D&D 4E New 4E: Divorcing Class and Role (and what is a controller?)

[Tony Vargas]

1) I want to divorce class from role. Class determines the character's place in the world and how they overcome their challenges. Each class will have abilities that cater to a playstyle, but their role will be determined by a choice.

At that point Class /almost/ maps to Source. There's little point to a Paladin, for instance, just have the Cleric covering the whole Divine Source - if you want a Paladin, you play a Defender Cleric perhaps MC'd with Fighter (Defender or Striker role). Similarly, Wizard (Role) would pretty logically fill in for all the Arcane classes, with the possible exception of Warlock, which might, instead, be a MC-only variation on the Wizard (you get arcane power instantly, from your Pact, convenient for MCing, no?).

The one exception /might/ be Fighter & Rogue, but even then, the line between the two owes more to tradition than logic. Ranger certainly has no business existing in a game where a Fighter can just up and be a striker, melee or ranged. Ranger & Rogue might work better as Themes that give different non-combat areas of focus.

4) Spells and Exploits will be largely removed from the classes and instead simply be spell/exploit lists in their own section of the "book".

Generic (IMHO, that'd be taking it too far), or by Source?

I'm looking at having spells return to their classic levels

Terrible idea, honestly. If you're going to go there, mod 5e, don't try to rebuild 4e around that legacy.

Part of the thread title was "What is a Controller?". This is a question that is going to be important when having classes have the ability to be multiple roles.

Indeed. The Controller is the proud nail of 4e. It messes with an otherwise pretty neat system. There are two major problems with it, and they're closely related:

1) it exists solely to grandfather in the wizard and keep it just a little overpowered
2) support for the role is built into class powers instead of features

OK, there's a third issue I have with it, 3) it prevents many fairly obvious Fighter & Warlord exploits from being implemented, because they'd step on the controller's toes. Threatening Reach in the hands of the former, for instance, and manipulating enemies with tactics & maneuvers in the case of the latter.

Defenders have their Marks, or marking auras.
Strikers have some sort of damage buf
Leaders have their 2-3/encounter minor action heals.
Controllers have ... well ...

What do controllers have?

Strictly superior powers. Controller powers are just plain better, they have bigger areas, they have harsher riders, stronger miss lines, they attack any defense, even every defense, even auto-'hit' having nothing but an effect line. They have greater versatility, overall.

There's no "controller" role ability.

There are several, as befits a role meant to overpower it's premier representative. Controller functions include:

Minion Sweeping, Swarm extermination, recon-by-fireball, single-target lockdown, de-buffing, and battlefield modification (implied interdiction by the mere threat of AEs, ongoing zones, walls, summons/conjurations, etc). Another interesting aspect is that controller powers can often keep the enemy at bay or punish it for approaching the controller, while, in contrast defenders attract enemies, leaders de-buff them for the whole party, and strikers tend to run away from them. Ironically, the controller is none-the-less the most dispensable role (because the other three really do cover all the basics), but also the one best-suited to solo adventuring.

IMHO, the first step to fixing up the controller would be to split it into two roles, the Blaster and the Controller.

The Blaster would specialize in AEs, damaging persistent zones, sustainable attacks, and multi-attacking with limited ability to focus those attacks on one target ('secondary striker'). That could include summons that fight and damaging conjurations.

The Controller would specialize in imposing conditions, primarily single-target, or as consequences to interacting with a zone or conjuration or the like that changes the environment (that'd include Illusions, for instance).
I'd also picture them having more and more varied/situational options than other roles, but that may also be a case of grandfathering in the wizard.

FREX: If the Blaster-Wizard cast Ice Storm, he'd always get the fist-sized-Hail version and do bludgeoning & cold damage to everything in the area. If the Controller-Wizard cast the same spell, he'd get the Sleet Storm version, creating a icy/slippery zone. (Yeah, now double that to cover all four roles, then multiply it by ~3k powers.)

 

[Xeviat]

Cool! More responses in a night than I was expecting. I'll have some detailed responses in a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Human Target]

Oh, and Controllers have the best out of combat utility from their actual powers and access to rituals.

But that's something that should be fixed, not emulated.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't agree that controller is a spurious role, it is just as fundamental as the other 3. What SHOULD be core to controllers is DENIAL. Controllers control the pace and flow of the battle. They primarily do this by denying the enemy SPACE and TIME. This prevents the enemy from properly deploying, concentrating its firepower, and disrupting the party's own plans.

