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

[Khaalis]

I hope WotC doesn't feel compelled to fill out the grid with strained concepts merely for completeness sake, but rather that they use roles and power sources as descriptors for concepts that can stand on their own.

I can't seem to find the exact quote at the moment but someone from WotC specifically said that the "grid" was simply a guideline and not something they planned to fill every possible slot on.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I've got no problem with this. At the same time though, a character with no magical or physical skills, but only wits, is not terribly suited to being a PC class. Thus, a character with mental training needs to also have either physical training (Martial) or magical training (Arcane/Divine) in order to function in actual combat.

Do you think Thrawn, Vetinari and Shu are not suited to being PCs? A Strategist class based as closely on them as the Wizard or Ranger have traditionally been on any of their source material would be perfectly playable.

We already know that precision-based damage is in (via the Rogue - also a Martial character); the Strategist's personal combat capabilities could easily be based around that. We already know that nonmagical abilities can be used to move enemies around.

As a controller, the Strategist should probably be the physically weakest of the Martial characters - but that doesn't mean he can't be more buff and better on the front lines than a Wizard, or even a Warlock. He could easily be on par with the Rogue or even Warlord when it comes to defending himself, and on par with the Cleric as a personal attacker, without compromising his flavor and role.

However, keep in mind that the class you are talking about, a Strategist, is already in the game and is called the Warlord. I can't really see a difference between them in concept myself, and I think it belongs where it is in the Leader role.

Yeah, but to the extent strategy can be a shtick for a D&D PC, it's already covered by the warlord. That's, like, what they do. Because devising the optimal strategy for your forces to follow is thoroughly a leader thing.

I disagree. Everything we've seen of the Warlord indicates that he is a Cha-based buffer/healer who can also fight. The controller we know about (the Wizard) is an Int-based debuffer/multi-target-attacker/target-mover who can also buff.

The Strategist role I'm describing is Int-based, focused on debuffing and target-moving (and multi-target attacks if hp can be healed/damaged with morale), and can also limited/situational buffs. His flavor is similar to the Warlord's at first glance, but there's a strong distinction mechanically.

There's even a flavor distinction, though. The Warlord inspires his allies with his presence, speech-making and personal courage; the Strategist demoralizes and confuses his enemies with his plans, cunning and deceptive actions. Consider the difference between protagonists in Suikoden (who are almost always Warlords in 4e terms) and strategists in Suikoden (who were my first thought about this class).

EDIT: Another example; compare Captain Carrot and Vetinari. Carrot seems like a classic Warlord (Vimes might also have some levels/talents/however multiclassing works): he inspires others to follow just by virtue of being himself. Vetinari doesn't inspire anyone: he convinces some, fools others, and lays out elaborate plans that have still others doing what he wants while thinking they're thwarting him.

 

[Cadfan]

How in the world is Vetinari style manipulation supposed to take place on the skirmish level? Vetinari manipulates people on a city or nation wide scale. His combat abilities, so to speak, stem from the fact that he's an accomplished assassin.

 

[Howndawg]

Archer. Their arrows can be anywhere.

Grappler. With enough movement-based powers, they can fling enemies all over.

Spear-user (pikeman?). Reach + movement-based powers = nothing can escape the reach!

Alchemist. Your grenadier, chucking acids and alchemist's fire and releasing clouds of ick.

Swashbuckler. Dropping chandeliers, tying people up in tapestries, moving around pieces of terrain.

Taunter/Manipulator. Enemies move based on the things you say and the authority of your voice.

Wuxia Martial Artist. Punch the ground here, earth erupts in a shockwave over there. Fly through the air to reach your target. Use exotic weapons that trip, disarm, rush, etc.

Combat trixster. "I'm over here! No, I'm over here!" Throw your voice, juggle your weapons (thrown daggers, or other implements that cause trouble or pain), use caltrops and booby traps.

EDIT: One more: The Yo-Yo Master. Basically a user of whip-like rope or chain weapons. You throw the blade, you reel it back in, you tie people up, you swing across chasms. Works with a whip, and with some of the more asian-flavored chain weapons.

That's more than enough to fill a couple o' PHB's, and it's not even very exhaustive. Basically, use any ranged attack, or give them powerful movement abilities (or the ability to move enemies), and you have the ability to take the battle to the enemy wherever the enemy may be.

Doggone it! You've posted some of my best ideas plus some I never thought about! Now put the Alchemist, manipulator, and trickster together as one class and give him the flexibility to do all those things, now that would be cool.

 

[szilard]

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

Why level 17? Why not level 5? Is this more powerful than a fireball?

(Also, 4e will have 30 levels - extrapolating up from level 17 isn't ludicrous... but, really, extrapolate in both directions.)

-Stuart

 

[Rechan]

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.

Except when it causes people to shriek and go "THAT'S NOT D&D". You get that a lot with Warforged and magic trains.

And even in Eberron, Eberron has no clockwork or steampunk. Warforged are diet golems, lacking gears. Steam does not exist as a form of power - the "Technology" is wholly powered by elementals. So it's magic replacing technology, not technology.

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.

I fail to see how "they have to build it" differentiates them. The Fighter and Rogue still need a weapon to do their job. I could say that because they're using tools, that totally means they're not "Martial", they're "Weapon users", differentiating them.

Why is the Warlord a "Martial" leader? He's not using his physical prowess and his muscles to buff people. By your definition, he's something else because it has nothing to do with his physical training.

