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

[Tony Vargas]

I vaguely recall that but... could you elaborate?

btw I think I will resume the idea of the Controller Warlord (getting Martial Practices up to snuff seems part of that for some reason)

He categorized the various Warlord powers and analyzed the class based on how many fell into each. Hector powers manipulated enemies presumably verbally, and were the least common - in my judgement, because they intruded on the controller role...

 

[Garthanos]

He categorized the various Warlord powers and analyzed the class based on how many fell into each. Hector powers manipulated enemies presumably verbally, and were the least common - in my judgement, because they intruded on the controller role...

I am particularly fond of things like the power which induces enemies to perform accidental friendly fire...

 

[thanson02]

The only 'beef' I had with Martial Practices, and its not impossible to address, is that they, in effect, become a set of 'secondary skills' that impose incompetence on anyone that doesn't have them. For example, an MP 'fortify campsite', implies that you NEED that MP to be able to fortify a campsite!

I think there are two ways to look at it. For very esoteric niche things its fine. So, not everyone can forge a passport, you really do HAVE to train in some fashion to do that, and just having Thievery at +20 isn't specific enough. You want to forge documents, learn the MP 'Forge Document'. As long as designers are VERY careful to keep to this niche concept its OK. The problem is the question of how it relates to powers (particularly skill powers). Its easy to end up with an MP that basically grants a power or obviates any number of powers. Again this is probably an issue of generality. MPs that grant skill bonuses need to do so for VERY specific situations and require sufficient prep or resource expenditure to avoid stepping on skill powers.

I think WotC abandoned MPs for the simple reason that it required so much designer discipline and if they let all the various freelancers loose with it they probably felt they'd end up with a lot of stuff cluttering Dragon articles that was going to amount to "get a +5 to your Stealth check pretty much any old time if you just do this practice first", or "build a boat" and things like that, which run into the above problems.

I hate to say it, but I created the solution to this sorts of problems in my game. NOTHING is granted except by operation of the plot of the game. There is no concept of the character 'leveling up' and THEN the player goes off and attaches new stuff to his character. Nor is the idea of simply buying new capabilities really a thing. You complete encounters, which generate boons, which are related to the action, and that provides you with new stuff (though maybe it can be indirect, like you learn where to go to get certain training, or make an ally who shows you how to do something).

You can of course pretty much play this way in 4e, it just wasn't the standard convention that evolved for 4e where players are expecting to have access to anything in the book and just get a budget to work with.

I agree with a lot of the stuff that you brought up here. From what I've seen, if you bring in a new mechanic in the game that has to have a particular function that works really well within the game. I think part of the problem with Martial Practices was when they first develop them, there was a lack of focus it was going on and they notice there were some areas of improvement that needed to happen and they weren't really sure how to go about it. I do agree with your point that martial practices works good for this really specialized "Niche" areas almost like a greater skill specialization and if you developed a Martial Practice that's going to be functional in the game you have to cross-reference it with the Skill Powers to make sure you're not doing overlaps or to make sure that you're not undermining what's going on with that particular aspect of the mechanics.

We could also start a whole new conversation thread about the relationship between the two and how they could work together really well. But I don't think that's the conversation to have with this particular discussion line. It kind of moves away from what the OP purpose was and I don't like hijacking other people's conversations.



Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[Garthanos]

We could also start a whole new conversation thread about the relationship between the two and how they could work together really well. But I don't think that's the conversation to have with this particular discussion line. It kind of moves away from what the OP purpose was and I don't like hijacking other people's conversations.

In a sense this is relevant only if you see rituals or outside of combat flexibility and power as central to the controller role.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Still keeping a Ritualist feat? but accesses which ever source?

I don't even have the feat. However, a lot of 'minor boons' are simply "you can cast this ritual now" in effect. Minor boons are unregulated, but they are somewhat feat-like in the sense of usually being small things that give you some minor advantage. A new language, 500gp, making friends with an official, getting a consumable magic item, these are usually minor boons.

hmmmm I figured hiding the GPs that pay for those inneffable trainings or arrival of the extraordinary item in "Karma points" allowed me to track this stuff acquisition in units easily translated. (it can be a DM tool) The only time it enters other wise is if a player wants to learn one of these things from another player... ie the student can only learn when the student is ready.... sort of an abstraction. Giving Karma/Charity points for literal giving away resources to strangers in need also addresses the problem of players teaching each other. (they still "cost")

How I worked it is sort of 'reverse experience'. Your character adventures, and sometime in the course of that, either explicitly by picking up an item or something similar, or indirectly by gaining information or training that provides an item or ability, the character gains a new 'feature'. This feature is a 'major boon'. Each major boon you acquire adds one to your character's level. So a level 1 fighter who finds a +1 magic sword +2 vs goblins has now advanced to level 2! He will now acquire the hit points, attack bonus, etc of a level 2 fighter. Note that classes don't have level-by-level class features, BUT boons (particularly the powers they grant) often do have level scaling, and there are a few other things that scale with level, so leveling up is pretty much equivalent to 4e leveling, though there are less power slots and no real need for explicit swapping.

