D&D (2024) 4e (DnD: Tactics) remake wish list.

[Olrox17]

I mean, if classes such as the Avenger, the Swordmage and the Warden are the accidental result of grid-filling, holy crap, give me some grid-filling.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean, if classes such as the Avenger, the Swordmage and the Warden are the accidental result of grid-filling, holy crap, give me some grid-filling.

That too. I think that "grid-filling," if we must call it that, showed designers and players where open conceptual space existed among a lot of the pre-existing archetypes.

 

[Minigiant]

don't think that "forced" accurately conveys how these classes were likely designed. I don't think that it constitutes "forced design" when the designers try asking what a divine striker or primal leader would look like and develop the Avenger and Shaman. And clearly the designers were not too concerned about filling out grids because they had Warlocks and Sorcerers as arcane strikers, Rogues and Rangers as martial strikers, Bards and Artificers as arcane leaders, plus we also never had a martial controller after three PHBs. I think that the grid-filling critique is mostly overblown.

But I never mentioned that.

What I mentioned was taking barbarian and monk out of the more martial space they used to be and not creating a replacement.

Or shifting Druid out of its traditional leaderish role. I mean if they needed a Primal Leader the druid was right there.

The criticism of grid filling was valid but the critics used the wrong facts due to the hate train.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, if classes such as the Avenger, the Swordmage and the Warden are the accidental result of grid-filling, holy crap, give me some grid-filling.

Some instances of 4e grid filling was good.
Some instances of 4e grid filling was bad.

 

[Aldarc]

What I mentioned was taking barbarian and monk out of the more martial space they used to be and not creating a replacement.

Not sure if I saw the monk as martial. It was mostly depicted as "mystical" with its use of ki. The magical nature of ki didn't seem like a good fit for the martial classes.

Or shifting Druid out of its traditional leaderish role. I mean if they needed a Primal Leader the druid was right there.

In 3e and Pathfinder, I mostly played the Druid as a controller and not as a leader because they have a lot of weather, terrain, and control effects with their spells. It's nice that they heal, but that's not the main draw. So I was definitely surprised by the Druid being a Primal Controller. That role was no-brainer for me.

The criticism of grid filling was valid but the critics used the wrong facts due to the hate train.

You keep saying this as if it were verifiably true but it's not and this just perpetuates the falsities of the hate train.

 

[CreamCloud0]

...you want them to also be martial? That doesn't make psionic monks a "stretch." It means that you have a different aesthetic preference for the monk. That's fine, but not a "stretch."

i think the point they're trying to make is 'not all monks should have to/would use the psionic powersource', that it's a stretch that every monk ever would use psionic abilities and it's okay that some are just pure martials who are Very Good at punching or whatever? you can have your DragonBall Z ki blasts and auras(i never played 4E i don't know what the monk psionic abilities looked like) but some people just want to be bruce lee or jackie chan fighting entirely mundanely.

 

[Minigiant]

Not sure if I saw the monk as martial. It was mostly depicted as "mystical" with its use of ki. The magical nature of ki didn't seem like a good fit for the martial classes

Monks Mysticalness is closer to 4Es Martial than Psionic.

Not that there can't be a Psionic Monk. But the base Open Hand Monk is closer to Martial than Psionic.

 

[Aldarc]

i think the point they're trying to make is 'not all monks should have to/would use the psionic powersource', that it's a stretch that every monk ever would use psionic abilities and it's okay that some are just pure martials who are Very Good at punching or whatever? you can have your DragonBall Z ki blasts and auras(i never played 4E i don't know what the monk psionic abilities looked like) but some people just want to be bruce lee or jackie chan fighting entirely mundanely.

And yet every ranger and every paladin in D&D 5e has to use divine and primal spells? Sometimes certain classes in different games are expressed differently. That is also true for the monk in 4e.

Monks Mysticalness is closer to 4Es Martial than Psionic.

Not that there can't be a Psionic Monk. But the base Open Hand Monk is closer to Martial than Psionic.

Unsurprisingly, I can't say that I agree with this and I doubt that we will see eye-to-eye on this matter. The base monk isn't just the Open Hand monk. It's also the monk with its level 1 to 20 abilities and other things that uses ki points.

 

[Olrox17]

Some instances of 4e grid filling was good.
Some instances of 4e grid filling was bad.

I can’t think of a single bad example, though.
Invoker as a divine controller? Awesome.
Avenger as divine striker? Badass.
Swordmage as arcane defender? GOAT.
Barbarian as a primal striker? Cool, thematic and appropriate.
Warden as a primal defender? Very cool concept.
The psionic classes? All pretty great and fun to play.

I can perhaps see the argument with Druids not being leaders, but that’s not grid filling, that’s just a choice, especially since they “needed” a primal leader anyway, and came up with the shaman (another pretty awesome new class).

No, I really don’t see how “grid-filling” supposedly damaged 4e. If anything, it lead to new, awesome concepts.

 

[mellored]

Just to fill in the grid a bit more.

Skill based controller: mentalist, who can mass intimate and charm.

And martial controler would use grapples and nets.

There are already builds that do it. Having a class to fully support it would be good.