D&D 4E Rambling thoughts about D&D 4th Edition

[b_took]

For this reason, I tend to think of the Defender as a special case of the Controller. When there used to be threads calling for martial controllers, my first though was always it's called the Fighter.

That's interesting. Do you similarly think of Paladins as a special case of Invokers or Wardens as special cases of Druids?

(Not trying to start an argument or anything; I'm just wanting to understand the perspective.)

 

[CandyLaser]

That's interesting. Do you similarly think of Paladins as a special case of Invokers or Wardens as special cases of Druids?

(Not trying to start an argument or anything; I'm just wanting to understand the perspective.)

I'm not @pemerton , but I've heard others express the idea that the fighter is the martial controller before. Fighters in 4e got a lot of powers that overlapped with controller abilities, including forced movement and imposing action-denying conditions. Other defenders could do this, but not to the extent fighters could. Paladins, on the other hand, had more overlap with clerics thanks to their ability to heal and buff.

To some extent, controllers didn't really have a mechanical identity in the way that the other roles did - strikers got extra damage mechanics, defenders got marks, and leaders got minor action healing and buffs. Controllers wound up with the largest density of area attacks and the ability to do action denial via forced movement and conditions, but defenders tended to end up with that in their toolboxes as well unless (as in the paladin case) they actively wound up pointed in another direction.

 

[pemerton]

That's interesting. Do you similarly think of Paladins as a special case of Invokers or Wardens as special cases of Druids?

(Not trying to start an argument or anything; I'm just wanting to understand the perspective.)

In my experience - which is probably not universal - paladins don't have the same area control capacity that fighters do. So they don't play a great deal like the invoker I saw. But they do have some control, in the form of debuffs. As well as buffing and healing.

Wardens I don't have a view on.

 

[b_took]

I always felt the mechanical identity of controllers was their access to at-will area attacks.

 

[pemerton]

I always felt the mechanical identity of controllers was their access to at-will area attacks.

The invoker/wizard in my long-running game didn't have any at-will AoE - his main at-will was Mantle of the Infidel, for range and because there were two defenders in the party.

By mid-paragon, on the other hand, the fighter had a full suite of AoE encounter powers, and so was mostly doing those. With a lot of forced movement, slow and immobilise on top of that.

I would say the invoker was distinguished more by range - he was certainly not a very effective melee character! - and, from upper paragon, by having the only domination attack(s) in the party. He could also do forced movement, some slow, and debuffs.

The sorcerer in our game was also pretty good at ranged AoE control, mostly with forced movement/teleportation. (A lot of that coming from a suite of feats that he had built up.)

Perhaps it was just the party composition that I played with, but my lasting impression of 4e D&D combat was that positioning (self and others) was a very big part of it.

 

[b_took]

The invoker/wizard in my long-running game didn't have any at-will AoE - his main at-will was Mantle of the Infidel, for range and because there were two defenders in the party.

By mid-paragon, on the other hand, the fighter had a full suite of AoE encounter powers, and so was mostly doing those. With a lot of forced movement, slow and immobilise on top of that.

I would say the invoker was distinguished more by range - he was certainly not a very effective melee character! - and, from upper paragon, by having the only domination attack(s) in the party. He could also do forced movement, some slow, and debuffs.

The sorcerer in our game was also pretty good at ranged AoE control, mostly with forced movement/teleportation. (A lot of that coming from a suite of feats that he had built up.)

Perhaps it was just the party composition that I played with, but my lasting impression of 4e D&D combat was that positioning (self and others) was a very big part of it.

Oh, certainly they could avoid the area at-wills -- but Controllers were consistently the only class that could opt in to them.

Just as the mark defined the Defender, but was hardly their only tool, or the minor action heal the Leader, though it was not necessarily the primary draw of a given leader class, I think access to at-will area powers defined the Controller, even if it wasn't necessarily the most important tool in their arsenal.

 

[CandyLaser]

A handful of other classes get AoE or multi-target at-wills - swordmages, artificers, battleminds, monks, and sorcerers get AoEs and rangers, fighters and barbarians have multi-target attacks.

 

[b_took]

A handful of other classes get AoE or multi-target at-wills - swordmages, artificers, battleminds, monks, and sorcerers get AoEs and rangers, fighters and barbarians have multi-target attacks.

I must insist on the distinction between an actual area attack and simple multi-targeting. The latter has an upward target limit, is not affected by the same feats/effects, and doesn't really do jack against swarms.

Close attacks are closer to area attacks, but they are still not the same, given that Close attacks require being near the enemy. The Swordmage and Sorceror both had a Close at-will, and not coincidentally, the Arcane power source is commonly accepted as leaning toward Controller as its secondary role, regardless of class. The Monk also had a Close at-will, but even then, it is generally recognized that the Monk was shoehorned into its particular role in the PHB3 as 4E was closing down.

I have to assume that the Battlemind got an Area at-will in a splatbook/article somewhere, as so far as I can tell, all of the at-wills listed in the PHB3 target one creature. (Keep in mind that when an at-will is augmented, it is the functional equivalent of other classes' encounter attacks.) I cannot speak to the Artificer.

