5) Our group has come to the consensus that there is no reason to play a Battle Mage. Focused attacks on a single or small group of targets for high damage is the job of other classes. If the party gets swarmed, or has problems with a couple of mobs, we found the Wizard is best suited for controlling those mobs and keeping them away or hindering their abilities.

[Ealstan]

I'm currently playing a Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord, and I've gotta say it is definitely sub-par. It was good initially, but the higher we go (currently 14th), the less effective I become. To remain a contributing member of the team I've had to pump my defenses as much as possible to take up some tanking duties (We have one Dwarf Fighter, who rocks the house). I eventually multiclassed into paladin, which actually helped a lot. I now even heal more than I did single-classed.

[Awesomologist]

I'm currently playing a Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord, and I've gotta say it is definitely sub-par. It was good initially, but the higher we go (currently 14th), the less effective I become. To remain a contributing member of the team I've had to pump my defenses as much as possible to take up some tanking duties (We have one Dwarf Fighter, who rocks the house). I eventually multiclassed into paladin, which actually helped a lot. I now even heal more than I did single-classed.

I'm curious as to why you think you've become less effective? Dragonborn Warlords have the added benefit of higher strength so swapping a lower level power for a tactical power is an option.
Do you find the shortcoming to be in damage? Heals? Battlefield control?

[Zocelot]

Warlock and rogue are also out as they are simply inferior strikers to the ranger.

Can anyone tell me why? I haven't seen both in the same party, so I can't compare.

[TwystidMynd]

I don't exactly hold that belief, but I believe I understand why some people do.

Assuming a character hits, then with regards to the bonus damage:
The first and foremost reason is that the Rogue gets bonus damage only when the Rogue has Combat Advantage. This condition means that sometimes, the Rogue does not get bonus damage.
The ranger, on the other hand, will always get to use his bonus damage.
So, for this reason, some parties will see the Ranger deal more damage, simply because his damage is more consistent.

Another argument I've seen (but not verified, so take this as a "I heard that someone said this" sort of statement) is that Ranger Encounter/Daily powers are generally more damage-oriented than Rogues'. My experience is limited to Heroic Tier, but, for what it's worth, my experience runs counter to this statement.

Lastly, the fact that a Ranger can spec for ranged damage and not worry about positioning means that he is less of a liability; he takes less damage and can spread out more because he's ranged.

[Artanis]

There's a lot of suggestions for raw effectiveness per character, but I was just thinking...

Virtually every class can do some secondary role to go with the primary one. Not as well as a "real" class of that type, but still decently well. For instance, Fighters don't have the firepower of a Striker, but can still dish out some serious pain, Warlocks aren't as good controllers as Wizards, but can still do some good controlling, and Clerics aren't Defenders, but can take a lot more hits than most classes. So what if we designed a party that took advantage of these things, so that instead of having one character fill one role, we had two characters each half-filling that role? Granted, it would probably suck (and the very fact that I thought it up is usually a good indication that it does indeed suck :smalltongue: ), but if nothing else it might be a neat thought exercise.

[Edea]

Can anyone tell me why? I haven't seen both in the same party, so I can't compare.

Twin Strike.

[Hzurr]

Virtually every class can do some secondary role to go with the primary one. Not as well as a "real" class of that type, but still decently well. For instance, Fighters don't have the firepower of a Striker, but can still dish out some serious pain, Warlocks aren't as good controllers as Wizards, but can still do some good controlling, and Clerics aren't Defenders, but can take a lot more hits than most classes. So what if we designed a party that took advantage of these things, so that instead of having one character fill one role, we had two characters each half-filling that role? Granted, it would probably suck (and the very fact that I thought it up is usually a good indication that it does indeed suck :smalltongue: ), but if nothing else it might be a neat thought exercise.

It might work. Let's consider...

Quick rundown of "Secondary" roles
Paladin - leader
Fighter - striker
Warlock - controller
Wizard - ??
Artificer - Controller?
Ranger - Defender
Rogue - Controller?
Swordmage - Controller
Warlord - Defender
Cleric - Defender?

While I'm obviously unsure about some of these, it'll do to start out.

Replacing a leader - Hmm... the only class with a secondary leader abilities is the Paladin, and with the only in-combat healing as touch attack standard action that can only be used wis modifier times per day, I'd say it'd be difficult to replace a leader by doubling up on Paladins.

Replacing a Controller - More do-able, I think. I think having a Warlock and Swordmage could cover the controller position (although I would think you'd need an additional striker/defender to cover up for them)

Replacing a defender - Hmm...yeah, you could do it. Since the defender replacements could be Clerics and Warlords, the lack of defence could be made up with the additional healing.

Replacing a striker - Not a problem. You get a couple of fighters focusing on damage, and they can slaughter things, especially with a good controller or two debuffing for them.

So it appears that leaders would be hard to replace, Controllers moderately difficult, defenders shouldn't be a problem, and strikers are downright easy to replace.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

[TwystidMynd]

Twin Strike.

This is something I don't understand. By my math, assuming two characters with relatively identical stats and gear at 1st level:
Main Stat: 18 (+4)
2nd Stat: 16 (+3)

With a Rogue using a Dagger and Sly Flourish:
No Combat Advantage:
To Hit Mods: +4 (dex) +3 (prof) +1 (rogue dagger spec) = +8 total
Damage: 1d4 + 4 (dex) + 3 (cha) (average = 9.5)
Combat Advantage
To Hit Mods: +4 (dex) +3 (prof) +1 (rogue dagger spec) +2 (CA) = +10 total
Damage: 1d4 + 4 (dex) + 3 (cha) + 2d6 (average = 16.5)

With a Ranger using a Longbow and Twin Strike:
No Prime Shot:
To Hit mods: +4 (dex) +2 (prof) = +6 total
Damage: 1d10 + 1d6 / 1d10 (average if both hit = 14.5)
Prime Shot
To Hit: 1d20 + 4 (dex) + 2 (prof) + 1 (prime shot) = +7 total
Damage: 1d10 + 1d6 / 1d10 (average if both hit = 14.5)

I admit that I'm not sitting with my book open, so I may be missing something, but to me it seems like the rogue will hit more often than the Ranger and, all he needs is to have Combat Advantage about 75% of the time to surpass the Ranger's damage (assuming both the Ranger and Rogue hit the same frequency). If the Rogue has Backstabber (and, for parallelity - a new word we can assume the Ranger has the 1d8 Quarry talent too) then the Rogue only needs Combat Advantage 2/3rds of the time to catch up.
However, this is assuming that the Rogue and Ranger have equal chances to hit the same target, which is painting a much prettier picture for the ranger than the numbers suggest.
The Rogue has higher To Hit bonuses without Combat Advantage/Prime Shot factored in. Even assuming the Rogue has Combat Advantage (which is, in my experience, much easier to get than a Ranger to get Prime Shot), and letting the Ranger get Prime Shot, the Rogue still has higher To Hit bonuses. Further, Rogues have at-will attacks that target Reflex or AC, which ensure even more that a Rogue will hit a tough-to-hit target more often than a Ranger in a similar position.
If you argue that a TWF Ranger might get a better chance, because he can get Combat Advantage, then the best case scenario is the Ranger having a +9 to hit with Combat Advantage meaning he is still hitting less often than a Rogue in an analagous position. Further, the Ranger will have a damage die of less than d10, so will be doing less average damage on a hit.

This discrepancy should shift a lot more once Paragon Tier is hit, where the Rogue's stat modifiers continue to rise and affect damage done with Sly Flourish, whereas the Rangers never do. Further, the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage increases faster than the Ranger's (Ranger's progression is 1d6/2d6/3d6, whereas Rogue's is 2d6/3d6/5d6).

So, like I said... I don't agree with the belief that Rangers do more damage than Rogues. I believe that a Ranger will do more damage if the rogue is never given an opportunity to get Combat Advantage, but it's not too hard with a bit of teamwork for a skilled Rogue to get the Combat Advantage she needs.

