Ranger should have been Martial Controllers

[szilard]

We just need people to realize that some source-role combinations won't work. "Martial Controller" is a prime example. (IMO, Divine Striker is another.)

Why wouldn't divine striker work?

Conceptually, it is fine: someone who is designed to seek out and strike down enemies of the faith or whatnot. An avenging paladin can be played this way... and I've thought of playing a ranger or rogue multiclassed into paladin just to get this sort of flavor.

-Stuart

 

[LowSpine]

Debates like this are why they never should have introduced roles into the official rules.

I almost agree. I like roles, as I see the reason they put them in, but I think their roles should be defined as their primary role. In other words - roles should not be 100% of what the class is. With slightly diminished importance the problems can be diminished or eliminated.

How - I don't know exactly - but then I'm not a designer expecting to be paid a shed load.

 

[generalhenry]

No one gets into debates about who's a Leader, they're very well defined
Few people get into debates about who's a defender, they're well defined
Few people get into debates about who's a striker, they're well defined
Everyone gets into debates about who's a controller, they're very poorly defined


Wizards are controllers. I could see druids (outside of wildshape) as controllers. I can't think of any other class (besides sorcerers who are redundant to wizards) that really fit the controller role.

 

[lutecius]

I think it's a shame that they wasted the ranger class on another striker. They could have been great martial controllers with the right powers.

Really no. What kind of controller powers would feel right for a ranger or martial character?
The videogamey clouds of arrows or whirlwind attacks that affect many targets can only be done so many times before it gets silly.

Then the monk could be a martial striker like it's supposed to. Ki - pft. Granted, it's fun to pwn everything as a ranger but still. There's too many strikers and not enough controllers.

I think the ranger was first meant to be lumped with druid and barbarian (3e's "Masters of the Wild" trio) under primal. But he made the cut for phb1 at the last minute and they didn't want to introduce a whole new power source for just one class. That's how we got 2 martial strikers.

As for the controller role. I think I just don't believe it exists. It overlaps the others roles and the wizard isn't even the best at affecting several opponents.

 

[darkadelphia]

Debates like this are why they never should have introduced roles into the official rules.

infinite oregano!

Anyway, martial controller: I don't know if this would count as martial, arcane or maybe a new source (alchemical), but I thought a neat way to do a controller that isn't slinging laser beams would be the Slinger. This would be a controller class that uses a sling staff and a copious supply of carefully prepared brews that he lobs around the battle field to hamper and destroy the enemy. Think things like tear gas, flares, smoke screens, nerve gas, etc.

I would have liked to have seen another controller in the PHB, but that's life. I don't give, however, much creedence to people who say that controller is poorly defined--I've been playing my Wizards as controllers since 1e and let me tell you, it's far more effective than "blasting." As far as other classes that can control, there's the Slinger above, some Druid variant, perhaps a geomancer of sorts, some sort of psionicist who uses mass charm effects, etc. It just takes a little creativity.

 

[generalhenry]

I think the ranger was first meant to be lumped with druid and barbarian (3e's "Masters of the Wild" trio) under primal. But he made the cut for phb1 at the last minute and they didn't want to introduce a whole new power source for just one class. That's how we got 2 martial strikers.

a power source is a single paragraph.

The game needed an archer, and I think rangers fit best as martial anyways.


The controller role doesn't exist because it's needed tactically (honestly minions are not a real threat) but rather because the Wizard doesn't fit the other roles.

Wizards aren't strikers, leaders or defenders.

 

[drachasor]

No, they couldn't. Martial Controller doesn't make sense, and the designers have said as much (well, actually they didn't specify which combination didn't make sense but it is pretty obvious which one they meant).

I think you could make a martial controller, but it would make more sense as a monk (who isn't martial, but can look martial to an observer). Give them a bunch of abilities that let them move X squares and hit every enemy they run by (some abilities like this would grant status effects or push enemies). Give them some interrupts or stance-like things that let them stop ranged attacks that go within 2 squares of them (and possibly send said ranged attack back at an opponent). A few kinds of abilities like that and you effectively have a controller. You could claim it is martial, but it makes more sense as something slightly different.

 

[drachasor]

The controller role doesn't exist because it's needed tactically (honestly minions are not a real threat) but rather because the Wizard doesn't fit the other roles.

My brother and I playtested a couple encounters with first level character, and minions were a real threat. They hit fairly decently and have non-trivial defense scores. There are also a lot of them, so they can take some time to kill. That said, a controller does a lot more than just handle minions, he controls the battlefield in a way no other character can. That's priceless.

 

[generalhenry]

I'm not saying controllers aren't useful.

But I'd give up the wizard before I'd give up the fighter or the cleric.

 

[SSquirrel]

Wizards are controllers. I could see druids (outside of wildshape) as controllers. I can't think of any other class (besides sorcerers who are redundant to wizards) that really fit the controller role.

Every Sorcerer I've ever seen was a walking artillery platform due to the low count of spells. Sorcerers would be strikers long before controllers as far as I can tell.