Thoughts on 4E strikers

[Hzurr]

So, I've been DMing 4E for a while, and Strikers are...interesting. Here are my general impressions so far, with some questions about Barbarians and Animal Companion Rangers at the end:

Warlock: (Have seen played from levels 1-3 (both infernal pact and star pact)
By far the least damage-y of the strikers. While I love the flavor of the Warlock, it seems that in play, it always devolves into what we call the "Warlock Shuffle" (aka, move 3 squares and eldritch blast/eyebite/whatever. Rinse, lather repeat). For a class that's supposed to focus on doing damage, they seem to be far below the other strikers, and they become the least interesting (which is tragic, because their fluff is awesome)

Rogue: (Have seen played from levels 1-3)
Honestly, I have a bad impression of Rogues, because I hated the player who had the rogue PC (mainly because he whined and moaned if there was ever the possibility that he might not get combat advantage). He had crap for HP, but a nice AC and a nice to-hit, and did metric boatloads of damage. It was ridiculous how much damage this character did

Ranger: (Have seen played from levels 1 - 6)
TWF Ranger: Impressive. Did a decent damage, but was very mobile, and did excellent skirmishing. He didn't have the defenses to keep at it for large periods of time, but he could cut a path through enemies when need be.
Animal Companion Ranger: (Aka - "Puppy Ranger") Very unimpressed. The damage output seems to go down significantly, and the only real benefit is you have something to soak up a few hitpoints for you and who will be your flank buddy. I've got 2 of them in my current party, and they are without a doubt the weakest characters.
Bow Ranger - Haven't seen, but they look impressive

Barbarian (Have seen played from levels 4 -6)
Wow. Just...wow. Crap for AC, but damage output, average to-hit score, and tons of HP make up for it. The Barbarian slaughters things. The charge abilities of the barbarian seem...overpowered. The low AC is a nice balance, but I still find that very few things can go toe-to-toe against it.


So, here are my biggest questions:
What do you think of the Puppy Ranger? Do you agree that they're the least powerful of the rangers/strikers (as I do), or have they proven to be effective in your game? What's a good way to boost them (if you agree they need it)?
The Barbarian: Does it come across as overpowered? Specifically, do all the charging abilities that the Barbarian has seem overpowered? Since the Barbarian never provokes Opportunity Attacks on a charge, and can sometimes do more damage on a charge, is there ever a reason not to? (We refer to the Barbarian in the party as the wind-up car, because his favorite tactic if an enemy has shifted away, is to shift back one square, so that he can move the 2 squares for a charge).

Two last questions: Am I short-changing Warlocks? Are normal rogues as annoying as my experience has lead me to believe?

[Myatar_Panwar]

Well, Barbarians do normally provoke attacks of opportunity on a charge. The only time they don't is if they are raging (which required the use of a daily) and if they have the Howling Strike at-will. And I'm not sure what you mean by "all those charging abilities". As far as I can tell, in the level frame you gave (4-6), the only charging ability is a class feature (immediately charge after dropping a foe), and its an encounter ability. The at-will can be used in a charge for sure, but its still an at-will.

Reason not to charge: To use more than just one ability? You cannot use powers on the charge.

As for warlocks, I've had a very different experience in that he was a fairly big damage dealer. And our ranger faired worst. Though he was archery specced, not TWF, so idk.

[Tygell]

I'm playing an AD Drow rogue right now at level 1. The first 3 rounds of combat I basically make my own CA, and after that I can usually find something to flank thanks to being in a melee heavy group. I try to help the defenders as well by deliberately provoking OAs as I move around.

I definitely do more damage than anyone else in the group, but I'm the only striker as well.

Edit: I don't know if the rogue in your group is a bad example of a rogue or not, but all other things being equal, I think I would be irritated if my party had an opportunity to provide flanking and didn't.