[Kurald Galain]

I admit that I'm not sitting with my book open, so I may be missing something, but to me it seems like the rogue will hit more often than the Ranger and, all he needs is to have Combat Advantage about 75% of the time
In my experience, a well-played rogue has combat advantage almost all the time, because of (1) his first strike ability, (2) lots of conditions that cause CA, (3) hitting from stealth, and (4) flanking. This is, of course, a matter of player skill; I would estimate that rangers are more straightforward to play.


If the Rogue has Backstabber (and, for parallelity - a new word we can assume the Ranger has the 1d8 Quarry talent too)
What the rogue really wants is that feat that gives an additional +1 to hit with CA. It's better than backstabber.

I do believe that at paragon and up, the ranger gets more damaging powers (and in particular, paragon paths) if you max out the math. But overall, "ranger >> rogue" is provably incorrect.

[Blackfang108]

Replacing a defender - Hmm...yeah, you could do it. Since the defender replacements could be Clerics and Warlords, the lack of defence could be made up with the additional healing.

I play a Warlord.

When my party first started, we had 2 strikers, a controller, and me.

I nearly died three four times. Three in combat (The other was a near execution.)

One of the strikers WAS killed at the execution. (I'm an Eladrin. It's a little easier for me.) He replaced his character with a Paladin.

I'm truly happy I'm not the tank anymore.

[Crow]

In my experience, a well-played rogue has combat advantage almost all the time, because of (1) his first strike ability, (2) lots of conditions that cause CA, (3) hitting from stealth, and (4) flanking. This is, of course, a matter of player skill; I would estimate that rangers are more straightforward to play.


What the rogue really wants is that feat that gives an additional +1 to hit with CA. It's better than backstabber.

I do believe that at paragon and up, the ranger gets more damaging powers (and in particular, paragon paths) if you max out the math. But overall, "ranger >> rogue" is provably incorrect.

The ranger can still out-damage the rogue over the course of a camapign though due to getting more opportunities to dish out damage. In a one for one with ideal conditions, the rogue wins out, but consistently over time, the ranger can do it better. Especially as enhancement bonus damage, attribute modifiers and weapon focus damage grows. At low levels the rogue is winning out if he can get CA all the time, but at higher level, the Ranger pulls ahead.

[Kurald Galain]

Especially as enhancement bonus damage, attribute modifiers and weapon focus damage grows. At low levels the rogue is winning out if he can get CA all the time
No, as we just pointed out, the rogue is winning even if he can't get CA all the time. And note that in paragon and higher, he can add the Ice Trick (and various invisibility powers) to his list of Ways For Getting CA.

Regardless, I'd like you to give some proof for the conjecture in your last post. It should be obvious that "enhancement bonus damage, attribute modifiers and weapon focus damage" apply equally much to the rogue as to the ranger. You haven't given us anything beyond guesswork, so far; please elaborate.

[Charity]

Why Dragonborn instead of Dwarf? Dwarves get Dwarven Weapon Training (+2 damage) a CON bonus (for Hammer Feats) and can Second Wind as a Minor Action... not to mention Dwarven Toughness.

If you're going Dragonborn, I'd give him a Halberd instead for Deadly Axe goodness.

I like the Dragonborn con synergy for the breath weapon (which since the advent of Hurl breath is quite useful as a ranged attack) and adding your con to healing surges is always handy.

[Crow]

No, as we just pointed out, the rogue is winning even if he can't get CA all the time. And note that in paragon and higher, he can add the Ice Trick (and various invisibility powers) to his list of Ways For Getting CA.

Regardless, I'd like you to give some proof for the conjecture in your last post. It should be obvious that "enhancement bonus damage, attribute modifiers and weapon focus damage" apply equally much to the rogue as to the ranger. You haven't given us anything beyond guesswork, so far; please elaborate.

Yes but the ranger is getting twice the number of attacks (and by extension, hits) in many cases. Even if Twin Strike is out of the equation, the ranger has plenty of powers which will give him multiple attacks at high levels (notice the part about rogues winning out early, but rangers finishing strong). Assuming an equal chance to hit at moderate to high level, the rogue is getting 2 more d6's or d8's (7 or 9 more damage...half that at paragon) to the ranger's whole extra attack (Attribute of +5-10 (covering brutal scoundrel), double the weapon focus damage, and higher weapon damage dice. Not to mention enhancement bonus damage which is effectively doubled as well (+3-6). It's not a huge difference, but it's still there.

Nothing stops the ranger from taking the "ice-trick" feats either if he wants to stay even with the rogue who does so (the 5 extra damage per hit), but he even gets twice the benefit there too in many cases. If we want to get into specific builds we can, but I think this isn't what the OP had in mind. If you want to break out the Scimitar-dance Stormwardens, feel free, but we'll be veering off topic.

[its_all_ogre]

i'd like to see the following:
2 tactical warlords (so they get the bonus to hit when using an action point)
melee healer cleric pref dwarf

with that much healing you should be able to fight some serious fights.
add in a fighter, wizard and rogue or ranger for striker goodness.

[Mando Knight]

No, as we just pointed out, the rogue is winning even if he can't get CA all the time. And note that in paragon and higher, he can add the Ice Trick (and various invisibility powers) to his list of Ways For Getting CA.

That's the Frost Dagger +Wintertouched +Lasting Frost trick, right? Freakin'. Awesome. Especially if you use an action point to attack twice, then the first attack is as normal, but then the second gains CA and hits a vulnerability...

[Random NPC]

My choice:

Dwarven Fighter using a single War Hammer or a Battle Axe. No shield. You can get some decent damage out of this.

Dragonborn Paladin, however you like it. Useful for the silly minions.

Human Wizard with a smart person behind

Laser Cleric. Best. Healer. Ever.

TWF Str-Race Ranger maybe with some Chain mail

[RTGoodman]

Replacing a leader - Hmm... the only class with a secondary leader abilities is the Paladin, and with the only in-combat healing as touch attack standard action that can only be used wis modifier times per day, I'd say it'd be difficult to replace a leader by doubling up on Paladins.

Actually, depending on powers selected, Paladins can be excellent back-up Leaders. Lots of their powers deal with healing or buffing. My Tiefling Paladin/Warlock (see sig) has done almost as much healing in-combat as the Warlord, the "real" leader.

[Vortling]

I'm glad to see people have lots of suggestions for this. I'm surprised at quite a few of them, mostly the suggestions to keep wizards in instead of replacing them with dragonborn. The striker debate is very interesting, I'll be keeping an eye on that. Maybe rogues are salvageable after all.

Thoughts so far: I didn't mention the swordmage but it's nice to see it included. Seems like two varieties of ranger isn't as useful as I thought. The leader side of the discussion seems to emphasize the healing for clerics as their strength which is disappointing. I see that having one of each defender seems like quite a good idea, especially if you're short on healing.

I had intended for it to be a party of any level as I would hope the party could survive levels 1-30 without needing to switch in a different class.

[Colmarr]

I've personally found that the following groups work very well together:
Tactical Warlord, Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric

We've just had a Taclord join our KotS campaign, bringing our party roster to exactly this. We were doing well even before he joined, and we nailed the first combat after he joined.

Hopefully that trend will continue.

[Gralamin]

I'm glad to see people have lots of suggestions for this. I'm surprised at quite a few of them, mostly the suggestions to keep wizards in instead of replacing them with dragonborn. The striker debate is very interesting, I'll be keeping an eye on that. Maybe rogues are salvageable after all.

Dragonborn can only really control once per encounter. In adventurers like KotS (which I'm guessing helps with your Dragonborn bit, seeing how effective the Dragonborn is at controlling in our game), this is more then sufficient. In other adventurers, especially ones where you fight skirmishers, a one shot control ability is not sufficient. It just so happens if the terrain is made correctly, dragonbreath is a terrifying weapon.


Thoughts so far: I didn't mention the swordmage but it's nice to see it included. Seems like two varieties of ranger isn't as useful as I thought. The leader side of the discussion seems to emphasize the healing for clerics as their strength which is disappointing. I see that having one of each defender seems like quite a good idea, especially if you're short on healing.

