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

[Garthanos]

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.

Ouch stacking needs to be VERY under control. and since save modifiers effectively multiply the durations they doubly need to...

Condition shedding for big bads needs to be there agreed.

Oh and the blaster kind of got merged into controller because magic users were always "almost everything" moving striker mage out to sorceror/lock they didnt even keep separated fully.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ouch stacking needs to be VERY under control. and since save modifiers effectively multiply the durations they doubly need to...

Condition shedding for big bads needs to be there agreed.

Oh and the blaster kind of got merged into controller because magic users were always "almost everything" moving striker mage out to sorceror/lock they didnt even keep separated fully.

Yeah, over time WotC neglected Sorcerers and pretty much turned Wizard into the be-all and end-all of Arcane classes. They had some pretty nasty AoEs in PHB1 era, like Stinking Cloud (an awesome spell), but they weren't party friendly and damage was usually fairly modest. Sorcerers, especially with the Dagger Master PP trick, and whatnot, faired pretty well. Later wizards got a ridiculous amount of 'ignore the party, area damage the enemy even on a miss AND hammer them with a condition' type stuff, which almost obsoleted the Sorcerer (there are still good Sorc builds, but they are a lot less attractive than they were in say 2009).

 

[Xeviat]

[MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] and I were just chatting about augments ...

You know, when PHB3 came out and we got the PP mechanic of Psionics, I really wanted to do that with everyone. Be it endurance or mana, or simply saying that casters use their endurance, it would be an easy way to break away from the feeling of rigid martial powers. Spellcasters would likely still want discrete spells, but it could work well for martial characters.

More simply, each class could have a few at-wills to choose from, added To by their specialization, and then different weapon proficiencies could bring others. You can't use a flail power with a sword, so they'd be compartmentalized powers.

As for controller abilities, wizard seems to have their +1 to hit, extend round, +1 AC, while Invoker has add damage to area attacks (it's been a while). Their role does seem to be baked into their powers, but then multiclassing allows more poaching of that then it does other roles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cyvris]

You know what "Controller" I found recently and think should have been the baseline for Controller's "thing"? The Protector Druid.

The class' "Nature's Growth" Encounter Power gives direct "control" (shutting down a zone) by making it difficult terrain that lasts the entire encounter and scales reasonably well. On top of that, the class features you pick directly tie into it, either making it a more effective healing zone for allies or letting your allies ignore the difficult terrain all together. It's a Minor Action too, allowing it to flow effortlessly into the class' toolbox.

Looking at it from a design perspective I'd be tempted to spread something similar to all the other Controllers.

Wizard-Wall of X element that effects creatures that start/end within it-class feature choice for a defense/saving throw debuff of some form or forced movement

Invoker-A consecration effect that creates a burst of damaging terrain-class feature choice either grants allies minor damage reduction while in the zone or enemies suffer an attack debuff on top of the damage

Psion-Specify a scaling number of enemies by tier that you can move 1 (scaling maybe as well) square per turn, class features let you make a "wall" through the spaces the creature moved that are straight up impassable or lock the creature itself down

 

[Xeviat]

snip

Very much yes. The problem is that if I do what I'm talking about here, and have the wizard with specializations to let them be a controller, defender, leader, or striker, then the controller options need to have class features that facilitate being a controller. Otherwise, a striker wizard (evoker) is going to be able to choose control focused powers while enjoying a striker buff, unless I very firmly limit Spell choice (which I could through schools and spheres).

And then I just realized you were talking about minor action abilities. Yes. Yes. Very yes. If those could be designed for all of the controller roles for each class, that would be what would be needed. Heck, I'd make sure all of the role abilities were minor action so that there would be a hard choice for minor action powers. Leaders would need a constant minor action ability since their main one is only twice per encounter.

For strikers: A TWFing fighter could have minor offhand attack. A rogue has a minor "find the weak spot" if they're designed to attack every round. A ranger has a minor action pet attack. A wizard has a minor action "empower Spell".

 

[Cyvris]

Hmm, minor action ability usage would be interesting. Turning all the "bonus damage" from Strikers into relying on their Minor Action would be very interesting and could lead to some good choices between using a power and getting in the extra damage.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmm, minor action ability usage would be interesting. Turning all the "bonus damage" from Strikers into relying on their Minor Action would be very interesting and could lead to some good choices between using a power and getting in the extra damage.

I'd think the existing ranger/rogue/warlock minor action damage sweetener moves that exist now are really pretty much exactly the sort of design to go for. Honestly, the leader minor action heals work pretty well too! Its mostly the question of controllers, and I think you've advanced some interesting options there. The Protector Druid really is a pretty good model, and its not at all hard to see wizards getting a 'wizard flavored' equivalent (a zone that has various inhibiting effects like say making OAs impossible, imposing the slowed condition, creating hazardous terrain, etc). I think the 'wall' idea isn't a bad thought, though I'd probably flavor it as (at low levels anyway) something like a zone of ice, fire, etc.

 

[Cyvris]

Its mostly the question of controllers, and I think you've advanced some interesting options there. The Protector Druid really is a pretty good model, and its not at all hard to see wizards getting a 'wizard flavored' equivalent (a zone that has various inhibiting effects like say making OAs impossible, imposing the slowed condition, creating hazardous terrain, etc). I think the 'wall' idea isn't a bad thought, though I'd probably flavor it as (at low levels anyway) something like a zone of ice, fire, etc.

Most of these I tossed out on the spot honestly. Psion I'd probably tweak to some sort of "Gravity Well" effect. Designate a square that pulls X monsters in range Y to it at the end of your turn or something. Balancing stuff would be odd, but once it's "good" everything could be pretty neat.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Most of these I tossed out on the spot honestly. Psion I'd probably tweak to some sort of "Gravity Well" effect. Designate a square that pulls X monsters in range Y to it at the end of your turn or something. Balancing stuff would be odd, but once it's "good" everything could be pretty neat.

Yeah, its generally more challenging than just making up separate lists of powers, which really is kind of the cheap way out. I suspect the 4e designers simply ran out of time. They COULD have done a lot of this stuff, but they had an August 2008 deadline to meet, and it was actually easier to write up 2000 powers than to try to make one list work with 3 classes.

 

[Cyvris]

Ttry to make one list work with 3 classes.

Some year I'll do this...some year. Maybe use the old Charop handbooks and cull everything down to 10ish powers per power source per level.