TwinBahamut
First Post
I am pretty sure that is a completely different power source altogether.CleverNickName said:
The "Power of Friendship" power source, maybe?
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what a Martial Controller would look like?
- Thread starter Green Knight
- Start date
The "Power of Friendship" power source, maybe?
It's a good question, really. Aren't "beastmaster" types usually martial? I guess it depends on what he does outside of controlling minions. If he casts spells to support his squirtles, he'd be arcane or divine, if he fights alongside them he'd be martial, if he stands back and shouts encouraging nonsense he'd be...a pansy?
Green Knight
First Post
Isn't that a Bard?
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Mad Mac said:
The "beastmaster" concept was the first thing I thought of when I heard about a possible Martial Controller...a warrior of sorts who directs minions to fight alongside him (or on his behalf). So I was only half-kidding when I suggested Ash there. Perhaps a less pansy-ish image would have been:
But now that I think about it, isn't this what military commanders do? They direct troops to fight on the behalf of their liege. Soldiers, trained lions, squirtles in a jar...don't they all have the same fundamental role on the battlefield?
Last edited:
Zweischneid
First Post
Hmm...
Is there really a class associated with each role?
I was actually hoping the roles would free up certain stereotypes and allow my to convey my image of character regardless of the class.
I.e., I choose to play a cleric. As I want to fokus on high leadership, charisma, etc.., rather than.. say.. combat prowness, I tell my GM that I'm aiming for the Leader Role.
Similarly, my friend wants to play a fighter specializing in thrown weapons and dirty tricks. He tells the GM he's aiming to be a controller (thereby avoiding being typecast into a defender).
The third player takes a rogue. Since he likes the classical backstabbing, he'll do the obvious and be the Striker.
The final player will take the Defender. But since he's the creative type, he'll use the much more customizable new 4.0 and be a Wizard, focusing on defensive magic and protection, he's now an Arcane Defender (and possibly, though not necessarily, have a streak of Gish).
A different time in a different group, people might choose to play a Druid-Defender (Warrior of Nature), Paladin Striker (Holy Archer), Rogue-Leader (Charsimatic Con-Man) & Wizard-Controller (Enigmatic Enchanter).
Ideally, IMO, the new rules would be flexible enough to allow every class to potentially fill every role. Autolinking each class with a role would IMO be a major step backwards in flexiblity.
Is there really a class associated with each role?
I was actually hoping the roles would free up certain stereotypes and allow my to convey my image of character regardless of the class.
I.e., I choose to play a cleric. As I want to fokus on high leadership, charisma, etc.., rather than.. say.. combat prowness, I tell my GM that I'm aiming for the Leader Role.
Similarly, my friend wants to play a fighter specializing in thrown weapons and dirty tricks. He tells the GM he's aiming to be a controller (thereby avoiding being typecast into a defender).
The third player takes a rogue. Since he likes the classical backstabbing, he'll do the obvious and be the Striker.
The final player will take the Defender. But since he's the creative type, he'll use the much more customizable new 4.0 and be a Wizard, focusing on defensive magic and protection, he's now an Arcane Defender (and possibly, though not necessarily, have a streak of Gish).
A different time in a different group, people might choose to play a Druid-Defender (Warrior of Nature), Paladin Striker (Holy Archer), Rogue-Leader (Charsimatic Con-Man) & Wizard-Controller (Enigmatic Enchanter).
Ideally, IMO, the new rules would be flexible enough to allow every class to potentially fill every role. Autolinking each class with a role would IMO be a major step backwards in flexiblity.
Last edited:
Green Knight
First Post
What you're looking for is a classless system. How is one supposed to create a Fighter who can take the place of the Cleric as Leader (The heal/buff monkey)? Or a Wizard who operates as a Defender, standing up front, taking the hits and dishing out the damage in melee? It can't be done.
That doesn't mean the classes will be straightjacketed into roles. For instance, while Warlocks are classed as Strikers, they also have some Controller abilities. Likewise, Paladins are Defenders, but they have some healing/Leader abilities. Warlocks are still classed as Strikers, though, while Paladins will still be classed as Defenders.
Zweischneid
First Post
Green Knight said:
A man-at-arms who inspires and heals with his hands? (and since when is a leader a heal/buff monkey?) A robed guy with supernatural powers and a sizzling, glowing sword springing forth form thin air? Why exactly can't that be done?
Green Knight
First Post
Because it'd necessitate to many changes to the base class. You want to have a Fighter who's also a Striker. Then he'd have to choose a Talent Tree which gives him D6 Hit Die, Medium Base Attack Bonus, High Reflex Saves, and only Light Armor Proficiency? Wouldn't it be easier to just play a Rogue?
Likewise, you want to play a Rogue who's a Defender. So what would you need? A Talent Tree which provides Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, Tower Shield Proficiency, High Fort Saves, d10 Hit Die, and Martial Weapon Proficiencies? Why not just cut to the chase and play a Fighter?
Likewise, you want to play a Rogue who's a Defender. So what would you need? A Talent Tree which provides Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency, Shield Proficiency, Tower Shield Proficiency, High Fort Saves, d10 Hit Die, and Martial Weapon Proficiencies? Why not just cut to the chase and play a Fighter?
A guy like John Rambo is a martial controller.
He builds traps all over the battlefield, so if the enemies go that way they get crippled, if they go this way they die, if they got the other way they get immobilized.
He builds a trench so allies get cover bonus to AC, he blows the rocks with explosives so the enemies can't attack that way, he knocks the tree so his allies can cross the river.
Think about Rambo vs the cops in the first movie, he defeated them all by just controlling the battlefield.
I think I read somewhere a controller controls the battlefield and not necessary the opponents.
He builds traps all over the battlefield, so if the enemies go that way they get crippled, if they go this way they die, if they got the other way they get immobilized.
He builds a trench so allies get cover bonus to AC, he blows the rocks with explosives so the enemies can't attack that way, he knocks the tree so his allies can cross the river.
Think about Rambo vs the cops in the first movie, he defeated them all by just controlling the battlefield.
I think I read somewhere a controller controls the battlefield and not necessary the opponents.
Klaus
First Post
Tripping, dazing and intimidating foes.
Using awesome blows to destroy furniture, columns and other stuff to block the way.
Everything within reach is difficult terrain.
Master of opportunity attacks (thus enforcing certain behaviour on foes).
Awesome blows create shockwaves on the ground, or collapses part of a wall (not unlike the Hulk).
Using awesome blows to destroy furniture, columns and other stuff to block the way.
Everything within reach is difficult terrain.
Master of opportunity attacks (thus enforcing certain behaviour on foes).
Awesome blows create shockwaves on the ground, or collapses part of a wall (not unlike the Hulk).