Honestly, while two-handed rangers are still quite good, the rogue is better due to its greater number of condition inflicting abilities (assuming brutal rogue), or control abilities. With Bow Rangers, your ranged abilities are also quite powerful, and you have limited control, but the warlock in practice seems to have a sort of versatility they do not. I'd put rangers right in the middle for how good of a striker they are, as their focus is on striking, and little else, and tend not to synergize as well.

As for clerics, well, when you have abilities like Healer's Lore, its hard not to be shoehorned into the healer role. The important part is you can do stuff while healing now.

As for having a paladin and a fighter, it can be a good idea. What your basically doing with taking a paladin instead of a second leader is saying you need a tank with some healing abilities more then you need just healing abilities.


I had intended for it to be a party of any level as I would hope the party could survive levels 1-30 without needing to switch in a different class.

4E is a challenging game. I believe just about any group can survive that long, they just need to plan tactically, and hope that the dice don't end you.


We've just had a Taclord join our KotS campaign, bringing our party roster to exactly this. We were doing well even before he joined, and we nailed the first combat after he joined.

Hopefully that trend will continue.

The synergy is quite evident in play I find, but watch out. No matter how well you might synergize, and how optimal you might think you are (barring tricks requiring funny logic and only one way of looking at it), Encounters are still a challenge, and thus you can be decimated rather quickly just by the change of luck.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes but the ranger is getting twice the number of attacks (and by extension, hits) in many cases.
That does not follow. Note that the rogue has a higher chance to hit (even without CA) and has numerous area effect powers that the ranger lacks, starting with blinding barrage.


Even if Twin Strike is out of the equation,
That's a good example, actually. It deals 2[W] damage with no attribute bonus to damage, whereas a rogue at will would do 1[W]+Dex or thereabouts, which turns out to be about the same. Overall, and for obvious reasons, dual-hit attacks do less damage per hit than single-hit attacks.


Assuming an equal chance to hit at moderate to high level,
You're not given that - the rogue hits more often.


the rogue is getting 2 more d6's or d8's (7 or 9 more damage...half that at paragon)
You forgot that the brutal scoundrel gets his strength bonus to all sneak attacks.



Nothing stops the ranger from taking the "ice-trick" feats either if he wants to stay even with the rogue who does so (the 5 extra damage per hit),
The whole point of the ice trick is that it gives you CA; thus it is way more useful to the rogue than to the ranger.

So your numbers are skewed. I believe that on high levels, a fully optimized ranger still gets the most DPR because of the stormwarden prestige class, but like I said the OP's statement that rogues are "simply inferior strikers" is provably false.

[Kurald Galain]

And the suggested party:

Dwarf Fighter, with a solid damage build.

Eladrin Orbizard, for the lockdowns and minion clearing. Honestly, humans are overrated, and fey step is just too good.

Elf Brutal Rogue or bugbear if the DM allows that. Aside from solid DPR, doubles as a skillmonkey.

Tiefling TacLord, sends to-hit mods into the stratosphere, and also heals stuff. If you hate tieflings, it can also be a dragon or eladrin.

Dragonborn Paladin, secondary tank and secondary healer, doubles as party face.

[ShaggyMarco]

Let's look long term then, shall we?


Assuming two characters with relatively identical stats and gear at 11th level:
Build Assumptions: Weapon Focus, +3 weapon, damage-add increasing feat.
Main Stat: 21 (+5)
2nd Stat: 19 (+4)

With a Rogue using a Dagger and Sly Flourish:
No Combat Advantage:
To Hit Mods: +5 (dex) +3 (prof) +1 (rogue dagger spec) +5 (half-level) +3 (weapon enhancement)= +17 total
Damage: 1d4 + 5 (dex) + 4 (cha) + 3 (enhancement) +2 (focus) (average = 16.5)
Combat Advantage
To Hit Mods: +5 (dex) +3 (prof) +1 (rogue dagger spec) +5 (half-level) +3 (weapon enhancement) +2 (CA) = +19 total
Damage: 1d4 + 4 (dex) + 3 (cha) + 3d8 + 3 (weapon enhancement) +2 (focus) (average = 28)

With a Ranger using a Longbow and Twin Strike:
No Prime Shot:
To Hit mods: +5 (dex) +2 (prof) +5 (half-level) +3 (weapon enhancement)= +15 total
Damage: 1d10 + 3 (enhancement) +2 (focus) + 2d8 / 1d10 + 3 (enhacement) +2 (focus) (average if both hit = 30)
Prime Shot
To Hit: + 5 (dex) + 2 (prof) + 5 (half level) +3 (weapon enhancement) +1 (prime shot) = +16 total
Damage: 1d10 + 3 (enhancement) +2 (focus) + 2d8 / 1d10 + 3 (enhancement) +2 (focus) (average if both hit = 30)

So we're seeing the Ranger pull ahead here--though he still can't get as high of a chance to hit (or reliably get Combat Advantage at range). Rogues are between 5% and 20% more accurate, depending on circumstances.

However, Rangers do 7% more damage than a Rogue with Combat advantage (not quite making up for the Rogue's 15%-20% to-hit advantage with combat advantage)

Vs. a Rogue without combat advantage, Rangers do 45% more damage. Rogues without combat advantage only have a 5%-10% advantage to hit.

Basically, if a Rogue wants to keep up with a Ranger at Paragon, he MUST have combat advantage on nearly every attack. If he doesn't have CA, his attack must be one that will grant a sick Debuff and/or Combat Advantage on his next attack.

Now for Epic:

Assuming two characters with relatively identical stats and gear at 21st level:
Build Assumptions: Weapon Focus, +5 weapon, damage-add increasing feat.
Main Stat: 24 (+7)
2nd Stat: 22 (+6)

With a Rogue using a Dagger and Sly Flourish:
No Combat Advantage:
To Hit Mods: +7 (dex) +3 (prof) +1 (rogue dagger spec) +10 (half-level) +5 (weapon enhancement)= +26 total
Damage: 2d4 + 7 (dex) + 6 (cha) + 5 (enhancement) +3 (focus) (average = 26)
Combat Advantage
To Hit Mods: +7 (dex) +3 (prof) +1 (rogue dagger spec) +10 (half-level) +5 (weapon enhancement) +2 (CA) = +28 total
Damage: 2d4 + 7 (dex) + 6 (cha) + 5d8 + 5 (weapon enhancement) +3 (focus) (average = 48.5)

With a Ranger using a Longbow and Twin Strike:
No Prime Shot:
To Hit mods: +7 (dex) +2 (prof) +10 (half-level) +5 (weapon enhancement)= +24 total
Damage: 2d10 + 5 (enhancement) +3 (focus) + 3d8 / 2d10 + 5 (enhacement) +3 (focus) (average if both hit = 51.5)
Prime Shot
To Hit: + 7 (dex) + 2 (prof) + 10 (half level) +5 (weapon enhancement) +1 (prime shot) = +25 total
Damage: 2d10 + 5 (enhancement) +3 (focus) + 3d8 / 2d10 + 5 (enhancement) +3 (focus) (average if both hit = 51.5)

This resembles Paragon, but CA becomes even more vital.

Rangers do 6% more damage than a Rogue with Combat advantage (not quite making up for the Rogue's 15%-20% to-hit advantage with combat advantage)

Vs. a Rogue without combat advantage, Rangers do 50% more damage. Rogues without combat advantage only have a 5%-10% advantage to hit.

Denying a Rogue combat advantage cuts a Rogue's damage output by a TON. That said, Rogues are always going to be more likely to land attacks and deal their damage--but if they don't have CA, that damage will be negligable compared to what an Archer Ranger could be doing.

[Kurald Galain]

(average if both hit = 30)
And in that assumption lies the problem with your calculations.

If the rogue has, say, 60% to hit, the ranger has 50% to hit, which means he'll hit one target 50% of the time, both 25% of the time, and none 25% of the time. Damage is highly dependent on to-hit chances.