[its_all_ogre]

my experiences are as follows:
warlock having seen star pact only so far: great damage causer, powers that lower enemies defences benefitting the rest of the party. one that grants CA to all allies AND reduces AC by1+int mod as a level 3 enc power. most accurate warlock due to star pact power. (specially if a tiefling with hellfire blood)

rogue: on a hit per hit basis the most damaging striker assuming you have backstabber, which you should. str rogues have poor hps though, cha rogues should spend points on con to mitigate this. get slaying action as a feat soon as possible and you can dish out two sneak attacks in a turn....nice!

ranger: seen twf and archer and both fare equally well. archer has advantage of being able to shoot any enemy while the melee one does not have this flexibility. both are fairly low defences but have sufficient hps to take a slapping about.

barbarian: not played but i have three ready for games! i think you've been doing it wrong as someone said above once per encounter they get a free charge after dropping a foe and charges do provoke OA unless raging, which is once per day until you are level 5.
however str 18 con 16 gives you 31 hps at level one...but AC14...who cares!!

[Edge of Dreams]

The thing about ranger is that choosing Beast Mastery is almost always better than Archery Specialty, and here's why:

I can make an Archer Spec. Ranger, with a Greatbow, and twin strike every round for awesome damage, and have the feat Defensive Mobility for running away a tiny bit better.

Or I can make a Beast Mastery Ranger, with a Greatbow, and twin strike every round for the same amount of awesome damage AND have a bear or wolf or whatever standing right in front of me to protect me from charging enemies and soak damage. Or if I feel safe and get bored, I can send it into melee and not have it attack at all, just using it as an extra flanking buddy for the party. And it can also be used to grab dropped items, pull unconscious allies away from battle, etc. etc.

Beast Mastery is pretty much Strictly Better than Archery Specialty, with the exact same powers.

[Hzurr]

Wow. Yeah, y'all are right, I went back and re-read, and we have been doing the Barbarian wrong. I think it was just an honest mistake by the player, so we'll fix that next session, and I'll see if it makes a significant difference.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Yeah I agree Edge_of_Dreams (well not really an opinion here more like fact). I don't think I will ever play a ranged spec ranger without going for the pet, unless flavor tells me otherwise (and even then its not really all that big of a negative impact, you still are dealing good damage).

[THAC0]

This is just my experience through play. I haven't seen a ranger or a barbarian in action ever. I've seen a melee rogue and a ranged rogue briefly. I've not done any math to support my experiences.

I think the choice of striker is particularly dependent on party composition. I've played a feylock from... about level 5 to level 14 so far. From my experience, a less damage-focused striker works best in a party with at least two defenders and a leader. The double defender slot provides a shield for the squishies, and I'm pretty sure my feylock is even squishier than the mage right now! And the healer makes up for the longer duration of fights due to less offensive output. If you had a high damage striker, or a melee striker, then you'd need the doubled defender less, and the party would probably cut through fights faster.

I love playing my feylock. No, I'm not putting out incredible amounts of damage all the time, but the encounter powers are solid and tactically useful. I'm definitely not spamming at-wills constantly, and I like the mechanical incentive to keep moving. That said, it is at times frustrating to not be dishing out the crazy damage all the time like our part-time rogue can do.

[Artanis]

Beast Mastery is pretty much Strictly Better than Archery Specialty, with the exact same powers.

Two words:

Paragon. Paths.

PPs that involve actually shooting things are fairly rare, and having a kitten follow you around is a good way to disqualify yourself from much of what few exist.

[ColdSepp]

Two words:

Paragon. Paths.

PPs that involve actually shooting things are fairly rare, and having a kitten follow you around is a good way to disqualify yourself from much of what few exist.

Actually, there only the PPs in the PHB1 require a style. Those in martial power just need Ranger. That said, Beast Masters do get a much lower damage output... until Level 21, when they can get Quick Beast Command, which effectively gives them two attacks every round. Or they can take the right Epic Destiny, and get two standard action a round, thus coming out slightly ahead in damage then the other two ranger variants. (according to the CharOPs, at least).

