Ranger should have been Martial Controllers

[Afrodyte]

From my experience of playing KotS, the controller is a strategic role moreso than a tactical one. Wizards and the like have a direct effect on the shape and flow of the battle itself, not just on allies, enemies, and themselves. My most useful powers turned out to be: Mage Hand, Icy Terrain, and Thunderwave.

Imagine the different roles as animals.

Strikers are like snakes - slippery, stealthy, and able to do a lot of damage to a single individual very quickly. Their main advantage: mobility.

Defenders are like bears - big, strong, and tough. They are not the ones you want to go toe-to-toe with because they can absorb a lot of damage and dish it out, sometimes to several enemies. Their main advantage: durability.

Leaders are are like dogs or wolves - pretty strong, pretty tough, but it's their ability to work as a team that makes them shine. Their main advantage: cooperation.

Controllers are like elephants - they can do a lot of damage up close and to a single individual, but the best way to use them is to move trees and boulders around to shape the battle environment. Their main advantage: strategy.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

They aren't 100% of what a class does. After all, despite being a Defender, the Paladin has a few healing (aka Leader) abilities. The Cleric has at least one ability that allows him to mark a target. The fighter can unload damage on par with a Striker.

Everyone's got more to do than just their combat role, but they can't fail at their combat role.

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

This is chuckle-worthy, as becoming a game designer is certainly not a path to wealth.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I like the concept of roles, but I don't really see why any must be unsuitable for a given power source.

Martial Controller? The 3e 'tactical reach,' 'spiked chain' and 'battle field controll' builds were pretty well known, one of the few things the inveterate optimizer would grudgingly admit a fighter20 might be good for. They were basically controllers. They didn't do huge damage, but they could do it to a lot of targets (via Whirlwind Attack), and thier threat of AoO and/or use of Improved Trip would slow enemies down. 4e gives martial characters a lot more latitude in what thier abilities can do - there's little worry over 'realism' - so a martial controller along those lines should be doable. He won't be a ranged controller, so he'll be tougher than the wizard, with some defender-like aspects, but one big difference is that such a martial character is good at keeping enemies off his own back, not just the parties. While defenders 'stick' and attract attacks, a Martial Controller would push enemies away, and make himself an unattractive target.


Divine Striker? With the mobility granted by his mount, and huge damge of lance charges, not to mention limitted-use/target smiting and spells, the 3e Paladin had some of the utility of a 4e striker. He's not stealthy, but he is mobile. A 4e Divine Striker could be a holy crusader or dirvish of some type, able to deal extra damage vs opposed alignements or religions - or, maybe even vs anyone not of his religion. He could gain mobility from a sacred mount or have the ability to disapear from sight through divine grace or blinding radiance or some such. It could work, though it would work better the less slavishly you tried to follow the existing striker models.

What else sounds crazy?

Oh, Arcane Defender: I suppose you could go some sort of 'mystic knight' route with this. Or, you could have a character who's magic transforms him into super-durrable combat forms. Or an Abjurer who uses wards to protect the party, powering them with his own vitality - he wouldn't stand in front and take attacks, he'd let anywone who wanted to stand in front, and take the attacks aimed at them. Arcane magic can prettymuch do anything, so it's just a matter of coming up with 'spells' that defendery things.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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. 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.

We have three strikers, and each is pretty different from the others. I think it's fine, honestly. Besides, monks clearly do not belong in the Martial category.

Really, they don't belong in the D&D category, but that's another story.

 

[erik_the_guy]

There is no real need for another controller, one wizard is usually enough to take on most of the enemy minions (in my experience).

 

[Ziana]

Both the Beast Master and Pathfinder paragon paths are considered relatively weak compared to Battlefield Archer and Stormwarden. They could be enhanced to offer a little more in the way of crowd control features; so the paragon paths offer a choice between being a specializing in the striker role, or taking on some features of a controller.

 

[Jack Colby]

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

I agree. I mean, I will play 4E and use the rules, but I kind of wish they'd left that type of thing more a suggestion than a fundamental part of the design. Mention it in the PHB as "some suggested playstyles by class" or whatever, sure. But hard-wiring it doesn't really seem like a good idea to me.

I'd rather each class just had various powers and the player could choose them to fit the way they play. It seems like the example builds could have been used to accomplish this instead of using roles. Just a bit too restrictive, I think.

Oh, and in my mind the Ranger does fit the striker role.

 

[erisred]

The controller makes the enemy less effective (just like the leader make his allies more effective). This is done by

Nuking minions (killing 10-25% of the enemies' XP is makes them less effective)
Slowing/Immobilizing melee enemies (let's see you flank when you can't move)
Weakening/dazing/stunning enemy damage dealers
Lowing the attack of enemy controllers and leaders

all at range (so you can take them whenever they are).

Given your definition, the only Martial Controller I can reasonably imagine for the D&D fantasy genre is some sort of Bowman. A Grenadier might be better, but how much range would he have. No, I think it would have to be a special kind of bow man, not the sort of bowman that strikes individual targets with high damage (that would be a striker), but one that saturates an area with plunging bolts or an exploding grenade denying an area or doing damage to everything in that area, drops nets or pots of glue over areas immobilizing targets therein, or firing off exploding "starbursts" and "flashbangs" to distract and daze groups of monsters in an area.

So, how would you pull off those effects with a bowman?

 

[interwyrm]

There are some controller-ish things you can do with a martial concept. I think part of the problem is that the controller role is a bit hard to pin down.

Here are some martial ideas for 'controlling'

Using nets like the roman glatiators (retiarii).
Setting snares.
Using javelins or arrows which apply a penalty until removed (saving throw).
Making a particularly gruesome attack which causes other enemies to be affected with a fear status effect.
Flasks of oil.
Burning arrows.
Caltrops.
Snares?

 

[Ziana]

Concussion shot, frost trap, freezing trap, scatter shot?

Oops, wrong game.