D&D 4E Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E

[Xeviat]

For the simplest example of why, which class is my Samurai?...

That depends on what genre of samurai. With existing classes, I could see the samurai being a fighter subclass (if they're realistic; battle masters get artisan's tools representing an artistic side) of it is a realistic take on a samurai. For a mythic take, a paladin subclass could work, similar to the Oath of the Crown. If you're looking for an Anime styled Samurai, then the genre of the setting may require it to be its own class.

In my setting, the archetype would be handled by a fighter subclass that blends in some of the monk's mysticism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jhaelen]

Yup, imho, samurai shouldn't be a class. It's just a fighter in an oriental setting.

 

[Garthanos]

That depends on what genre of samurai.

Bingo...that is why I do not recommend a singular strong association. For me genre is loosely a an amalgam of things not just core game, but rather also Garme World / Player Choices

With existing classes, I could see the samurai being a fighter subclass (if they're realistic; battle masters get artisan's tools representing an artistic side) of it is a realistic take on a samurai.

Ah but you remember the game is actually rarely realistic. Regardless of that

What if I want to be like the Samurai in huge amounts of fantasy who run around with no armor ... and my buddy wants to be the samurai with two swords (the original two sword wielding hero was a Samurai - even though he was realistically just an advocate of ambidextrous training) and my other one wants to be the ultimate horseman archer samurai and my other buddy wants to be the samurai who like the historic Mulan was an extremely inspiring leader.

In 4e I could easily build a Samurai as anything from a Fighter as you mention to Ranger to Paladin to Avenger to Monk and possibly others as well not to mention Hybriding and multiclassing... how many subclass samurai are we going to be constructing

I find it constraining to pretend the classes are more than generic archetypes of hero... mundane folk are in the monster manual not the players handbook. And even those archetypes in the players handbook shouldnt be locked down by assuming so much about the DMs game world.

For me the Samurai or Justiciars and Dragon Masters and Death Seers all exist in my game world but they arent necessarily classes or even best represented by 1 class - I find the class or class hybrids or multiclass mash up which fit the player and gameworld concept and we go with that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

For the cleric, differentiating a controller cleric from a controller wizard is tough. I never saw an Invoker in play, but they seemed very similar to the Wizard on paper.

In early 4e, the Wizard nodded a bit more to the danger-to-your-own party (AEs target 'creatures' rather than enemies'), while the Cleric was more often the reverse (even target enemies in an AE, aid allies in it). The Invoker was a bit like the wizard, of course, one thing that might have been easy to miss was that all controllers just plain had better powers than the other three roles, with the Wizard that was initially particularly true of its dailies, while with the Invoker it was more the encounters that were ahead of the curve.

I'd like something that made the cleric's magic feel like it wasn't their own, like it was coming from somewhere else.

Think about Flame Strike as the iconic Cleric attack spell, and that can be literal. A fireball streaks from the wizard to the target, a Flame Strike comes down on them from the heavens. If the Cleric has a feature that it needs line of sight to target - but no Line of Effect - well, that'd be pretty significant.

 

[Xeviat]

In early 4e, the Wizard nodded a bit more to the danger-to-your-own party (AEs target 'creatures' rather than enemies'), while the Cleric was more often the reverse (even target enemies in an AE, aid allies in it). The Invoker was a bit like the wizard, of course, one thing that might have been easy to miss was that all controllers just plain had better powers than the other three roles, with the Wizard that was initially particularly true of its dailies, while with the Invoker it was more the encounters that were ahead of the curve.

Think about Flame Strike as the iconic Cleric attack spell, and that can be literal. A fireball streaks from the wizard to the target, a Flame Strike comes down on them from the heavens. If the Cleric has a feature that it needs line of sight to target - but no Line of Effect - well, that'd be pretty significant.

It does really feel like "controller" is baked into the controller powers, isn't it? That'll make it difficult to have multiple roles on a class that can choose controller powers. It would suggest that it's powers which need to have roles, no? I've been looking at the various controllers and I'm not sure if they have an ability that really speaks to their roles, not like defenders, leaders, and strikers.

Not needing line of effect would be significant, but I'm not sure it would play to a playstyle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

It does really feel like "controller" is baked into the controller powers, isn't it?

Unquestionably. Controllers impose conditions and interdict areas (that's the most succinct way I can put the rather nebulous role), and those abilities are provided by powers, not features. Marking, surge-triggers, damage-boosts, they're all provided by class features. Powers support them, often in a big way, but you take, say, a fighter, and give it all Rogue powers, it'll still be a defender.

[sblock="tinfoil hat time"]Ultimately, I think the controller role was a grandfather clause to allow the wizard to just plain have more powerful powers than everyone else. Even 4e catered to caster supremacy, just not lavishly enough to be allowed to live. [/sblock]

I've been looking at the various controllers and I'm not sure if they have an ability that really speaks to their roles, not like defenders, leaders, and strikers.

Correct. Controller features might speak a bit to versatility or making them slightly better at one corner of the role than another. But a controller like the Wizard is all in it's powers, it has more ribbon-like features and less hps/surges, and just bigger, badder (and in the case of the wizard, moar) powers.

That'll make it difficult to have multiple roles on a class that can choose controller powers. It would suggest that it's powers which need to have roles, no?