(edit)
Rogue = 26 damage * 0.6 = 15.6
CA rogue = 48.5 damage * 0.7 = 33.95
Ranger = 51.5 damage * 0.5 = 25.75
PS ranger = 51.5 damage * 0.55 = 28.325
(this is not accounting for criticals, but that favors the one with the most damage per hit, i.e. the rogue, and to add insult to injury one of the prime rogue paragons doubles the chance of a crit)

Then there's a feat that gives +1 to hit with CA. Adding that in, we get CA rogue = 48.5 damage * 0.75 = 36.375

And also, the rogue shouldn't use sly flourish, but riposte strike, for a free additional attack assuming the target attacks him. He won't get +6 damage from sly flourish, but he will get +6 damage on all sneak attacks if he's a brutal rogue. That further skews the numbers. Adding that, wildly assuming a 50% chance that the target will counterattack (or provoke, by moving away), that adds another 20 * 0.7 * 0.5 = 7.0 damage with CA. Rogue wins.



Basically, if a Rogue wants to keep up with a Ranger at Paragon, he MUST have combat advantage on nearly every attack.
Yes. And, like I said earlier, a rogue in the hands of a skilled player will have combat advantage on nearly every attack.

Like I also said earlier, I do think rangers win in terms of DPR at high (epic) levels, but people here are severely overstating the severity of the difference. Simply comparing basic attacks won't cut it; the ranger will at least need stances and paragons to bridge the gap.

[ShaggyMarco]

I know my comparison isn't strictly accurate, but pretty good for rough comparison purposes. My point was that a Rogue can, in fact, keep up, though it certainly takes more skill and consideration.

[TwystidMynd]

Yes but the ranger is getting twice the number of attacks (and by extension, hits) in many cases. Even if Twin Strike is out of the equation, the ranger has plenty of powers which will give him multiple attacks at high levels (notice the part about rogues winning out early, but rangers finishing strong). Assuming an equal chance to hit at moderate to high level, the rogue is getting 2 more d6's or d8's (7 or 9 more damage...half that at paragon) to the ranger's whole extra attack (Attribute of +5-10 (covering brutal scoundrel), double the weapon focus damage, and higher weapon damage dice. Not to mention enhancement bonus damage which is effectively doubled as well (+3-6). It's not a huge difference, but it's still there.

Nothing stops the ranger from taking the "ice-trick" feats either if he wants to stay even with the rogue who does so (the 5 extra damage per hit), but he even gets twice the benefit there too in many cases. If we want to get into specific builds we can, but I think this isn't what the OP had in mind. If you want to break out the Scimitar-dance Stormwardens, feel free, but we'll be veering off topic.

This is a more complex argument, with far more variables than the Sly Flourish vs. Twin Strike argument I was making earlier. I think the math is pretty solid that, if you're simply considering Twin Strike vs. Sly Flourish, there is no "obvious" lead, but that's not your point.

Taking these other things into account, you may indeed be correct; since a Ranger effectively doubles all of his Enhancement bonuses and Weapon Focus bonuses. I don't have time to do the math, and I don't blame you for not doing so either, but the evidence is not compelling enough to prove to me that Ranger >> Rogue in high levels for a few reasons...

Firstly, your stated assumption is "Assuming an equal chance to hit at moderate to high level..." and I'm not entirely sure that this is a valid assumption. At low levels, I'm positive that it's not, per my previous argument. I can see that maybe that changes at higher levels, but I've not seen any evidence.

Secondly, at Paragon tier, crits become far more common for every weapon-bearing class. With Crits maxing out Sneak Attack damage, that's something that needs to be considered as well, since the lower amount of maximum bonus damage the Ranger has might help the Rogue stay on par with the Ranger.

Lastly, I have no clue what the "Ice Trick" thing is... I've not been keeping up with the latest Dragon publishings, so I can't comment on that.
Edit: I should read all of the posts before responding! Also, anyone know how to Strikethrough?

[Charity]

Lastly, I have no clue what the "Ice Trick" thing is... I've not been keeping up with the latest Dragon publishings, so I can't comment on that.
Edit: I should read all of the posts before responding! Also, anyone know how to Strikethrough?

the stuff you want to strike thru

or
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/buttons/strike.gif up there on the right when you post.

The ice trick is getting the feats that make folk vulnerable to ice powers when you hit them with an ice power and then buying an ice weapon to make all your attacks have the ice descriptor.

Lasting Frost - (Paragon) Benefit: Any target you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold until the end of your next turn.
(use with frost weapons for permanent effect)

Wintertouched - Benefit: When attacking a creature that is vulnerable to cold, you gain combat advantage when you use a power that has the cold keyword. (good for rogues)

[Hzurr]

Aside from the rogue/ranger debate, this thread actually makes me very happy. Nearly every one of these "ideal" party builds is a good idea, and would be very effective. There's no "One race/class combo of ultimate awesomeness!" (Even the traditional Human/Wizard has been challeneged).

This kind of flexibility I really, really like, and we're only talking about (for the most part) classes & races from the 1 book (with occational MM & swordmage references).

[Yakk]

First, note that the longbow gives the Ranger an extra +1 to hit.

Second, note that we are comparing a melee Rogue to a ranged Ranger. A melee Ranger will be using two 1d10 or 1d12 weapons.

Third, there is a slight Ranger advantage from crits, given equal crit-width, and extra damage dice.

Rangers have:
L/2 + Stat + Enchantment + 3 (Bastard sword) + CA to hit
Rogues have:
L/2 + Stat + Enchantment + 4 (Dagger) + CA to hit + 1 (nimble blade)

For damage, a trickster rogue has:
Rogue: [W]d4+Dex+Cha+Enchantment+SA+Focus+1 "other" per tier
Ranger: [W]d10+Enchantment+Quarry+Focus+1 "other" per tier

This gives the Rogue a +2 to-hit advantage.

We'll give the Ranger a 50% chance to hit, and the Rogue a 60% chance, how about?

Rogue damage is then roughly
20 primary stat, 14 secondary stat, +3/10 levels.
+5 Dex bonus, +2 Cha bonus, +3L/10, +L/5 (Focus and other), +L/5 (enchantment), +9[16]/13.5[24]/22.5[40] (SA), +2.5[4]/2.5[4]/5[8] weapon damage

Ranger damage (per hit) is then roughly:
+L/5 (focus and other), +L/5 (enchantment) +5.5[10]/5.5[10]/11[20] weapon damage
And HQ damage is:
4.5[8]/9[16]/13.5[24]

In addition, each crit generates say +L additional damage.

Plugging all of this in, we get:
7+(.3+.2+.2)*L+ (11.5[20] / 16[28] / 27.5[48] ) damage
= 7+L*.7 + (11.5[20] / 16[28] / 27.5[48] )
55%/55%/50% chance to hit, 5%/5%/10% chance to crit
At level 1, 11, 21, 30, we get:
19.2[28.7]@1
30.7[53.7]@11
49.2[90.7]@21
55.5[106.0]@30
Factoring in hit% and crit%, we get:
11.995 @ L 1 per sly flourish attack attempt
19.57 @ L 11 per sly flourish attack attempt
33.67 @ L 21 per sly flourish attack attempt
38.35 @ L 30 per sly flourish attack attempt

At level 1, the Ranger has a 1/400 double-crit, a 4.5% one-crit one-hit, 5% one-crit one-miss, a 45% single-weapon hit, and 20.25% double-weapon hit.

9.75% chance of having a crit HQ.
65.25% chance of having a non-crit HQ.

0.1 crit-hits per twin strike
0.9 normal-hits per twin strike

At level 21+, the Ranger has a 1/100 double-crit, 8% one-crit one-hit, 10% one-crit one-miss, 40% single-weapon hit, and 16% double-weapon hit.