Lots of lack of clarity HAS existed in terms of controllers, but this is the core, reduced to Clausewitzian terms. Its not about 'minion sweeping', area effect attacks, etc. It CAN be implemented via powers or class features which impose conditions, or create/destroy terrain, or even modify your own allies in ways that allow them to thwart enemy action (for instance I would say a power that suddenly doubled all your allies speeds for a turn could be considered a controller power, as it certainly would badly disrupt the other side's plans and wrong foot them). Likewise slowing the enemy is a perfectly legitimate controller power.

I don't see any reason why some of these capabilities couldn't be built into class features either. An 'ice mage' could slow people or create slippery terrain for instance, a psychic could distract or mesmerize, or create illusions, etc. that are implemented as rider conditions on powers.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't agree that controller is a spurious role, it is just as fundamental as the other 3.

OK. Spotting you that, I still feel like it could be cut in half and each half still be enough to differentiate a fully-contributing PC.

What SHOULD be core to controllers is DENIAL. Controllers control the pace and flow of the battle. They primarily do this by denying the enemy SPACE and TIME. This prevents the enemy from properly deploying, concentrating its firepower, and disrupting the party's own plans.

Sounds good.

Its not about 'minion sweeping', area effect attacks, etc.

Well, they are a form of denial (of space, using your above criteria). And swept minions are denied, well, time in the obvious sense.

It CAN be implemented via powers or class features which impose conditions, or create/destroy terrain, or even modify your own allies in ways that allow them to thwart enemy action. Likewise slowing the enemy is a perfectly legitimate controller power.

I'd've preferred it'd been features rather than overpowered powers.

I don't see any reason why some of these capabilities couldn't be built into class features either. An 'ice mage' could slow people or create slippery terrain for instance, a psychic could distract or mesmerize, or create illusions, etc. that are implemented as rider conditions on powers.

Agreed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

OK. Spotting you that, I still feel like it could be cut in half and each half still be enough to differentiate a fully-contributing PC.

'Blaster' to me just seems like a subtype of striker, not really a controller. I grant, powerful area attack capability has a certain 'kill zone' style of denial about it, but I just think it would too much conflate with striker.

Well, they are a form of denial (of space, using your above criteria). And swept minions are denied, well, time in the obvious sense.

Yeah, and I don't think its impossible to have those in your controller repertoire. It shades you towards striker, but most classes do shade towards something.

I'd've preferred it'd been features rather than overpowered powers.

Yeah, the powers approach does have obvious disadvantages WRT MCing.

 

[Garthanos]

Oh, and Controllers have the best out of combat utility from their actual powers and access to rituals.

But that's something that should be fixed, not emulated.

Are you sure? The heros of legend are pretty flexible

Martial Practices given the ahem cajones they deserve and mayhaps treated as kings magic with oaths and blood bonds and similar things out of legend like wrestiling with death itself or passing in to the Cauldron of life for resurection and could somewhat fix that

Perhaps using an idea like A Heroic Exertion spend a HS to enhance a skill use in some extraordinary fashion. (the Warrior classes with their extra HS are even advantaged in this arena)

 

[Garthanos]

Still want to see a solid martial controller Such as a Warlord who specializes in manipulating enemies.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Are you sure? The heros of legend are pretty flexible

Martial Practices given the ahem cajones they deserve and mayhaps treated as kings magic with oaths and blood bonds and similar things out of legend like wrestiling with death itself or passing in to the Cauldron of life for resurection and could somewhat fix that

Perhaps using an idea like A Heroic Exertion spend a HS to enhance a skill use in some extraordinary fashion. (the Warrior classes with their extra HS are even advantaged in this arena)

I think the question becomes what constitutes a 'ritual' and what constitutes a unique skill challenge? I'd say if there's a good chance it will be useful in a variety of situations and the character might realistically learn to employ it again and again, then its a candidate to become a ritual.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think the question becomes what constitutes a 'ritual' and what constitutes a unique skill challenge? I'd say if there's a good chance it will be useful in a variety of situations and the character might realistically learn to employ it again and again, then its a candidate to become a ritual.

That's fair.

Another line would be that Rituals accomplish things (including things that can't be accomplished through normal application of skills) through supernatural means available only to ritual casters, while skill challenges accomplish things /anyone/ might do with enough knowledge, experience, and teamwork. Martial Practices, had they gotten a better treatment, would presumably have accomplished things that normal skill applications couldn't, but through super-human, but not supernatural, means. Rather like martial powers.