 

[Flynn]

Of everything that has been posted in this thread, I would have to say that the Archer makes the most sense to me as a martial controller. Not only does the class concept have legacy appeal (see the Archer class from Dragon magazine, the Ranger-Archer from Unearthed Arcana, or the Arcane Archer prestige class), but it's a class concept that almost universally everyone can agree is martial in nature, and has the best means of affecting the battlefield without resorting to pseudo-magical means such as supernatural "ki" powers. It has a traditional medieval flavor (unlike the almost strictly oriental flavor of the monk), and represents an archetype that is found in classic mythology and modern fantasy literature.

At least, this is my opinion. As always, YMMV.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

How in the world is Vetinari style manipulation supposed to take place on the skirmish level? Vetinari manipulates people on a city or nation wide scale. His combat abilities, so to speak, stem from the fact that he's an accomplished assassin.

How in the world is Howardian style magic supposed to take place on the skirmish level? Even the most powerful sorcerers of the Hyborian Age take a great deal of time to cast their spells and mostly use them on the army or nationwide scale. Their combat abilities, so to speak, tend to stem from some of them being, in effect, martial artists.

In other words, you'd have to extrapolate for playability.

It's not entirely fair to say the combat abilities Vetinari had in his youth come from his assassin training, though. Most Discworld assassins are ineffective - yet Vetinari, largely by the independent study he engaged in without the guild's sanction, was extremely deadly. The same keen mind that serves him well as the Patrician made him one of the most dangerous hired killers on the Disc despite being kind of an average physical specimen.

As for Vetinari's manipulation - he is certainly capable of manipulating people on an individual basis. Because of what he's doing (running Ankh-Morpork), his machinations usually play out on a wide scale, but even when he's personally endangered and forced to interact with theoretically dangerous people, he maneuvers them into a position where they either can't afford to harm him or do something they think is harming him but actually puts him right where he wants to be. In both cases, they almost always get killed or captured by his allies or minions or other unwitting pawns. Or Vimes.

 

[ruemere]

"Meanwhile, a controller can affect not only multiple opponents on the battlefield, but the battlefield itself. Fogs and walls? Controller. Reshaping the terrain? Controller."

With this in mind, I have immediately thought about dynamite, smoke bombs, blunderbusses.

Sort of a cross between demo man and engineer, of course, fantasy style..

So, how about Alchemists, slightly crazy reasearchers with bombs, experimental gunpowder weapons, icky-sticky liquids in bottles and hundred ideas per second, with a mobile Battle Alchemax set stored in a suitcase?

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[TwinBahamut]

Do you think Thrawn, Vetinari and Shu are not suited to being PCs? A Strategist class based as closely on them as the Wizard or Ranger have traditionally been on any of their source material would be perfectly playable.

I don't know who Trawn and Vetinari are, but if Shu is refering to the strategist from Suikoden 2, then I say no, he is not suited to being a PC in an ordinary D&D campaign. Keep in mind, Shu is not a controllable combat character in Suikoden 2. No strategist is playable in the whole series. They only play a role in story sequences and mass battles. They don't even affect anything at the kind of scale a D&D controller would need to operate.

Shu is a great character, and I think there should be a place for such a character in D&D, but I don't think a martial controller PC is that place.

At their core, I think a controller needs to force his opponents to do something/be in a bad situation. As a whole, Strategists can only make plans, which are carried out by teammates. This is a form of leadership, not control, if you ask me.

We already know that precision-based damage is in (via the Rogue - also a Martial character); the Strategist's personal combat capabilities could easily be based around that. We already know that nonmagical abilities can be used to move enemies around.

As a controller, the Strategist should probably be the physically weakest of the Martial characters - but that doesn't mean he can't be more buff and better on the front lines than a Wizard, or even a Warlock. He could easily be on par with the Rogue or even Warlord when it comes to defending himself, and on par with the Cleric as a personal attacker, without compromising his flavor and role.

Honestly, this just sounds like a Rogue to me. I am just not seeing how this works... Maybe a Rogue/Warlord multiclass, but I am not seeing it offer anything that doesn't already exist in other Martial classes...

I disagree. Everything we've seen of the Warlord indicates that he is a Cha-based buffer/healer who can also fight. The controller we know about (the Wizard) is an Int-based debuffer/multi-target-attacker/target-mover who can also buff.

The Strategist role I'm describing is Int-based, focused on debuffing and target-moving (and multi-target attacks if hp can be healed/damaged with morale), and can also limited/situational buffs. His flavor is similar to the Warlord's at first glance, but there's a strong distinction mechanically.

There's even a flavor distinction, though. The Warlord inspires his allies with his presence, speech-making and personal courage; the Strategist demoralizes and confuses his enemies with his plans, cunning and deceptive actions. Consider the difference between protagonists in Suikoden (who are almost always Warlords in 4e terms) and strategists in Suikoden (who were my first thought about this class).

Remember that the main difference between the battlefield commanders of Suikoden and the strategists is that the strategists offer advice for controlling large-scale sieges and the defense and conquest of entire cities and regions. At the tactical level that D&D operates in, the Suikoden strategists don't do anything at all.

Also, I think you are under-estimating the strategic intelligence of the Warlord class. I don't imagine it as a purely charisma-based class. I imagine it as a class of the smart fighter who probably plays way too much chess...