That said, the fact that Beasts only have 2 surges and you need to share yours with in out of combat can really hurt a front line striker.

[Olo Demonsbane]

My level 1 rouge (4.0) threw a bugbear (3.5) off a 20ft cliff

My level 1 ranger/1 fighter/5 wizard (4.0) was untouchable in melee combat.

...Yeah, I don't follow the rules closely enough with my groups to give much insight.

[Belobog]

From what I've been told, The main problem with the Warlock disappears when you cease considering it as a Striker, and start thinking of it as a Controller, albeit a focused one. True, they have a lot of Striker qualities, but most of their powers deal with moving/debilitating enemies/creating zones/throwing people into another dimension. While you can get a lot of damage from a good amount of power [Eye of Delban is a winner, here], competing for damage usually doesn't work your way, so you should focus less on damage and more on tactics. At low levels, though...that's fairly hard to do, and is their weakest point.

Rangers are awesome no matter what you do with them. I have an Archery Ranger, and I really don't think I'd be better or worse being anything else. Beast powers look a little lame, though.

Rogues are nice, though difficult to work alone before Paragon level. Nice damage potential, though the Ranger probably beats them on average, if simply from sheer number of attacks per round.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Bow Rangers are pretty awesome damage dealers. To start with, they get 1d10 weapons that have a short range of 20 squares. Secondly, their primary stat controls both offense and defense. Thirdly, they are primarily long ranged characters, meaning they draw less return fire than the melee types. Also: Battlefield Archer PP

Rogues can be very scary when played right. PPs aside (Infiltrator is scary) most of their powers provide extremely useful controlling effects in addition to doing a fair amount of damage (usually via Sneak Attack).

Warlocks are, as Belobog noted, more like Controllers than Strikers - albeit very beefy Controllers. Infernal Warlocks not only have loads of HP but they have a pretty steady flow of Temp HP to back it up - throw on 13 STR and you can be wearing Scale Mail and have a Light Shield in no time. I've never been a fan of Starlocks (though they are nasty if you use the Dragon Magazine stuff), and IMHO Feylocks make better thieves than Rogues - particularly if they MC Rogue.

Fun experiment: an 8th Level Warlock picks up the 2nd Level Rogue Utility that allows him to ignore movement-related penalties on Stealth Checks. He then hides while in Superior Cover or Total Concealment and begins walking at full speed across the courtyard. Thanks to Shadow Step, he has concealment until the end of each turn (overlapping, you see) which makes him essentially invisible so long as he can keep making those Stealth Checks. And he can do that all day.

[Hzurr]

My level 1 rouge (4.0) threw a bugbear (3.5) off a 20ft cliff

My level 1 ranger/1 fighter/5 wizard (4.0) was untouchable in melee combat.

...Yeah, I don't follow the rules closely enough with my groups to give much insight.

...er...none of what you posted makes any sense. Your 4E "rouge" (you mean "rogue," I assume) threw a 3.5E monster? And the second example...couldn't actually exist in 4E.

[THAC0]

...er...none of what you posted makes any sense. Your 4E "rouge" (you mean "rogue," I assume) threw a 3.5E monster? And the second example...couldn't actually exist in 4E.

Hence this part, I believe: "...Yeah, I don't follow the rules closely enough with my groups to give much insight. "

[Oracle_Hunter]

Hence this part, I believe: "...Yeah, I don't follow the rules closely enough with my groups to give much insight. "

Even so, I don't know what a "level 1 ranger/1 fighter/5 wizard" would even mean in 4E. I think he just wrote the wrong editions down, or he has a very interesting explanation for that line.

[THAC0]

Even so, I don't know what a "level 1 ranger/1 fighter/5 wizard" would even mean in 4E. I think he just wrote the wrong editions down, or he has a very interesting explanation for that line.

I hope it's a very interesting explanation. Honestly, it's been bugging me all night, lol!

[skywalker]

I don't have too much experience with strikers, but what I do have says this:

Warlocks are very hit-and-miss, very dependent on power selection. No, they are not failures, especially when you consider them as "focused controllers." But as strikers (what it says on the tin), they're pretty darned close some of the time.