I wouldn't think so. The controller role is aberrant that way, the other three roles work fine with features providing role support and powers complementing it and providing secondary-role support (fighters have some big-damage powers, warlords a few that mark, clerics, rangers & even rogues some control, etc. )

In a cleaner design, you could have features covering role exclusively, and powers speaking to source, in particular through keywords.

(Obviously I've wasted a lot of thought on this topic.)

One thing that occurred to me is that the Controller role is really Just Too Much, it needs to be sub-divided. My theory is that there's an implicit Blaster Role, that lays down AoE damage, ongoing damage, and/or damaging zones. Like a striker, but quantity over quality. The 4e Sorcerer was already darn close. Wizard builds could easily go there. Blaster could be broken out from controller. That would leave the Controller with condition-infliction and battlefield-alternation, less focused on damage. Evokers and Conjurers might be blasters, illusionists and enchanters would be controllers.

Just a theory.

Not needing line of effect would be significant, but I'm not sure it would play to a playstyle.

I suppose it's mainly a tactical/feel consideration. The wizard could toss his fireball into a pitch black cavern or mist-shrouded glen, and blow up anything that might be there; the cleric couldn't blindly call down the wrath of his god, but a wall of force won't stop said wrath.

 

[Igwilly]

My opinions about the Controller role.

I think it's Just Too Much simply because it was ill-defined. At the edition’s birth, the role wasn’t well defined, and that can be seen in the Wizard. They were area damage, area effects, long-lasting conjurations, status effects and ongoing damage (which it shared with Striker), some classic magical buffs and miscellaneous effects. Later it was added Summons. From that, I would say the Controller’s role was “everything else”.
After some time, they started to change that paradigm and focusing more about effects other than damage-related stuff. However, you can see the Wizard at PHB how many of its powers go against what most people would call “controlling the battlefield”, and after some time, damage was still a very important part.
Therefore, I think the best one should do, if maintaining 4e’s role structure, is to better define the Controller roll, probably create new roles and give the rest to existing roles.

 

[Xeviat]

One thing that occurred to me is that the Controller role is really Just Too Much, it needs to be sub-divided. My theory is that there's an implicit Blaster Role, that lays down AoE damage, ongoing damage, and/or damaging zones. Like a striker, but quantity over quality. The 4e Sorcerer was already darn close. Wizard builds could easily go there. Blaster could be broken out from controller. That would leave the Controller with condition-infliction and battlefield-alternation, less focused on damage. Evokers and Conjurers might be blasters, illusionists and enchanters would be controllers.

Wouldn't an AoE damage dealer just be a striker that focuses on quantity over quality?

One could look to other games for inspiration. Rather than a controller vs striker differentiation, its striker vs artillery. Wizards were often artillery characters, though illusionists and such do speak far more to control than blasting. In my role/class split, I'd place Evokers as Strikers and Illusionists as Controllers (Conjurers might be defenders, depending on the nature of their summons).

A stock controller class feature could be having harder saving throw DCs (not Attack rolls), so a controller can lock down statuses for longer.

--------

As for the Wizard/Cleric split, wizard AoEs hitting allies but Cleric AoEs only targeting enemies could speak to a playstyle. I wish Channel Divinity universally spoke to a playstyle, but it really just enhances the class flavor and sometimes dabbles in another class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tony Vargas]

Wouldn't an AoE damage dealer just be a striker that focuses on quantity over quality?

Like I said, the Sorcerer was an example. But, in general, 4e Strikers focused heavily on high /single-target/ damage, leaving the minion-sweeping to the Controller.

One could look to other games for inspiration. Rather than a controller vs striker differentiation, its striker vs artillery. Wizards were often artillery characters, though illusionists and such do speak far more to control than blasting. In my role/class split, I'd place Evokers as Strikers and Illusionists as Controllers (Conjurers might be defenders, depending on the nature of their summons).

A stock controller class feature could be having harder saving throw DCs (not Attack rolls), so a controller can lock down statuses for longer.

That did prove wildly OP for the early 'orbizard' builds.

As for the Wizard/Cleric split, wizard AoEs hitting allies but Cleric AoEs only targeting enemies could speak to a playstyle.

I think it speaks to role, too. OK, maybe there's no difference between role and playstyle in this instance. Another observation I had about controllers vs leaders: Leaders' power flows to their allies, and the leader is more effective with allies present, and vice versa. The controller is the opposite, allies (because of creature-targeting AEs & bad timing/positioning) actually get in their way, a controller might even be is at it's theoretically most effective on its own.

 

[Xeviat]

Right, but the concern is making the Cleric, regardless if they're a healing priest, a smiting Invoker, or Angel Summoner (tm) that they have a unique playstyle over a leading abjurer, a pyromaniac evoker, or a demon summoner. It's tough because Turn Undead/Channel Divinity is their unique mechanic, but it doesn't speak to a playstyle.

A few thoughts from other friends:

1) is there a way to reward the cleric mechanically for "acting in accordance with their faith" that wouldn't reward a fire priest for doing things a fire wizard does?
2) is there a way to have them bless/buff allies without it feeling just like utility spells or stepping on the bard's toes?

Or, am I concerning myself too much? The flavor of the wizard and Cleric is so different that they should feel different. I just don't want an Arcana Cleric feeling the same as a Theurge Wizard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk