Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what a Martial Controller would look like?

[WhatGravitas]

I like the suggestions of the alchemist/grenadier/mechanist class as a controller, but I don't see that as martial at all. My hopes are high that we'll see a technology power source in the second or third PHB or elsewhere. Eberron's artificer would be a logical starting point.

Same here. He'd be a technological controller, together with a bomb-building striker!

For martial controller, I totally see archer!

Ideas:

Field of Quills (totally stolen! from hong's or Nifft's Bo9S-stuff):
Fire arrows into several squares, making them difficult terrain.

Arrow Rain
Area attack.

Blunt Arrow
Does no damage, but moves it X steps down a condition track/imposes penalty.

Ricocheting Shot
Ignores cover or allows another power to be applied to two enemies at once.

Lucky Shot
Once per day, does a great deal of damage and incapacitates target for a while.

Swarm of Arrowtips
Creatures in a X ft. cone are dazed for their next turn.

Line of Hurting Stuff
Full-round action, X ft. line from archer, everything crossing it until start of next turn takes X damage.

I see a lot potential here.

Cheers, LT.

 

[szilard]

Let me put my objections this way-

I think that hindering one enemy is a roughly, minimally controll-ish type of thing to do. However, if the entirety of a character class's ability to engage in controller behavior consists of various ways to hinder one enemy who happens to be within melee reach, I think that class is NOT a controller. It may dabble lightly in controlling, but it had better not be a controller full time or its going to be hopelessly outclassed by any other class who can hinder multiple enemies at range.

Think about it. In this corner, competing for the title of Competent Controller of the Year, we have a martial artist who can trip, and maybe throw, like, one dude. In this other corner we have a wizard who can open chasms in the ground to impede enemy movement, debuff multiple foes at once, force enemies to scatter with the threat of area of effect evocations, and grant his allies the ability to see in the dark, fly, or otherwise bypass environmental hazards which afflict (or which he has inflicted upon) their foes.

See my objection?

I see your objection, but I think it misses some possibilities.

What if we have a martial artist who can (in 3.5 terms) as a full round action move at 50 and make a trip attempt every time he leaves a square with a foe adjacent to it?

Extrapolate from there.

-Stuart

 

[Rechan]

Lord Tirian, here's one:

Take Cover!
Area of Effect that forces all enemies in the area to either go prone or leave the area, because they're trying to dodge the rain of arrows.

(Yes, exactly like the "Fighting in the Shade" scene in 300).

 

[Cadfan]

szilard- he gets that at level 17. I'm supposed to extrapolate up from level 17?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Actually, the characters I would most think of as "controllers" in fantasy media are ALL what 4e D&D would call users of the "martial power source," since that seems to boil down to the "non-magical power source:"

Strategists.

Shu, Mathiu and Leon Silverburg, Havelocke Vetinari, Grand Admiral Thrawn - all are completely nonmagical characters in settings that have magical abilities, yet all are by FAR the most capable at controlling the battlefields on which they engage.

The Strategist sows confusion in his opponent's ranks by giving them a completely wrong impression of the party's plan. He effectively "moves" them - but even worse than a typical wizard, he forces them to expend their own movement to get where HE wants them.

The Strategist stuns and horrifies his opponents by revealing a trick up his sleeve. He debuffs them with morale penalties, possibly even reduces their hp in an area of effect, much like the leader buffs/heals his allies with inspiration.

The Strategist, when assisting his allies, does so with conditional, position-based benefits. Unlike a leader who magically enhances his allies, or inspires them with stirring words, he sets up a beneficial situation - only allies who choose to take advantage gain the boon.

The Strategist, when he can pick his battlefield, can 'rearrange' it by choosing the right place and time; he can't do it on the fly like a wizard (arcane controller) or druid (divine controller), but he can do so with greater precision provided he has prep time.

The Strategist's personal offensive abilities are based around finding his opponent's weaknesses and exploiting them - possibly in the form of debuffs that make them easier for allies to hurt, possibly in the form of a reduced version of sneak attack.

