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

[Garthanos]

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 his, 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...

I both like party synergy and find it mildly annoying that for Warlords and Fighters to be properly interesting they simply must have ally synch

 

[Tony Vargas]

I both like party synergy and find it mildly annoying that for Warlords and Fighters to be properly interesting they simply must have ally synch

Your ambivalence is understandable - and one reason it'd've been nice to have a martial controller. The controller role is, like that of leader, potentially complex & engaging in ways the striker cannot be, and the defender can approach only with allies in synch...

 

[Garthanos]

Your ambivalence is understandable - and one reason it'd've been nice to have a martial controller. The controller role is, like that of leader, potentially complex & engaging in ways the striker cannot be, and the defender can approach only with allies in sync ...

Party idea: A Fighter (off striker) and a Paladin (off leader) and a Swordmage (off controller) how would this work??

As DM I would be tempted to have enemies ignoring the fighters mark a lot ... but it might be nicer if something (like controller abilities Or if two defenders some how had synching so that one could distract an enemy into ignoring the others mark) could force/induce adversaries to ignore the fighters mark making him full striker. I love the Damned if you do Damned if you do not nature of the fighter.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Party idea: A Fighter (off striker) and a Paladin (off leader) and a Swordmage (off controller) how would this work??

As DM I would be tempted to have enemies ignoring the fighters mark a lot ... but it might be nicer if something (like controller abilities Or if two defenders some how had synching so that one could distract an enemy into ignoring the others mark) could force/induce adversaries to ignore the fighters mark making him full striker. I love the Damned if you do Damned if you do not nature of the fighter.

Defender role support features become relevant as soon as you have an ally, even if it's another defender: you can coordinate your use of marking to 'defend' whichever of you is more put-upon. For instance the paladin, say could start out using divine sanction to attract the lions share of attacks, but once bloodied, his fighter friend steps in and marks, forcing the enemy to switch targets or take those extra attacks...

 

[Garthanos]

Defender role support features become relevant as soon as you have an ally, even if it's another defender: you can coordinate your use of marking to 'defend' whichever of you is more put-upon.

A fighter who has no mark on an enemy... hmmmm I guess I like marking enough that I thought a lot of more powers and feats lost a lot without it but investigating not so much.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A fighter who has no mark on an enemy... hmmmm

Yep, it's still not making best use of the feature, but at least it's not meaningless, like it becomes for the lone fighter with no ally to defend...

 

[Garthanos]

4e Quote about Martial Power

A quote they didnt really take seriously or we would have had a Martial Controller

"The martial power source is about taking re-sources and abilities that have clear limits for other classes and demolishing those limits through focus, training, and skill.”

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A quote they didnt really take seriously or we would have had a Martial Controller

"The martial power source is about taking re-sources and abilities that have clear limits for other classes and demolishing those limits through focus, training, and skill.”

I just don't see 'martial controller' as a coherent thematic thing. I never did. What 4e explicitly did NOT set out to do was 'fill the grid' and just churn out something for every permutation of power source and role. There are few of them that don't seem to make sense, but this is one. I would have been disappointed to see some class that was stretched in to fit some role 'just because' when another would be better.

 

[Garthanos]

I just don't see 'martial controller' as a coherent thematic thing.

I see it as part of Warlording .... manipulating enemies with fears and deceptions and occasionally force as well as exploiting and inducing friendly fire and so on.

I see it as part of Roguing .... impairing enemies with creative strokes of blade make some of these last till end of counter and the control they might do could make wizards drool at least in a focused way.

And generically I see use of tools like caltrops and flaming oils and smoke bombs, traps and so on to create dangerous and obscured battle field zones as a martial activity.

I see it as utterly coherent.

And the prohibition of specializing in it... artificial.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I see it as part of Warlording .... manipulating enemies with fears and deceptions and occasionally force as well as exploiting and inducing friendly fire and so on.

I see it as part of Roguing .... impairing enemies with creative strokes of blade make some of these last till end of counter and the control they might do could make wizards drool at least in a focused way.

And generically I see use of tools like caltrops and flaming oils and smoke bombs, traps and so on to create dangerous and obscured battle field zones as a martial activity.

I see it as utterly coherent.

And the prohibition of specializing in it... artificial.

I think the concept of Warlord as leader is just a more thematically powerful way of doing it. It seems much more natural and less forced to me.

In terms of 'roguing', I dunno, I just remember the words of Musashi in Book of Five Rings "every movement of the sword should be a killing blow." In other words "fooling around with fancy tricks is just BS, if you're going to swing, make it a death shot." Sure, we can all imagine now and then some lesser target than the jugular opens itself up, but SPECIALIZING in snicking off little bits of your opponents? It just doesn't work for me. Large heavy blades are for killin' not whittlin'.

Now, I can see using various tools and such as control. I think I'd consider this sort of character to be either a kind of alchemist/artificer or maybe a kind of trick added to a rogue or something like that (IE so I can get in close and gank you without too much danger of getting myself nicked in the process). I think its the most plausible concept, but at the same time it seems at least semi-magical to me.