Anyway, the point is, it leads to a system where players direct their character's actions towards acquiring the boons they desire, and boons organically reflect the actions and history of the characters almost entirely, with class playing more of a foundational role as a basis (there are 'associations' between classes and boons, they just aren't absolutes that say 'thou shalt not ever let the fighter get this spell casting boon', its more like "thematically this works for an elementalist").

 

[thanson02]

I am so stealing that one and calling it Hone Arms...
More Details?

Like I said, Just starting the process. Play with it a s much as you want.

 

[Xeviat]

Thanks for all the thoughts everyone. I got distracted by Unearthed Arcana and stopped thinking about 4E until today. Then I dusted off my D&DI sub and just spent three hours copying all of the 1st level at-will attack powers into an excel sheet so I can start doing some comparisons.

I did notice something related to my question of "what is a controller?". Sorcerers, who are strikers, have a lot of the area blaster type powers one would consider to be controller abilities.

So, a thought I was having was this for a simple baseline controller ability: what if controllers turned 1 round effects into save ends, and then penalized creatures saves against their powers. Then they'd have their control features last longer. Or, change "save ends" to be repeated attack rolls or rolls against a DC like (10+attack bonus) with bonuses like (Defense-10), then give controllers an attack bonus (yes, this lends itself to more average damage, but it's more constant damage so the control that needs to be applied is applied when it's needed).

I was leaning heavily towards the notion of each class able to be multiple roles based on their specialization. Each class would have a defining class ability that would key to a particular play style, but role would be a separate choice. Here were my starting thoughts on those styles (and these are separate from powers):

Barbarian) Rage: Barbarians play with a toggle, which switches their focus. Do they restrain themselves to keep access to certain abilities, or do they snap and switch to others? Probably will have auto rage at bloodied, or an action to induce it otherwise. Role) possibly all; defender: meat shielding; striker: obvious, though possibly not a base choice but a function of raging; controller: battle roars or big arching swings; leader: lead from the front bravura warlord type stuff.

Bard) Bardic Inspiration: Bards function by improving their allies or hindering their enemies. Their play style involves shifting small but constant effects. Role thoughts) likely all, Bard is easy.

Cleric) Channel Divinity: Cleric's domain choice functions almost like minor multiclassing. Their play style is one of hybridization. (As a note, to limit toe-stepping, the cleric is mostly a robewearing spellcaster, and even a War Cleric will be functionally different from a Paladin). Role) as a core class, ideally any role based on domain.

Druid) Wildshape: A druid's playstyle involves shifting forms. Form changes involve minor role changes. Role) the Druid would involve role switching. Different Wild shape choices would switch to different roles, while base form would be a separate fixed choice.

Fighter) Weapon Mastery: Im loathe to say it, but I intend Fighters to be the baseline. Their play style is about being good at what they do. I'm tempted to have some arms specializations, possibly with some ability to switch roles based on equipment (shield makes you a defender, polearm a melee controller, great weapon a striker ...), or just with a higher amount of baseline at-wills. Suddenly, I like the idea of a fighter having a "spellbook"-type ability where they can swap between different powers based on their equipment, showing that fighters are masters of techniques and arms and armor. Role) any.

Monk) Martial Arts Stances: My idea for monks is that they learn stances which flow between one another. Each stance could bring an at will and an encounter, but the encounter ends the stance (openers, finishers). Role) likely any other than leader.

Paladin) Divine Challenge: The paladin is about fighting a single opponent at a time. Whether their challenge is a defender's mark or a striker's mark for death is determined by their role choice (I see Paladins as defender, leader, or striker).

Ranger) Animal Companion: A ranger's playstyle involves playing two characters. The choice of companion is also the choice of roll: a beefy pet is a defender (it harries and only functionally attacks as mark counters), an attacking pet is a striker, a harassing pet grants a controller effect. Role) any other than leader.