 

[Saturday Mouning]

I like the idea of the monk as a martial controller. I see him as a minion masher who uses area debuffs, fast movement, and mobility-based dodging to put a flame on his enemies rear. A sort of defender/striker hybrid, without the damage mitigation of one, or the single target capabilities of the other.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't see the problem with labelling such a character as martial. After all, he's relying on his own natural talents to get by. In this case, intelligence. Yeah, he'd be using a lot of gadgets and gizmos, but the Fighter and Warlord still need] to use a weapon, sword, and shield to get by, and a Rogue still needs a dagger and leather armor. Like them, this is a character that relies on his own natural skills as well as equipment to survive in the world. He's just more creative with his equipment.

I disagree. A gadgeteer/alchemist is not "martial" if you ask me.

Martial is not a synonym for "not using magic". It is an emphasis on physical training and cunning. fighters and rogues are both of the martial power source becuase they train their bodies and skills to a high degree. The martial power source is about personal strength and gaining power by improving that personal strength. A gadgeteer relies and gadgets and inventiveness, not personal strength, so it would be a different power source.

I don't have any problem with the idea of a "clockwork/steampunk" power source, but I don't agree that it is at all the same as martial.

 

[Rechan]

I don't have any problem with the idea of a "clockwork/steampunk" power source, but I don't agree that it is at all the same as martial.

We have to make a distinction here.

The gadgeteer/engineer/alchemist doesn't necessitate "Clockwork/steampunk". Just throwing around flasks of acid, using makeshift traps and crude siege engines isn't "steampunk" or "clockwork". Catapults and traps are pretty low-tech application of physics. Certainly making clockwork golems/homoculi, steampunk armor, or whathaveyou would overlap with a molotov cocktail thrower or a catapult because both are using ITEMS to do their work, but they certainly have different feels, thus different power sources.

Second, the important thing here about the gadgeteer/engineer being considered "Martial" is that it's relying on 1) their skill at making the items, and 2) usually throwing them, or aiming and firing. This puts them mainly in line, imho, with rogues in how they rely on their skills.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I disagree. A gadgeteer/alchemist is not "martial" if you ask me.

Martial is not a synonym for "not using magic". It is an emphasis on physical training and cunning. fighters and rogues are both of the martial power source becuase they train their bodies and skills to a high degree. The martial power source is about personal strength and gaining power by improving that personal strength. A gadgeteer relies and gadgets and inventiveness, not personal strength, so it would be a different power source.

I don't have any problem with the idea of a "clockwork/steampunk" power source, but I don't agree that it is at all the same as martial.

I would partially agree with this, even though I initially called the martial power source synonymous with "not using magic." A gadgeteer's power source is not "martial," it's "technology." And "technology" is a varied (and awesome) enough power source that it deserves its own book and four fully fleshed out roles.

However, I do disagree that the Martial power source has to imply PHYSICAL training. MENTAL training that nonetheless involves perfecting an aspect of one's self in the interests of maximizing one's martial prowess, without necessarily drawing upon supernatural effects, should, IMO, also be considered part of the Martial power source. Sun-Tsu considered strategy a part of the martial arts, for example.

 

[TwinBahamut]

We have to make a distinction here.

The gadgeteer/engineer/alchemist doesn't necessitate "Clockwork/steampunk". Just throwing around flasks of acid, using makeshift traps and crude siege engines isn't "steampunk" or "clockwork". Catapults and traps are pretty low-tech application of physics. Certainly making clockwork golems/homoculi, steampunk armor, or whathaveyou would overlap with a molotov cocktail thrower or a catapult because both are using ITEMS to do their work, but they certainly have different feels, thus different power sources.

True, but I think it is important to note that any implementation of a gadgeteer character class would lean towards clockwork and steampunk, simply because that realm is fun and interesting. I don't think game designers would make such a class without bringing in more fantastic elements of gadgetry.

Besides, it would take more fantastic elements for a gadgeteer to actually be a controller. We know that leaders can heal even while doing other things, and that defenders can protect others while still attacking. A true dedicated controller has to be able to control the battlefield as effortlessly as the other classes fulfill their main role. Unless you can build a trap as a swift action, a gadgeteer can't do that, unless he uses magic or clockwork/steampunk technology.

Second, the important thing here about the gadgeteer/engineer being considered "Martial" is that it's relying on 1) their skill at making the items, and 2) usually throwing them, or aiming and firing. This puts them mainly in line, imho, with rogues in how they rely on their skills.

The problem is your number 1. Fighters don't build things to do their job. Rogues don't make items to do their job. Yet for the gadgeteer, building items is their central gimmick. It is more than enough to be a completely different power source, if you ask me.