The fact that a Paladin gets bonus damage on Holy strike does not mean they have a Striker mechanic. It means that the Striker mechanic is not the only way to get extra damage.

The fact that other classes can target multiple enemies does not mean they have at-will Area attacks. It means there are multiple ways to target multiple enemies.

 

[Joshua Randall]

martial controllers, my first though was always it's called the Fighter.

Yes, one thousand times yes. The fighter is the strongest controller in 4e.

The paladin is closer to what people mean when they say ‘tank’, although it does not ‘tank’ in the MMO sense. (Nobody in 4e does because 4e is not an MMO.) What the paladin does, especially at epic tier, is present the enemy with a series of increasingly punishing catch-22s; he does this arguably better than the fighter.

But the fighter absolutely owns martial control.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Roles are expressed as ideas, interpretations of their expected behaviors and tactics. This is translated into game mechanics, which provides rules as identities and play patterns to reinforce the narrative. In other words, Defenders mark targets so enemies focus fire on them, Controllers move them around the board and spread damage over multiple targets, etc. These have become so ingrained in the DNA of 4e design, most never think about their implications and just accepted things the way they are.

What does 'defender' even mean in the context of a D&D system? Or 'controller'? They wanted something familiar that WoW players could relate to and resonate with, while trying not to tip their hand so DnD players could see what they're up to. And this little dance of pretending not to do what people saw they were doing so they wouldn't offend the people who would be offended regardless just prevented them from doing anything better than what we got.

You want to know what a defender does? Well, you need to figure out what you want it to do. Don't just conceptualize it with an image or an example. Define it for all classes, not just one class. A martial defender should be different than a divine defender, and so on. But they should also share a common denominator. In this case, their role.

A defender holds the line, disrupts enemy advances, and shields allies through position and resilience. Masters of defensive tactics and battlefield control. Uses shields, armor, and calculated strikes to dictate the pace of combat. Punishes enemies for ignoring them or attempting to move past.

How can that be expressed in game mechanics and play? Some of that already exists and is implemented because it makes sense. Beyond that, it's just 'marks' with different affects. If it marks, its a defender. If its a defender, it can mark. That becomes the defining feature for all of them. It works. But is it the best way? The only way?

Here is something I worked on for Martial Defenders:
The Vanguard is a battlefield protector who holds the line, controls enemy movements, and shields allies through resilience and tactical positioning. Unlike other Warriors, the Vanguard focuses on denial, control, and endurance to dictate combat flow and absorb pressure from enemies.

I reinforced their identity in game play by emphasizing them as REACTIVE classes; most of their main abilities and best results occur on the enemies turn. Their turn is spent positioning and setting themselves up to play defensive, even when they go on the offense.

The Bulwark and Juggernaut provide two distinct styles of defensive play; one resilient and protective, the other aggressive and punishing.

1) Bulwark
Weapons: Shields, one-handed weapons, heavy armor.
Tactics: Uses sheer resilience to block, deflect, and absorb damage.
Features

• Zone of Protection: Allies gain defensive bonuses when adjacent.
• Reactive Defense: Punishes enemies for bypassing the frontline.
• Immovable Wall: Prevents forced movement and disruption.

2) Juggernaut
Weapons: Heavy weapons, two-handed weapons, medium-heavy armor.
Tactics: Uses overwhelming force and relentless pressure to keep enemies engaged.
Features

• Punishing Blows: Retaliates with powerful counterattacks when struck.
• Forced Engagement: Locks down enemies through overwhelming presence.
• Brutal Momentum: Converts defensive positioning into aggressive battlefield pressure.

And here's what a Martial Controller might look like.

The Harrier is a relentless skirmisher who dictates the flow of battle through speed, reach, and battlefield manipulation. Unlike other warriors, the Harrier controls enemy movement, cuts off escape routes, and forces engagements on their terms.

The Bladedancer and Viper provide two distinct control styles; one fluid and sweeping, the other precise and restrictive.

1) Bladedancer
Weapons: Polearms, spears, long-reaching melee weapons.
Tactics: Controls the battlefield through fluid, sweeping attacks and zone control.
Features

• Sweeping Strike: Targets multiple enemies in range, disrupting formations.
• Defensive Dance: Gains defensive bonuses when enemies attempt to engage.
• Momentum Flow: Uses movement to enhance offensive and defensive positioning.

2) Viper
Weapons: Whips, nets, chain weapons.
Tactics: Controls single targets through ensnaring, tripping, and dragging maneuvers.
Features

• Entangling Strike: Restricts enemy movement and reactions.
• Whiplash: Pulls or pushes enemies into compromised positions.
• Punishing Lure: Counterattacks or applies debuffs when enemies resist control effects.

Obviously, this doesn't fit into the 4e framework easily, especially if someone is trying to keep everything intact the way it is. But that was never my goal. 4e had a lot of great ideas and innovations, but ultimately held back by its own self-imposed limits and boundaries. I don't want a system revival or revision. I want a system that resonates with the best ideas, and then take it further to be something even better.