Another Martial Controller: Musketeer

[chronoplasm]

Q: Why only one controller and three strikers?
A: They looked at the Ranger and said he was definitely Martial and not Primal. They also didn’t think it made sense to have a controller that dual-wields. The controller had a specific image of a lightly armored character that throws fireballs. Other roles were more generic templates, but the controller was defined by the Wizard. Then they looked at the Warlock as being a controller, but the curses and pacts were more interesting as a striker power. They have a better handle on controllers now, and more will be added.

Source:
Critical Hits » Mike Mearls: “Everything you Wanted to Know About Fourth Edition”


This really popped out at me. Why can't a controller, regardless of power source, dual wield? Because it would step on the Ranger's toes? If the conceptual of wildnerness-wandering archer can be taken up by the Seeker (a primal controller), why can't we give the other half of the Ranger, that of a light-armored dual-wielder, to a controller class?

Over time, the controller definition morphed into the opposite of the leader. If the leader sets up his allies and encourages teamwork, the controller screws up his enemies and hinders their ability to work together. The area damage aspect of the controller does play into that (it makes bunching up a bad idea) but in practice controllers need a little more to embrace their role.

Source:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/246913-dragon-370-invoker-preview.html

I want to expand on this. A controller isn't simply an anti-leader. Imagine the four roles as slices of a pie, much like the colors of mana in Magic: the Gathering.
Controller and Leader are opposite of each other.
Striker and Defender are opposite of each other.
Striker and Defender are both adjacent to Controller and Leader.
Opposing roles mirror each other, but adjacent roles overlap.

The way I see it, Controllers overlap strikers with their high damage output (though spread across a larger area) and with their ability to debuff enemy defenses.
Controllers overlap defenders with their ability to debuff enemy attacks and disincentivize movement and certain actions.
However, Controllers get neither the single-target damage output that Strikers have nor the high defense that Defenders have.

Erego, a martial controller should be light armored but excell at preventing enemies from attacking, and it should have low damage but excell at preventing enemies from defending themselves.


My latest idea for a Martial Controller is the Musketeer. It shares some conceptual space with the Ranger by being a two-weapon fighter, but is differentiated by:
being a controller
being an A-shaped class as opposed to a V-shaped class
emphasizing attack and defense debuffs rather than straight damage.

So here's what I have so far...

Musketeer
Power Source: Martial
Role: Controller
Primary Ability Score: Dexterity
Secondary Ability Scores: Intelligence, Charisma
Weapon Proficiency: Simple melee, simple ranged, military firearms, Rapiers, Parrying Daggers
Armor Proficiency: Cloth, Leather
Defense Bonus: +2 to Will
Musketeer Features: Musketeer's Weapon Talent, Touche

Musketeer's Weapon Talent You may add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack and damage rolls for attacks made with light blades. In addition, you gain the two-weapon defense feat, even if you don't meat the prerequisites.

Touche Whenever you are hit by an attack, you may make a basic melee or ranged attack against the attacker as an immediate reaction.


So... what do you think so far?

 

[Starfox]

The basic idea of a lightly armed and armored martial controller has appeal, but you've only just begun. Its hard to know what the class is all about.

I put a lot of work into a martial controller, but found it too heavy a task to do alone - you can still see the link in my sig. From this perspective, it seems that a two-weapon martial controller could be a build option for the Mastermind, probably a second Dexterity based build (which would make the build Int/Dex, as the Masterimd is Int primary).

A two-weapon martial controller would quite naturally lean towards striker or defender depending om how they are used. Having a class that focuses on the defensive aspects of two-weapon fighting might be interesting. That said, I'm a little leery of two-weapon classes - I think this is much to common in DnD, especially wielding to ungainly weapons such as longswords or rapiers. A class focusing on the parrying dagger would be more interesting and fresh.

Touche ought to be rewritten to trigger an opportunity attack whenever you are attacked. If all it does is allow an Immediate Interrupt, its more of a power than a class feature. It is quite similar to Insight of Force from my Mastermind. Which is in turn intended to work in close synergy with the Sweeping Kick power. If you make a version of Dual Strike that is controllerish, a similar synergy could be developed. Something like this (very raw sketch):

Sinister Thrust
At-Will ✦ Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee
Requirement: You must be wielding an off-hand weapon.
Target: One creature.
Attack: Intelligence vs. Reflex (off-hand weapon).
Hit: [W] + Intelligence damage (off-hand weapon). The target suffers a -4 penalty to hit until the end of your next turn.
Level 21: 2[W] + Intelligence damage.
Special: This power counts as a melee basic attack. When a situation allows you to make a melee basic attack, you can use this power.

Musketeer's Weapon Talent is Melee Training and also improves multiclassing options - you can use all Strength-based powers with Dexterity, thus giving you access to Fighter, Ranger, and Warlord powers. You actually become better at some ranger powers than the ranger is because you can use them with Dexterity both at range and in melee. Not sure if this is a good idea. Presumably the class powers of the Musketeer would all be Dexterity based, or you got the V class you said you didn't want.

Finally, the name is not so good. It has Musket in it, which implies firearms. But D&D by default does not, and using them in the name of the class restricts the class to niche settings. Swashbuckler and Daredevil are better named for a Dex-based martial controller, while I picked Mastermind as the name of my Int-based class. In an earlier version, the Mastermind WAS Dex-based and called the Daredevil, but I came to realize making it Int-based gave me more lassitude in designing powers. Powers like Natural Disaster (Mastermind Attack 15) simply makes more sense as Int-based.