19% chance of having a crit HQ
56% chance of having a normal HQ

0.2 crit-hits per twin strike
0.8 normal hits per twin strike

Ranger normal damage:
+L/5 (focus and other), +L/5 (enchantment) +5.5[10]/5.5[10]/11[20] weapon damage
.4*L+5.5 @ 1-20
.4*L+11 @ 21-30

Ranger crit damage:
1.4*L+10 @ 1-20
1.4*L+20 @ 21-30

And HQ damage is: (copied from above)
4.5[8]/9[16]/13.5[24]

At 1-20, we get (factoring in crits and hits, but not HQ):
0.1 * (1.4*L+10) + 0.9 * (0.4*L+5.5) =
0.5 * L + 5.95

HQ contribution:
9.75% * 8 + 65.25% * 4.5 = 3.71625 @ 1-10
9.75% * 16 + 65.25% * 9 = 7.4325 @ 11-20

21-30 we have different math. Non-HQ damage is:
(.4*L+11)*.8 + (1.4*L+20)*.2 = 0.6*L+12.8

HQ @ 21+ damage is:
19% * 24 + 56% * 13.5 = 12.12

So at level 21 and 30 we get:
37.52 @ 21
42.92 @ 30

Giving us the Ranger average-damage progression of:
10.16625 @ L 1 per twin strike attempt
18.3825 @ L 11 per twin strike attempt
37.52 @ 21 per twin strike attempt
42.92 @ 30 per twin strike attempt

VS the Rogue:
11.995 @ L 1 per sly flourish attack attempt
19.57 @ L 11 per sly flourish attack attempt
33.67 @ L 21 per sly flourish attack attempt
38.35 @ L 30 per sly flourish attack attempt

So notice that they are reasonably close. Except, of course, the Ranger gains twice as much benefit from each additional +1 damage source you find, and gets a larger percent boost to their damage from each +1 to hit that you find, above this point. I only assumed +1 damage per tier from non-weapon focus, non-enchanment, non-stat damage sources.

That is .. an underestimate.

I neglected paragon paths and epic destinies. The daggermaster PrC might boost the Rogue back up above the Ranger.

I presumed automatic combat advantage for both sides. Practically, the Rogue will probably get combat advantage more often, but the Ranger is hurt less by missing combat advantage.

I also smoothed out a lot of things, like weapon enhancements, crit bonus dice, etc. In real play, these things would probably go up more aggressively (I only assumed a +1 weapon at level 5!), and could easily generate a significantly faster advantage for the Ranger over the Rogue.

Smart rangers will get Berzerker weapons (+2 to hit and +2 to damage), which Rogues cannot also get.

Rangers are forced to get 2 weapons instead of one, which is more costly, and will result in the 'offhand' weapon lagging behind sometimes.

Finally, sly flourish looks good, but it actually sucks compared to the vs-Reflex at-will of the Rogue.

[TwystidMynd]

Math!

I appreciate you doing the numbers... I like math ;)

Something that confuses me about your math, though, is how you're calculating damage.



Plugging all of this in, we get:
7+(.3+.2+.2)*L+ (11.5[20] / 16[28] / 27.5[48] ) damage

I don't understand where the (.3+.2+.2)*L comes from, and would appreciate a little more elaboration.



At level 1, the Ranger has a 1/400 double-crit, a 4.5% one-crit one-hit, 5% one-crit one-miss, a 45% single-weapon hit, and 20.25% double-weapon hit.

9.75% chance of having a crit HQ.
65.25% chance of having a non-crit HQ.


Also, you assume that the Ranger knows which of his Twin Strikes will crit, and that he will only choose to apply his Hunter's Quarry to the strike that Crits. In practice, the Ranger will likely apply his HQ damage to the first attack that hits, regardless of whether it was a Crit or not, because it's generally not worth the risk of missing the second attack and not being able to apply HQ at all. This likely will have a very small effect on the end-values, but I feel it's important to state all assumptions made when doing formula calculations. To correct it, I believe you just need to change your numbers to:
7.50% chance of having a crit HQ.
67.50% chance of having a non-crit HQ.

It also took me a while to understand your notation for segregating tier-specific damages; I thought you were arbitrarily dividing numbers =P That's all just formatting peeves, though.

As far as the Sly Flourish vs. Piercing Strike argument, I believe that requires a bit more math. I personally view it as a situational thing. On my Rogue, I have both as my at-wills. Against heavily armored opponents (people I need a 11 or better to hit with Sly Flourish), I will use Piercing Strike. Against lightly-armored opponents (people I can hit with a 10 or worse with Sly Flourish) I'll use Sly Flourish. I think that the math needed to determine which produces the most DPR must take into account the opponent's AC, and that the breakpoint will probably be around 9 or 10, but that's just my intuition talking.

[Kurald Galain]

Third, there is a slight Ranger advantage from crits, given equal crit-width, and extra damage dice.

Rangers have:
L/2 + Stat + Enchantment + 3 (Bastard sword) + CA to hit
Rogues have:
L/2 + Stat + Enchantment + 4 (Dagger) + CA to hit + 1 (nimble blade)
It's getting more accurate, here. However, note that rogues have more ways of gaining CA, and have a paragon path that makes them crit more often (although rangers also have good paras). It would be fair to say that the rogue has CA more often than the ranger does.

Note also that the rogue should be using riposte strike, rather than sly flourish. Brutal scoundrel is a better build, anyway.

(edit) but we've said plenty about strikers. People seem to prefer TacLords over clerics, is there some analysis to be made there? What about fighter vs. paladin?

[Mando Knight]

Lasting Frost - (Paragon) Benefit: Any target you hit with a power that has the cold keyword gains vulnerable 5 cold until the end of your next turn.
(use with frost weapons for permanent effect)

Wintertouched - Benefit: When attacking a creature that is vulnerable to cold, you gain combat advantage when you use a power that has the cold keyword. (good for rogues)

This also works well with Wizards... Ray of Frost to start with, then finish up with an array of Cold Encounter and Daily powers. No need for finding/enchanting a Frost weapon, just need to hit with your Ray of Frost At-Will... and a Wizard's cold spells tend to have nasty side effects...

Regarding Ranger vs. Rogue: If Adventurer's Vault is allowed, at high levels a ranged Ranger may have picked up Weapon Proficiency in Greatbows, simply because of the massive number of feats available in 4E... and the things have a higher range and better damage dice than a Longbow for no cost other than one feat...

Also, a critical hit does not cause Sneak Attack/Hunter's Quarry damage dice to auto-max, since they are bonus damages rather than weapon damage.

[Kurald Galain]

This also works well with Wizards... Ray of Frost to start with, then finish up with an array of Cold Encounter and Daily powers.
True, but ray of frost is only single-target. Better to open with, say, icy terrain...



Regarding Ranger/Rogue damage: If Adventurer's Vault is allowed, at high levels the Ranger may have picked up Weapon Proficiency in Greatbows
That's +1 to damage. Whee. Back to the wall is better; arguably, so are bloodthirst and light blade precision.

[TwystidMynd]

It's getting more accurate, here. However, note that rogues have more ways of gaining CA, and have a paragon path that makes them crit more often (although rangers also have good paras). It would be fair to say that the rogue has CA more often than the ranger does.

Note also that the rogue should be using riposte strike, rather than sly flourish. Brutal scoundrel is a better build, anyway.

(edit) but we've said plenty about strikers. People seem to prefer TacLords over clerics, is there some analysis to be made there? What about fighter vs. paladin?

I agree that the math is better. Overall, though, I think that all of the Ranger vs. Rogue math should be enough to dispel any "Never play a Rogue" rumors that may have been floating around. The numbers are close enough that a party that works well together and identifies the needs of various classes (letting the Wizard AOE, letting the Rogue have Combat Advantage, getting the Archer Ranger enough room to shoot arrows, etc.) should have a damage output close enough to the alternative that status effects, bad/good luck, terrain, and monster tactics will probably account for more noise in the data than the base class optimal output differences.

As far as Cleric vs. Warlord, my party has a Fighter who takes a LOT of hits, and the rest of us generally don't take any. For this reason, having a Cleric effectively boosts the HP of the fighter by a lot, due to the +Wis modifier he gets from Healer's Lore.
Since we don't have a lot of second winds going off (usually 1 per encounter: the fighter's), we need as much healing from the Leader as possible.
If the damage was less concentrated, then more of us would be taking damage over the combat, so we'd have more second winds being spent, so we wouldn't need as much healing to come from the Leader, and we'd probably be able to stay up with a Warlord.