Rangers - I haven't seen a beast-ranger yet. Personally I don't like the fluff all that much. But yes, there is only one reason to ever take the archery class feature, and that is two paragon paths. In my group, we have a ranger with the archery feature. She has never made use of it. While archer rangers deal great damage, I prefer the TWF ranger because they do tremendous damage without a crap-ton of char-op. TWF rangers also get toughness, and are quite capable at archery if you're going for the stormwarden PP.

Rogues tend to do a lot of CA-whining no matter who they are. That's because a rogue isn't much without CA. They're playing a striker, they want to do damage. Do the math.

I haven't experienced barbarians yet. As soon as I get my mitts on PHB2, tho.

[Colmarr]

Rogues tend to do a lot of CA-whining no matter who they are. That's because a rogue isn't much without CA.

I personally feel that a rogue is a poor choice of striker in any party that doesn't include at least 2 other meleers (preferrably 3).

My recent party had 3 meleers, a wizard and the rogue, and she never had any trouble getting CA. However, one of the meleers pulled out of the campaign last session, and I'm interested to see how things go from now on.

[AgentPaper]

Rogue is the best striker, since combat advantage is so easy to get. Even if you can't get flanking every round, there are other ways. A single other melee ally should be plenty, and it's not unlikely you'll have more. A beastmaster ranger probably makes a great rogue buddy, though. Especially if they take a wolf or similar, who can shift around a lot. Not needed if you already have some other melee types in your group, but if you don't it helps.

[Sophismata]

But yes, there is only one reason to ever take the archery class feature, and that is two paragon paths.

This probably bears repeating - unless you want a PHB PP, the TWF variant is the better Ranger, whether you're looking to be melee or ranged.

The ability to wield one-handed weapons off-hand is unique, and Toughness is a better, and generally more useful feat than Defensive Mobility.

Furthermore, (almost?) all of the ranged powers can also be used in melee, if push comes to shove, provided you've got two weapons.

The ranged variant of the ranger is one of the (few) things that struck me as pretty poor design in 4e.

[NPCMook]

This probably bears repeating - unless you want a PHB PP, the TWF variant is the better Ranger, whether you're looking to be melee or ranged.

The ability to wield one-handed weapons off-hand is unique, and Toughness is a better, and generally more useful feat than Defensive Mobility.

Furthermore, (almost?) all of the ranged powers can also be used in melee, if push comes to shove, provided you've got two weapons.

The ranged variant of the ranger is one of the (few) things that struck me as pretty poor design in 4e.

Yes, the Archery Ranger isn't all that great, most feats benifit the Melee Ranger better anyways. A TWR can make better use of Hunter's Quarry since they can just shift around through the combat and get close to whatever they want to Quarry, while the Archer has to sit farther out and just Quarry whatever is closer. Though with all those disadvantages they do have on of the most crowning pluses The Greatbow, Far Shot, and Hunter's Aim, they will never see close combat, 30 squares away, and you ignore cover and concealment on your Quarry. Average movement of the enemies is 6 squares, you'll have your 6 Squares(7 if you are an Elf) of movement so you can easily keep the enemy away from you for a nice long while.

PHB 2 helps them a bit with Distant Advantage, but then again this also just makes a Ranged rogue retarded.

[kamuishirou]

Rangers - I haven't seen a beast-ranger yet. Personally I don't like the fluff all that much.

Just curious why you don't like the fluff? I've had rangers with beast companions since 2nd. I think it's very flavorful, but to each his own I suppose. You can always rewrite the fluff.

I have a TWF Halfling Ranger and I love the mobility and the damage. It's fun to deal the damage. After making a few levels and finding a magical throwing axe, it's great to switch it up between melee and range. Just found a +2 Pact Dagger I can't wait to have fun with it once I get back :).

