Thought exercise: Could the Ranger be a martial controller?

[cmbarona]

I stumbled upon this thread recently:
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19741874/Martial_Controller_Compromise_The_Ranger

This has given me food for thought. Is there some way the basic class features of the Ranger can be reworked so that it's a controller at heart? Or are their powers (with which I'll confess I'm not too familiar) so strikerish that they would require a complete re-working of the entire class?

In contrast to the thread mentioned above, I think the Hunter's Quarry isn't the only thing about Rangers that needs to be changed. Is there some way to keep the two-weapon and archery builds distinct? What about allowing companions for all rangers and reworking the other class features?

Thoughts?

 

[DanmarLOK]

There was a martial controller ranged class floating around at some point, I just went through my site and couldn't find a link to it though. The idea was the class would create zones of control that the bad guys would not want to go through and would have disabling powers that did slows, immoblizes, dazes etc. You might be able to simply add powers to the existing ranger to branch it off into another build so to speak. An At-Will Nailed to the Floor 1[w]+immobilized (save ends), at-will Brush Back 1[w]+push 1+dex. Encounter - Barrage - Area 1 at range 20. Create a zones. Sustain Standard. Any creature that enters the zone or starts its turn in the zone take 1[w] damage. The Ranger can shift the zone 1+dex modifier as part of the sustain action.

Carry that kind of thing out with other zones and the like and you have a controlling martial class.

 

[CrimsonHawk]

I offered this in another thread about changing a class' role. I thought you might like it here, as well.

-----

Ranger As A Martial Controller

Hit Points/Healing Surges: Unchanged. The druid gets as many hit points as a rangers do (and 1 more healing surge), so I saw no reason to change the ranger's traits on that front.

Fighting Style: Unchanged.

Hunter's Quarry: Rangers lose hunter's quarry and instead gain hunter's volley (see below).

Prime Shot: Rangers lose prime shot and instead gain hunter's strike (see below).

Hunter's Volley: Once per encounter, you may opt to alter any one attack power. It must contain either the Melee weapon or Ranged weapon action ranges. You must choose to alter the power before you roll for attack and the ability is wasted if the attack misses.
.....If the power has an action range of Melee weapon, the power becomes a Close burst 1 effect. All creatures within the burst receive any damage and effect the power would normally bestow upon a single target.
.....If the power has an action range of Ranged weapon, the power becomes a Area burst 1 within 10 squares effect. All creatures within the burst receive any damage and effect the power would normally bestow upon a single target.
.....If the power already had a burst, blast, or area of effect, the radius of the effect increases by 1 square. For instance, spray of arrows is a Close blast 3 effect. When hunter's volley is invoked, it becomes a Close blast 4 effect.
.....You may purchase a feat entitled extra volley, which gives you one additional use of hunter's volley each encounter. You must be a ranger and possess the hunter's volley class feature to purchase the feat. This feat may be purchased multiple times; each purchase grants an additional use of hunter's volley each encounter.

Hunter's Strike: Once per turn, if you succeed in hitting a target using a Ranger at-will attack power, you may also use a minor action to make a basic attack against a target you have not hit this turn. You must use the same weapon for the basic attack as you did for the at-will attack. You cannot switch weapons between the at-will and the basic attack. Therefore, the target of the basic attack must be within the same range as the target of the at-will attack. You may use your move action as normal, if you wish to position yourself before the basic attack.

Beastmaster Rangers: If you wish to use the Beastmaster Ranger option from Martial Power, the Beastmaster Ranger loses hunter's strike rather than prime shot.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Isn't this almost exactly what the seeker is? Except for the fact that the book they were writing was primal power, so they erased martial and wrote primal instead?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Isn't this almost exactly what the seeker is? Except for the fact that the book they were writing was primal power, so they erased martial and wrote primal instead?

Yup, pretty much. There really isn't going to be much room for a ranger based controller build with seeker being out there. Power source is really basically fluff.

I think the objections to HQ are also not really well founded. As a class feature it works fine. In fact its only minorly different from warlock's curse feature. Its simple, it works fine, and I really don't see what's to object to about it. Obviously seeker doesn't have or require such a feature. As with every other 4e class ranger has its detractors but overall its a solid class which works fine the way it is and provides a nice easy way to implement a number of character concepts.

In any case, seeker does illustrate how to make a weapon centric controller. The only issue is, it also fills the need for one.

 

[CrimsonHawk]

Isn't this almost exactly what the seeker is? Except for the fact that the book they were writing was primal power, so they erased martial and wrote primal instead?

If you insist on seeing it that way, I'm not going to waste the energy trying to prove you wrong. The seeker has a completely different set of powers and special effects than the ranger does. All I've done is made the ranger strike more opponents at once rather than commit greater damage to one opponent. If you find this to your dislike, simply keep the ranger as a striker and use the seeker.

I personally was offended that the martial power source had two strikers and no controller, so I changed it. Just because it works for me doesn't necessarily mean that it will (or should) work for you.

 

[angille]

While I think you've managed to make the ranger controllery without creating a balance issue... it's missing a lot of the status effects generally associated with controllers, which won't change much without a general power rewrite (which is essentially what WotC's doing with the seeker).

But... if it makes you happy and increases the fun, awesome! That's the point, right?

I've looked under chairs. I've looked under tables. I've tried to find the key to fifty million fables. They call me the seeker; I've been searching low and high. I won't get to get what I'm after 'till the day I die.

(I couldn't resist...)

 

[CrimsonHawk]

While I think you've managed to make the ranger controllery without creating a balance issue... it's missing a lot of the status effects generally associated with controllers, which won't change much without a general power rewrite (which is essentially what WotC's doing with the seeker).

Very much touche. You've presented a much, much stronger and more satisfying argument than "isn't that what they're doing with the seeker anyway" line. It is sad that designers are convinced that you have to go divine, arcane, or primal to get all of those status effects. Maybe I should focus on keeping the ranger a striker and use either Alluria Publishing's explorer or CJ Lewis' guerrilla.

(I've also found an excellent martial defender dragoon... so now I just need another martial leader to round out the count to eight... if I go that route.)

 

[jstomel]

You know, I've always thought that the monk could make a great martial controller. I know Wotc is planning to do some sort of weird psionic power thing for the monk, but I would usually think that "martial arts" implies a martial power source. The monk could be jumping around the combat with long distance shifts and using close burst attacks to effect multiple targets, striking pressure points to inflict debuff effects, and using throws and sweeps to move enemies around the board. If someone has a homebrew martial controller monk, I'd love to see it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If you insist on seeing it that way, I'm not going to waste the energy trying to prove you wrong. The seeker has a completely different set of powers and special effects than the ranger does. All I've done is made the ranger strike more opponents at once rather than commit greater damage to one opponent. If you find this to your dislike, simply keep the ranger as a striker and use the seeker.

?? There's no need to prove me wrong. I'm pointing out that for no real reason, wotc have made something that looks like a prime candidate for a martial controller and made it into a primal controller. I haven't actually read the seeker, just read peoples comments on it.

It really irritates me that wizards are taking all these obviously martial concepts (barbarian, monk, assassin) and turning them into random vague power source number 5 6 and 7 character classes.