[Kurald Galain]

Since we don't have a lot of second winds going off (usually 1 per encounter: the fighter's), we need as much healing from the Leader as possible.
It would seem to me that, like casting Cure Light Wounds in 3rd edition, using your second wind like ever is poor strategy, unless you're a dwarf.

[THAC0]

It would seem to me that, like casting Cure Light Wounds in 3rd edition, using your second wind like ever is poor strategy, unless you're a dwarf.

Pretty much. Unless your back is really to the wall.

I like to save mine in case the healer goes down and I go down as well. Then it just takes a heal check for anyone to activate SW.

[TwystidMynd]

Also, a critical hit does not cause Sneak Attack/Hunter's Quarry damage dice to auto-max, since they are bonus damages rather than weapon damage.

It's not explicitly stated in the PHB or any of the other core rulebooks, so it's been a matter of some debate. I've asked Customer Service, and at the time, they responded that SA/Quarry/Curse damage is, indeed, maxed. It's entirely possible though, due to the inconsistency in CustServ, that someone else has responded that it isn't.



http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1396
Which dice do I maximize when scoring a critical hit?
Only the dice you would normally roll to calculate damage are maximized. If another bonus (like from a weapon or feat) causes you to roll extra damage dice when scoring a critical hit, those dice are rolled as normal.
This is still open to interpretation, but I believe that one valid interpretation is that SA/Curse/HQ damage is maximized on a crit.
If your DM judges that it isn't, the expected damage from the SA/Quarry should be exactly half of what the listed value is, and the comparisons would probably not change all that much.

[TwystidMynd]

It would seem to me that, like casting Cure Light Wounds in 3rd edition, using your second wind like ever is poor strategy, unless you're a dwarf.


As a Rogue, it's generally not worthwhile to use an Action Point for a second attack since I can't apply SA damage twice in a round. If I'm down to bloodied, and I hit and sneak attack with my first attack, I'll usually action-point to use a Second Wind. If I'm bloodied, that means I'm being attacked, and that means our Warrior is overwhelmed. At that point, my goal is to increase the party's survivability, not necessarily to squeeze in another 12 damage.


I like to save mine in case the healer goes down and I go down as well. Then it just takes a heal check for anyone to activate SW.

I also feel that it's WAY better to lose a Standard Action to use a Second Wind to avoid going unconscious than to lose an entire turn because you went unconscious AND to use up an ally's Standard Action to use Heal on you.

[Yakk]

Note also that the rogue should be using riposte strike, rather than sly flourish. Brutal scoundrel is a better build, anyway.
Riposte strike sucks -- at best, it prevents one target from attacking you. I don't get why people like it?

And, the combat advantage difference was explicitly noted. Rogues will get CA more often, but the Ranger will be less hurt from each instance of lacking CA than the Rogue.

---

The rogue damage breakdown model is:
+5 Dex bonus, +2 Cha bonus, +3L/10 (stats go up), +L/5 (Focus and other), +L/5 (enchantment), +9[16]/13.5[24]/22.5[40] (SA), +2.5[4]/2.5[4]/5[8] weapon damage

which works out to 7 + .7*L + blah


As a Rogue, it's generally not worthwhile to use an Action Point for a second attack since I can't apply SA damage twice in a round.
You should be missing reasonably often. Any round you miss burning an action point for a 2nd action is well worth it.


It would seem to me that, like casting Cure Light Wounds in 3rd edition, using your second wind like ever is poor strategy, unless you're a dwarf.

*nod* -- then again, you can use it after you have been focus-fired on, get the heal and +2 to all defenses, which ... suddenly makes you a sub-optimal target, and convinces the monsters to focus-fire on someone else.


Overall, though, I think that all of the Ranger vs. Rogue math should be enough to dispel any "Never play a Rogue" rumors that may have been floating around. The numbers are close enough that a party that works well together and identifies the needs of various classes (letting the Wizard AOE, letting the Rogue have Combat Advantage, getting the Archer Ranger enough room to shoot arrows, etc.) should have a damage output close enough to the alternative that status effects, bad/good luck, terrain, and monster tactics will probably account for more noise in the data than the base class optimal output differences.

The problem I have with the Rogue class is...

1> Anything other than Flanking CA tends to have a significant opportunity cost.
2> Unlike every other striker, they cannot "hunt down and harass" a low-HP artillery or controllers in the back effectively (because they lose Flanking)
3> Their daily powers are seriously weak compared to Ranger daily powers,
4> The math presented presumed a relatively modest amount of +damage from "other" sources. Each unit of +damage from "other" sources increases the Rogue's damage by 0.6, and the Ranger's damage by 1.0.

I only factored in a +3 from other sources at level 30. You can get BZR weapons by level 10 that grant +2 to hit and damage (and cannot be used by Rogues). There are feats (like back to the wall) that grant +1 untyped damage. There are other feats (such as the racials) that grant even more +untyped damage.

The Rogue is currently tied to the dagger, as that +4 to hit is pretty hard to compete with. The Ranger, meanwhile, can use any weapon that is better than the Bastard Sword. So the Rogue needs new weapons to say "counts as a dagger".

If the Rogue could really get combat advantage against any target for a modest cost, it would be closer to the Ranger in effectiveness.

Note, however, that a Melee Rogue Dex as both attack and defense -- while a Melee Ranger has to either pump Dex for attack, or Con for better armor, to keep up their AC.

[TwystidMynd]

The problem I have with the Rogue class is...

1> Anything other than Flanking CA tends to have a significant opportunity cost.
2> Unlike every other striker, they cannot "hunt down and harass" a low-HP artillery or controllers in the back effectively (because they lose Flanking)
3> Their daily powers are seriously weak compared to Ranger daily powers,
4> The math presented presumed a relatively modest amount of +damage from "other" sources. Each unit of +damage from "other" sources increases the Rogue's damage by 0.6, and the Ranger's damage by 1.0.

I agree with your first point; losing CA brings a Rogue's damage down a lot and it's certainly frustrating when it's not possible to get CA. That's another situation where I may burn a Second Wind instead of attacking ;)
Through Tumble and the Rogue's ability to get increased AC vs. attacks of opportunity, though, I don't find it all that hard to get CA on any time I attack. I've got a Dwarf Fighter who will Tide of Iron any baddie he wants me to flank, and I've got a Warlock buddy who has some ability that causes a mob to grant Combat Advantage. We've also got a Wizard who has Icy Terrain and Sleep, both of which help me get CA against a monster. And, lastly, I've got a Laz0r Cleric who can give me +2 to hit a mob when something *really* needs to die.

As far as the second point, I'm used to being a Rogue in WoW, where I can kick something's butt if it's a Caster, even if it's higher level than me. In 4e, it's certainly more difficult to do, and that may simply be something I need to get used to. However, I've found that by rushing an Artillery and using Positioning Strike I can frequently get that Artillery in range for our Fighter to lock down (and then we butt-kick!). I don't have access to my PHB, but there may be more abilities like that for a Rogue to use.

The Dailies are something I certainly won't argue on. I love my Encounter Powers, but I find it very difficult to justify using any of my dailies, sometimes. They simply don't do enough to make them seem special, but I still feel like they're a limited resource, so I should save them... so I end up rarely using them.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Riposte strike sucks -- at best, it prevents one target from attacking you. I don't get why people like it?

And, the combat advantage difference was explicitly noted. Rogues will get CA more often, but the Ranger will be less hurt from each instance of lacking CA than the Rogue.

Riposte Strike gives the Rogue more hitsies, which can be nice for Brutal Rogues (who lose little in accuracy) and can make up for a missed Sneak Attack. I would agree that it's not as good as hitting right the first time (since it ripostes with STR) but it's not a bad choice for Rapier Rogues.

A Rogue that is partnered with a Warlord should never be without CA. Wolf Pack Tactics should always allow the Warlord to either position himself or the Rogue to create flanking. Combine that with Viper's Strike, and their target should be flanked until dead.