Rogue) Sneak Attack: A rogue's playstyle involves searching for openings. I envision rogues skipping turns, with set-up followed by action. A defender rogue could still defend while they set up (swashbuckler harrying foes with feints and parries), a striker rogue would deal devastating attacks after delay, leader rogues would create or point out openings for their allies ... Role) as a core class, any role.

And then it gets harder ...

Sorcerer) A sorcerer's style is about having power all the time. Maybe they don't get dailies, but get enhancements to their at-wills or something. Sorcerers become their bloodline, so a dragon Sorcerer could pick up draconic powers and a necromantic Sorcerer gets vampire stuff. Role) unsure. Defenders could be summoners. Any other than leader?

Warlock) Curse: Sort of the anti-paladin, a warlock's playstyle involves trying to attack everything to spread their curse's effect. Role) any other than leader? I feel like that's too easy to say.

Wizard) Spellbook: where the fighter is the baseline weapon user, the wizard is the baseline spellcaster. Their play style involves having the right spell for the task at hand. Role) any. I do like the idea of summoners as defenders (or at least temp defenders if they summon a defender).

I'm still very much in the drawing board phase here. It maybe easier to tweak 5E (but that would require making a wholly new monster manual, in addition to upping player HP and adding a martial techniques system). I'm not sure which would be more work, and which would be more fulfilling.

As an aside, I had decided on these twelve classes before we learned of 5E's twelve, so 5E using the same twelve as me reinforced my belief that they're the most broad classes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Garthanos]

controller: I don't agree with the to hit bonus controller powers... often targetting non-armorclass will have a bit of a boost

Longer control effects was I think the phb idea though and kind of valid it wasnt very noticeable and most of the power was left in their powers not the class effect making them kind of over poachable

However exemplified by the enchanter class power they move/manipulate enemies (increasing the distance as well as duration?)

And feats that enlarge created area effects are almost always controller schtick. Maybe separate Blaster from Controller?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thanks for all the thoughts everyone. I got distracted by Unearthed Arcana and stopped thinking about 4E until today. Then I dusted off my D&DI sub and just spent three hours copying all of the 1st level at-will attack powers into an excel sheet so I can start doing some comparisons.

I did notice something related to my question of "what is a controller?". Sorcerers, who are strikers, have a lot of the area blaster type powers one would consider to be controller abilities.

So, a thought I was having was this for a simple baseline controller ability: what if controllers turned 1 round effects into save ends, and then penalized creatures saves against their powers. Then they'd have their control features last longer. Or, change "save ends" to be repeated attack rolls or rolls against a DC like (10+attack bonus) with bonuses like (Defense-10), then give controllers an attack bonus (yes, this lends itself to more average damage, but it's more constant damage so the control that needs to be applied is applied when it's needed).

I was leaning heavily towards the notion of each class able to be multiple roles based on their specialization. Each class would have a defining class ability that would key to a particular play style, but role would be a separate choice. Here were my starting thoughts on those styles (and these are separate from powers):

Barbarian) Rage: Barbarians play with a toggle, which switches their focus. Do they restrain themselves to keep access to certain abilities, or do they snap and switch to others? Probably will have auto rage at bloodied, or an action to induce it otherwise. Role) possibly all; defender: meat shielding; striker: obvious, though possibly not a base choice but a function of raging; controller: battle roars or big arching swings; leader: lead from the front bravura warlord type stuff.

Bard) Bardic Inspiration: Bards function by improving their allies or hindering their enemies. Their play style involves shifting small but constant effects. Role thoughts) likely all, Bard is easy.

Cleric) Channel Divinity: Cleric's domain choice functions almost like minor multiclassing. Their play style is one of hybridization. (As a note, to limit toe-stepping, the cleric is mostly a robewearing spellcaster, and even a War Cleric will be functionally different from a Paladin). Role) as a core class, ideally any role based on domain.

Druid) Wildshape: A druid's playstyle involves shifting forms. Form changes involve minor role changes. Role) the Druid would involve role switching. Different Wild shape choices would switch to different roles, while base form would be a separate fixed choice.

Fighter) Weapon Mastery: Im loathe to say it, but I intend Fighters to be the baseline. Their play style is about being good at what they do. I'm tempted to have some arms specializations, possibly with some ability to switch roles based on equipment (shield makes you a defender, polearm a melee controller, great weapon a striker ...), or just with a higher amount of baseline at-wills. Suddenly, I like the idea of a fighter having a "spellbook"-type ability where they can swap between different powers based on their equipment, showing that fighters are masters of techniques and arms and armor. Role) any.