[toasty]

Forgive me for being a complete n00b... but where does it allow you to have animal companions for Rangers? I dont seem to remember reading about them in the PHB

[Tengu_temp]

Martial Power. 4e has splatbooks, y'know.

[Izmir Stinger]

Just curious why you don't like the fluff? I've had rangers with beast companions since 2nd. I think it's very flavorful, but to each his own I suppose. You can always rewrite the fluff.

They didn't really specify any fluff for the beast companion rangers. There is is sidebar text section that says, "How did you acquire your Animal Companion?" or something like that, and lists possible back stories that would explain why you have an animal companion as a permanent ally. Stuff like vision quests, raising them from a cub, saving them from poachers, tribal magic rituals, etc. It puts a lot of the impetus on the player to make his Beastmaster Ranger flavorful.

Which may be what he doesn't like about it.

[toasty]

Martial Power. 4e has splatbooks, y'know.

Thanks.

I know 4E has splatbooks... but seeing as I haven't even looked at a single one I thought it'd be nice to know where I can get Animal Companions if I wanted to.

[Burley]

I had always thought the Beast-Ranger build was boring, sub-par, and just added more headache than it is worth.
This is something I just noticed about the Beast-Ranger: Beast attacks all say “Level + #”. Where normal PC attacks are ½ level plus stat, Beast attacks are PC Level + stat. That increases the odds to hit by quite a bit. Gives an actual reason to attack with a beast instead of a weapon.

[kamuishirou]

They didn't really specify any fluff for the beast companion rangers. There is is sidebar text section that says, "How did you acquire your Animal Companion?" or something like that, and lists possible back stories that would explain why you have an animal companion as a permanent ally. Stuff like vision quests, raising them from a cub, saving them from poachers, tribal magic rituals, etc. It puts a lot of the impetus on the player to make his Beastmaster Ranger flavorful.

Which may be what he doesn't like about it.

I suppose. A lot of the books are about crunch with 4ed, except for the preview books which were all about the fluff. I guess I just don't have a problem seeing the fluff since Rangers have had companions for so long. (Including before WoW :P.)

I had always thought the Beast-Ranger build was boring, sub-par, and just added more headache than it is worth.
This is something I just noticed about the Beast-Ranger: Beast attacks all say “Level + #”. Where normal PC attacks are ½ level plus stat, Beast attacks are PC Level + stat. That increases the odds to hit by quite a bit. Gives an actual reason to attack with a beast instead of a weapon.

Well, the problem with that is the beast doesn't get to wield a +3 Flaming Scimitar. Currently there are just a few items in the Adventurer's Vault for Animals. Though AV2 may have more to help buff them a bit. But there damage doesn't change so much.

Well, that's what I've read anyway. Haven't had a chance to play a BM Ranger yet.

[Artanis]

Actually, there only the PPs in the PHB1 require a style. Those in martial power just need Ranger. That said, Beast Masters do get a much lower damage output... until Level 21, when they can get Quick Beast Command, which effectively gives them two attacks every round. Or they can take the right Epic Destiny, and get two standard action a round, thus coming out slightly ahead in damage then the other two ranger variants. (according to the CharOPs, at least).

That said, the fact that Beasts only have 2 surges and you need to share yours with in out of combat can really hurt a front line striker.

First, I'm not saying it's better, I'm saying that the term "strictly better" is flat-out incorrect.


Why do I say this? My reasoning is this: I count twelve bow-capable PPs between the PHB, Manual of the Planes, FRPG, and Martial Power combined. Of those:
*Three of the PPs are Genasi-only
*One of the PPs is Spellscarred Savant, which is indescribably bad if you try to use a bow with it, and is setting-specific.

So if can't or don't want to play a Genasi, you're down to nine. Eight, if Spellscarred Savant isn't an option. Of those remaining eight or nine, three require the archery fighting style. Taking the Beast Mastery style and using a bow removes fully one third of your options.

I don't know about you, but I consider "lose 33% of your PP options" and "strictly better" to be pretty much mutually exclusive.