D&D 4E A gathering of Martial Controllers - what do you think

[Garthanos]

This is why HoML flattened item, feat, PP, ED, and Theme into 'boon'. While distinctions have power, universality also has power.

Sure can simplify matters about figuring out which bucket to stick game elements in ... remember though D&D builds flavor around them concept buckets. (and some balance too)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure can simplify matters about figuring out which bucket to stick game elements in ... remember though D&D builds flavor around them concept buckets. (and some balance too)

Interestingly I switched the balance to the 'narratively driven focus' element of the game, so you rarely would be optimizing your character when the elements of that character arise organically from the narrative. In other words, the fighter slays the dragon and then his weapon becomes imbued with the power of elemental fire! You might have a back-and-forth between a GM and a player like "Hey, being able to do fire damage would kick ass, it will synergize mechanically with my XYZ!" but there are only so many choices about mechanical embodiment of that narrative available. The player could advocate for getting NOTHING, in the hope of engaging in some narrative that lets him spin up a frost brand instead, if that's what he wants, but you can see how that is not going to be a really ENCOURAGED sort of approach, as he's forgoing advancement. IME players are pretty eager to 'play along' with this kind of thing.

The other part is that I've tried to carefully write up elements in HoML to avoid artificial barriers between things. So you don't find a lot of boons where you only get some specific bonus to certain things, like 'melee weapon attacks' or something. Most things combine pretty freely, and stacking combinations of things together is in any case somewhat de-emphasized. A lot of this material would simply make 4e itself, with its reliance on preventing many 'broken' combinations via rules text, blow up and couldn't work. In HoML these things are OK, stacking quickly reaches a point of no more returns, and in any case if the GM and players WANT a story where all the characters become crazy super-buffed-up fire imbued engines of destruction that have every fire thing stacked onto them, then chances are the story arc will be filled with stuff which engages that and it will all be fine.

In terms of flavor, my approach is to lard things up with flavor, so you don't have to rely on the 4e approach of layering on a dozen feats/items/powers/etc in the same thematic space in order to get and maintain your character's mechanical and thematic relationship to a specific concept. So, you don't need a lot of flavor built around 'buckets', you can just pick an element that handles that aspect of your character's thematics and go on to other things. In fact, the REAL issue with HoML is more in terms of what do you need 20 boons worth of thematics for? You get a boon at every level, and many of them are fairly potent, thematically. So the bigger question is more like how do you find something new at level N that doesn't add TOO MUCH thematics to your character! I have tried to devise some boons that provide a more narrow focus, so you can go from being just a bad-assed spell-slinger to being a guy that manipulates the Rule of Contagion, to a guy that specifically utilizes that rule to confuse and disable people with shadow magic. Its not a really easy design concept though, and to some degree the system may be said to reward being a broad generalist who takes up the primary core boons of many different concepts and uses them all. If I can run a game up through many levels and a variety of PCs maybe I can figure out how to best make this balance work out, I dunno....

 

[Garthanos]

In fact, the REAL issue with HoML is more in terms of what do you need 20 boons worth of thematics for? You get a boon at every level, and many of them are fairly potent, thematically. So the bigger question is more like how do you find something new at level N that doesn't add TOO MUCH thematics to your character!

There are some dramatic thematic changes between the tiers ie 20 levels in 4e even is intended to be serious transition of thematics. Your 20 levels are 3 separate flavors not only of the world but your character needs to grow there in, that is my hand wavy thought.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are some dramatic thematic changes between the tiers ie 20 levels in 4e even is intended to be serious transition of thematics. Your 20 levels are 3 separate flavors not only of the world but your character needs to grow there in, that is my hand wavy thought.

Well, I can always cut things back a bit, but then the result is you may need 2 or even 3 boons (and levels) to really get the whole goods on a particular thematic concept, which isn't always ideal...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sounds like basically a 4e-ized version of the 5e fighter, in some respects at least....

Thus the (Battlemaster) sub-class.

I felt like the fighter would need new exploits to be controllery, while the rogue had a fair bit of off-control, already...

 

[Garthanos]

while the rogue had a fair bit of off-control, already...

My hamstring on the fly... power was designed to let a rogue harm and slow any enemy he is adjacent to during a move... ie a bunch. It may be the rogue is intrinsically the right flavor for some martial control.

 

[Garthanos]

Sadly the Martial Controller Underground was tanked with the forums...

Actually, the 5e Battlemaster inspired another Martial Controller idea. If I ever get the chance I might try to dash it off...

Never did find any records of that one...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My hamstring on the fly... power was designed to let a rogue harm and slow any enemy he is adjacent to during a move... ie a bunch. It may be the rogue is intrinsically the right flavor for some martial control.

I think there's a strong case for it, the character is usually viewed as being tricky and deceptive, thus a manipulator, which certainly inspires some control flavor. The idea of darting in and delivering relatively superficial but debilitating injuries works in that favor too, which is certainly a way to portray a quick, lightly armed combatant tactical concept. I'd say this, defender and leader certainly don't leap out as being things that are automatically associated with 'rogue' as a concept. Not that you can't conceive of such characters, but they're less natural and require some backstory support.

 

[Garthanos]

I think there's a strong case for it, the character is usually viewed as being tricky and deceptive, thus a manipulator, which certainly inspires some control flavor. The idea of darting in and delivering relatively superficial but debilitating injuries works in that favor too, which is certainly a way to portray a quick, lightly armed combatant tactical concept. I'd say this, defender and leader certainly don't leap out as being things that are automatically associated with 'rogue' as a concept. Not that you can't conceive of such characters, but they're less natural and require some backstory support.

For the rogue that is kind of definite but here I find myself bringing up our Warlord friend for an incredibly diverse role flavor and function.

The Warlord archetype is both a trickster manipulating enemies (Trojan horse and battlefield manipulations and deceptions leaping to mind) and the inspiring type hence the default Leader role and potentially even the robust battle front character who can almost do the defender thing about the only role I do not see Warlord relatively directly in is actually the striker role and someone will point out his attack enabling is effectively striker enhancement to the party.

 

[Tony Vargas]

someone will point out his attack enabling is effectively striker enhancement to the party.

The ultimate effect of all 4 role contributions is victory by hp attrition.

I think the key difference between leader & striker is not their net contributions to that race to 0 hps, but that the leader's contributions require a party and are synergistic, while the striker makes a more individual, additive, contribution.
It's similar with defender & controller, absent a party, a lone defender's 'control' is meaningless, but a controller still controls, if anything better, on his own...