Monk) Martial Arts Stances: My idea for monks is that they learn stances which flow between one another. Each stance could bring an at will and an encounter, but the encounter ends the stance (openers, finishers). Role) likely any other than leader.

Paladin) Divine Challenge: The paladin is about fighting a single opponent at a time. Whether their challenge is a defender's mark or a striker's mark for death is determined by their role choice (I see Paladins as defender, leader, or striker).

Ranger) Animal Companion: A ranger's playstyle involves playing two characters. The choice of companion is also the choice of roll: a beefy pet is a defender (it harries and only functionally attacks as mark counters), an attacking pet is a striker, a harassing pet grants a controller effect. Role) any other than leader.

Rogue) Sneak Attack: A rogue's playstyle involves searching for openings. I envision rogues skipping turns, with set-up followed by action. A defender rogue could still defend while they set up (swashbuckler harrying foes with feints and parries), a striker rogue would deal devastating attacks after delay, leader rogues would create or point out openings for their allies ... Role) as a core class, any role.

And then it gets harder ...

Sorcerer) A sorcerer's style is about having power all the time. Maybe they don't get dailies, but get enhancements to their at-wills or something. Sorcerers become their bloodline, so a dragon Sorcerer could pick up draconic powers and a necromantic Sorcerer gets vampire stuff. Role) unsure. Defenders could be summoners. Any other than leader?

Warlock) Curse: Sort of the anti-paladin, a warlock's playstyle involves trying to attack everything to spread their curse's effect. Role) any other than leader? I feel like that's too easy to say.

Wizard) Spellbook: where the fighter is the baseline weapon user, the wizard is the baseline spellcaster. Their play style involves having the right spell for the task at hand. Role) any. I do like the idea of summoners as defenders (or at least temp defenders if they summon a defender).

I'm still very much in the drawing board phase here. It maybe easier to tweak 5E (but that would require making a wholly new monster manual, in addition to upping player HP and adding a martial techniques system). I'm not sure which would be more work, and which would be more fulfilling.

As an aside, I had decided on these twelve classes before we learned of 5E's twelve, so 5E using the same twelve as me reinforced my belief that they're the most broad classes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] and I were just chatting about augments, that is how you could basically have a power that was capable of being at-will/encounter/daily power level based on expending a resource. One of the things I thought of was implement/weapon specific augmentations. So if you pick up a flail, then you can add augments that are about slowing, prone, etc, and if you use an orb then you might add some sort of mental effect like dazing or something (obviously the details have to account for different types of effects at different tiers, etc). This would basically establish a role for the character. It would accomplish, with the fighter, something like what you're talking about, swap weapons and you suddenly have different 'powers' and thus a different (or maybe just added secondary) role.

I'm liking this idea. It does diverge a bit from the 4e basic design of power allocations, but not in a bad way. I think it would allow for thematic focus, flexibility, and variety all at once, without some overwhelming number of powers being needed. It would also simplify the concept of having source based power lists. Martial characters have a core selection of basic powers, then depending on class and equipment loadout (maybe just different classes have features that encourage them to favor certain weapons) your powers become 'rogue like' or 'ranger like' and contribute to your combat role.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

controller: I don't agree with the to hit bonus controller powers... often targetting non-armorclass will have a bit of a boost

Longer control effects was I think the phb idea though and kind of valid it wasnt very noticeable and most of the power was left in their powers not the class effect making them kind of over poachable

However exemplified by the enchanter class power they move/manipulate enemies (increasing the distance as well as duration?)

And feats that enlarge created area effects are almost always controller schtick. Maybe separate Blaster from Controller?

I don't think 'blaster' is a role, that's just a mode of being a striker (IE damage output primary function character). Area damage has some controlling effect in that it does exert a denial effect, but its not strictly speaking a controller-specific thing.

The problem wizards ran into was that early on they decided they would get lots of ways to make their control effects nastier, but then it was all WAY too stackable. So an orb wizard could just lard on Orb of Inevitable Consequences, and this feat, and that feat, and the right PP, and suddenly they were dishing out Sleep with a -15 to the save. Even modest save penalties and extensions to the duration of effects like stunned and helpless were simply too brutal, particularly in early 4e where NO monsters have any condition shedding at all.