TacLords are popular because they can boost Party Initiative by their INT bonus at Paragon (via Feat!) and grant INT bonus to-hit for an Encounter with a 1st level Daily (Lead the Attack I believe). Considering how hard lasting to-hit bonuses are in 4e, these are huge.

Considering that, it might be better to go TacLord with a Rogue and TWF Ranger. A Blender Ranger (Eladrin w/ Longs, Dwarves w/ Axes, or Humans with Bastard Swords) will do ludicrous damage if under the influence of Lead the Attack. Unfortunately, it's a Daily, which is why I prefer Rogues for quick & consistent take-downs.

Fighters v. Paladins... Fighters are great for multiple lock-down while Paladins are good for single lock-down. For an optimal party, I'd say Fighters (possibly Pole Fighters) to most effectively control the flow of large combats. Orbizards are good for single lock-down and have AoE to take care of Minions, so I'd rather take a Fighter & Wizard instead of a Paladin and a third Striker... or a second Defender. 2 Defenders are just overkill for a tight five-man party, IMHO.

[Yakk]

Riposte Strike gives the Rogue more hitsies, which can be nice for Brutal Rogues (who lose little in accuracy) and can make up for a missed Sneak Attack. I would agree that it's not as good as hitting right the first time (since it ripostes with STR) but it's not a bad choice for Rapier Rogues.

No, Riposte Strike does not give the rogue more hits? The target that the Rogue is using Riposte Strike on ... doesn't have to attack the Rogue. And in general, after a Riposte strike, won't choose to attack the Rogue.

It is a threat of "do not attack me", not "I get to hit you twice".

Have you been reading duel-optimization boards or something?


A Rogue that is partnered with a Warlord should never be without CA. Wolf Pack Tactics should always allow the Warlord to either position himself or the Rogue to create flanking. Combine that with Viper's Strike, and their target should be flanked until dead.

You mean, a Rogue partnered with a Warlord who always fights the same target that the Warlord picked, and never fights in bad topology areas, or against annoyingly large numbers of opponents?

But yes, given sufficient resources expended (2 players both pinned down fighting 1 target, one of which using every turn's at-will at keeping a target from moving), you can maintain flanking.

That isn't cheap.

[Kurald Galain]

As a Rogue, it's generally not worthwhile to use an Action Point for a second attack
It is if the first one misses. Furthermore, it is useful for alpha striking (downing something in the first round) and for combos like anything that gives you CA, followed by an attack that now has CA.


Riposte strike sucks -- at best, it prevents one target from attacking you. I don't get why people like it?
Well, for starters, there might be no other targets around, in which case the target might attack nobody, which is still a win for you. Second, the target can't move away from you without provoking. Third, not all monsters are smart enough to know that they'll be counterattacked. Fourth, the monster may have an area attack (yes, riposte triggers on a dragon's breath weapon). And fifth, the DM might forget you had this power.



*nod* -- then again, you can use it after you have been focus-fired on, get the heal and +2 to all defenses, which ... suddenly makes you a sub-optimal target, and convinces the monsters to focus-fire on someone else.
I find the +2 doesn't help overly much. If you are being mobbed, chances are you'll still be mobbed. I'd prefer a tumble plus stealth combo.


1> Anything other than Flanking CA tends to have a significant opportunity cost.
No, first strike CA works fine, as does stealth CA. Furthermore, any number of status effects (by, say, the party wizard) also give CA. But rogues are better in a team, yes. 4E is a team game. You can team-flank with the 'lord; or you can rush in and kill whatever the warlock has stunned this round; or you can hide behind anything and snipe.

And some of the dailies are nice. Such as blinding barrage. The rogue does have a fair share of sucky powers, though.

[Oracle_Hunter]

No, Riposte Strike does not give the rogue more hits? The target that the Rogue is using Riposte Strike on ... doesn't have to attack the Rogue. And in general, after a Riposte strike, won't choose to attack the Rogue.

It is a threat of "do not attack me", not "I get to hit you twice".

Have you been reading duel-optimization boards or something?

Then it provides the Rogue with AC Infinity against his melee target :smalltongue:

Sounds good to me, unless not getting hit is bad in your book. Or you can presume that, some times, a monster might decide to attack the Rogue in the same sense that a Marked monster occasionally doesn't attack their Defender.

Honest! It happens sometimes :smallbiggrin:


You mean, a Rogue partnered with a Warlord who always fights the same target that the Warlord picked, and never fights in bad topology areas, or against annoyingly large numbers of opponents?

But yes, given sufficient resources expended (2 players both pinned down fighting 1 target, one of which using every turn's at-will at keeping a target from moving), you can maintain flanking.

That isn't cheap.

See my comments about the Pole Fighter - they do a very good job of keeping hordes off of the Death Squad.

And what is the Warlord going to do aside from partner up with someone in melee? Nearly all of their powers require an adjacent ally to do anything useful. Of course he's going to pair up with a melee Fighter!

Plus, I encourage you to think closely about Wolf Pack tactics. It allows the Warlord to shift an ally adjacent to the enemy before attacking. In practice this allows the Warlord to either Move or Shift, and then Shift the Rogue before attacking. And then, the Rogue can still Shift before making an attack on his turn. Unless the Enemy is sitting in a corner, or he hasn't been properly isolated by the Pole Fighter (or Wizard), the Rogue should have no problem about ending up in Flanking.

And if bad comes to worse, Warlords have tons of repositioning powers (as do Rogues, but never you mind that) including "Leaf on the Wind" and "White Raven Onslaught" which are both 1st level powers.

I appreciate your concerns, but the TacLord-Brute Rogue combo has great synergy and, IMHO, is your best choice for DPR without sacrificing robustness.

[its_all_ogre]

also the taclord is handy if the rogue does miss on his attack using commanders strike to give the rogue another go, with added damage.
i am a massive fan of the warlord and combined with the rogue is probably the best position to be in.

how do warlocks compare to rangers and rogues?

[Edea]

Warlocks inflict so many status conditions/bonus effects with their powers that it's harder to get an accurate comparison with them vs. either of the other available strikers. Also, Warlocks are almost exclusively ranged; they don't even have a decent basic melee attack until they get their hands on a pact blade. The other two striker types can swap around a fair bit.

[Oracle_Hunter]

how do warlocks compare to rangers and rogues?

DPR-wise? Not so much. They have fine ranged damage and do it over a variety of Defenses and targets, but their at-wills are weak compared to a CA'd Rogue or any Ranger.

Warlocks are great individual fighters though. They carry their own Concealment, have really nifty buffs when they kill someone, and have a wide variety of control and random useful powers. But if you're designing a party with great synergy, then there's no room for them. Rangers and Rogues are far better at working with others, and can be directly helped by Warlocks.

[BardicDuelist]

Here's how I'm looking at it:

Defender Breakdown:
Fighter: Highest DPR
Paladin: Good as a secondary leader (if you don't have a cleric, a paladin is worth considering)
Swordmage: Good as a secondary controller

Striker Breakdown:
Ranger: Highest DPR, best at a range
Rogue: Capable of most damage with a single hit
Warlock: Lowest damage, but good as a secondary controller (and status effects)

Leader Breakdown:
Cleric: Best healer
Warlord: Best buffer

With that, I'd go (for a five person party), with:
Swordmage/Wizard (to add to the controller aspect), PoleFighter, TWFRanger/Rogue (now you can trapfind and SA as a bonus), Taclord, Brute Rogue

The Swordmage/Wizard and the PoleFighter put the enemies where you want them, the TacLord puts the strikers where you want them. From there, it's pretty much a win.
I don't know that I like that this is light on healing, but if the Ranger and Rogue are aggressive enough (and you should eventually be going first thanks to the Warlord), you should have seriously damaged anything that may be a threat. What's nice about the ranger (who will probably want to take some ranged abilities, but should focus on TWF) is that he can operate with or without the rogue.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Hmm... I must confess I haven't looked at Swordmages too closely (their concept disgusts me too greatly) but it is highly likely that they should take the Defender slot on general principles.

Anyone out there willing to do a detailed breakdown on the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the three Defenders?

EDIT:

TWFRanger/Rogue (now you can trapfind and SA as a bonus)

Heavens no, that's an unfavorable combination! You can still only Sneak Attack with Light Blades, and even then only once per round (well, Encounter for MC). That would force the Ranger to use Rapiers (which hinders his DPR a lot) and he'd still only get that extra damage bump once per round. Plus, any MC attacks are DEX, not STR based.

I'd rather go with the Eladrin Heavy Ranger (Scale Armor & Longswords) if you must have a Ranger. He can MC Wizard for Thunderwave (a nice Control effect), and use Perception to "trap find" if you really need it. With Scale Armor he'll be fine alone on the front line and Eladrin Soldier makes his Longs 1d8+2 base weapons - strictly better than Bastard Swords.

Note that MC Wizard here isn't necessary, but a STR, INT, WIS Ranger covers all three Defenses handily :smalltongue:

[BardicDuelist]

Hmm... I must confess I haven't looked at Swordmages too closely (their concept disgusts me too greatly) but it is highly likely that they should take the Defender slot on general principles.

Anyone out there willing to do a detailed breakdown on the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the three Defenders?

I'll give it a go.

[Mando Knight]

I'd personally go with a Ritual Caster (Wizard and Cleric are the best, followed by the Swordmage and Paladin) for non-combat bonuses, a defender, either two Leaders or two Strikers, a Wizard, and one Leader/Striker--the one that you don't have two of.

2 Leaders
1 Fighter
1 Cleric (LAZORS)
1 TacLord
1 Wizard
1 Ranger

2 Strikers
1 Paladin
1 TacLord/LAZOR Cleric
1 Wizard
1 Brutal Rogue
1 Ranger

And, just for lulz:
5 Defender party
1 Swordmage/Wizard (researches Rituals out the wazoo)
1 Paladin/Warlock
1 Fighter/Ranger
1 Swordmage/Warlord or Fighter/Warlord
1 Paladin/Warlord or Paladin/Cleric

Interestingly enough, the arcanists seem to be the least damage-dealing characters...

[Crow]

Any party can function well from 1-30 given decent build options and decent tactics. The classes are designed to function with eachother as "optimally" as you make the effort to.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Any party can function well from 1-30 given decent build options and decent tactics. The classes are designed to function with eachother as "optimally" as you make the effort to.

*tsk* raining on our parade? :smalltongue:

We're doing a CharOp-style optimization challenge here, so we're looking for the best combination there is. While it is true that many types of parties are viable, there are clear options which are better than others.

For instance, it is much better to pair a Rogue & Warlord together rather than a Warlock & Warlord. And a TWF Ranger works better with Warlords than a Bow Ranger does. It's just how the classes generally interact.

[kjones]

I feel kind of silly asking, but what's a "laser" cleric? I'm assuming that's not the official name...

[Oracle_Hunter]

I feel kind of silly asking, but what's a "laser" cleric? I'm assuming that's not the official name...

The Lazor Cleric (tm) is the unofficial name for a WIS-based Cleric in 4e. Clerics in 4e are usually either STR (melee) based or WIS (ranged) based, with most of the WIS cleric powers focused on shooting beams of radiant energy at people. Hence the name.

Sadly, there are no WIS Cleric powers which require more than one round to activate, so there is never an opportunity for chargin' mah lazor :smallamused:

It should be noted, however, that if a Lazor Cleric ever readies a WIS power, the player is obligated to inform the DM that he is, in fact, "chargin' mah lazor" :smallbiggrin:

[Crow]

*tsk* raining on our parade? :smalltongue:

We're doing a CharOp-style optimization challenge here, so we're looking for the best combination there is. While it is true that many types of parties are viable, there are clear options which are better than others.

For instance, it is much better to pair a Rogue & Warlord together rather than a Warlock & Warlord. And a TWF Ranger works better with Warlords than a Bow Ranger does. It's just how the classes generally interact.

That's the thing, I don't think there really is a *best* combination here. So much depends on the builds of the characters involved and tactics used, that you can't really pin it down.

Best combination of roles, maybe. Best combination of classes? Probably not.

I sure would like to see a party of 5 Paladins though. That could be good fun.

[Mando Knight]

The Lazor Cleric (tm) is the unofficial name for a WIS-based Cleric in 4e. Clerics in 4e are usually either STR (melee) based or WIS (ranged) based, with most of the WIS cleric powers focused on shooting beams of radiant energy at people. Hence the name.

Sadly, there are no WIS Cleric powers which require more than one round to activate, so there is never an opportunity for chargin' mah lazor :smallamused:

It should be noted, however, that if a Lazor Cleric ever readies a WIS power, the player is obligated to inform the DM that he is, in fact, "chargin' mah lazor" :smallbiggrin:

One group I played with called the build the "pew pew" Cleric, after the sound that Lazors make when they fire.

Incidentally, the build is also one of the better ones for a Cleric, given that it makes him the best healer in the game and gives him decent ranged attacks. :durkon: ain't one of them.

[Oracle_Hunter]

One group I played with called the build the "pew pew" Cleric, after the sound that Lazors make when they fire.

Incidentally, the build is also one of the better ones for a Cleric, given that it makes him the best healer in the game and gives him decent ranged attacks. :durkon: ain't one of them.

I actually haven't seen a good STR Cleric build, but that's probably because I so very much love the Elven Bowcaster build ((WIS + DEX) x (Longbow + MC Ranger) = :smallbiggrin:). I bet you could make a good Dragonborn STR Cleric-Fighter, or maybe a Dwarven STR Cleric-Fighter Tank...

[Kurald Galain]

I sure would like to see a party of 5 Paladins though. That could be good fun.

I'd bet it wouldn't be.

Until we get more splatbooks, there aren't really all that many options for any given class that are meaningfully different (and by all that many, I mean "two or three"). That's because at each power level, you get your pick of about four, of which frequently two only work for the "other" build (i.e. you probably won't take strength-based attacks on a wisdom-based cleric) and of which frequently one or two are really not worth it (i.e. too situational or simply not all that useful).

[Mando Knight]

Until we get more splatbooks, there aren't really all that many options for any given class that are meaningfully different (and by all that many, I mean "two or three"). That's because at each power level, you get your pick of about four, of which frequently two only work for the "other" build (i.e. you probably won't take strength-based attacks on a wisdom-based cleric) and of which frequently one or two are really not worth it (i.e. too situational or simply not all that useful).

This is why we want Divine Power to come out sooner rather than later... it'll increase the power capability of the Cleric and the Paladin, and may even give us a few Strikers or Controllers to use as well. (unless they're released first in other splats, in which it'll be a tossup)

I mean, Divine Power would be a rather thin book unless it contained a lot of Paladin/Cleric alternate builds, or included new classes...

[mangosta71]

Rogues and warlocks may do slightly less damage than rangers, but they have other abilities that make them extremely useful. A smart player can do a lot with either of them. After my first session in 4e, playing as a rogue, the DM remarked that I was the most dangerous character in the party (which consisted of my rogue, a bow ranger, a wizard, and a paladin). By slipping around, I was always flanking for the extra 2d8 damage while avoiding getting flanked myself, which can be very difficult when the group you're fighting outnumbers you by more than 2 to 1. Plus all the powers that force opponents to shift, which give rogues in particular a lot of tactical options.

[ShaggyMarco]

See Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92567) for nice information on how an Infernal Warlock makes a great, high-damage team-up (at level 1) with a Fighter or Paladin defender.

I argue that there IS a place for, at the very least, an Infernal Warlock in a party build.

I might say an Optimal 5-man Party:

Laser Cleric (Dragonborn): for healing and AOE control
Charisma Paladin: for auxillary healing and solo defending
Dagger Rogue: for damage and skill-monkery
Infernal Warlock: for damage and status effects.
Great-Weapon Fighter: for damage and group defending.

With man 6 being a Wizard, and man 7 a Tactical Warlord.