Current Theories on Classes?

[Nahat Anoj]

I discssed this in another thread, but it's also appropriate for this one I believe.

I think that with Roles WotC is just distilling the essence of what characters generally do in combat into four broad types. I also think that characters in one Role will be able to reproduce the functions of the other roles to some extent, but it will be harder. For example, I think a Cleric will be able to do many "cleric-y" things like heal and buff for little or no "charge" (like, heal as a Free action, or perhaps immediately as the result of another action/event such as scoring a critical hit). Whatever the case, the Cleric won't have to spend many resources (in the form of spell slots or combat actions) to do what he does. On the other hand, if the Cleric wants to do concentrated damage to someone (that is, act as a Striker), I believe he will be able to but it will take more of his resources. Perhaps it takes a full-round action to do a flamestrike style spell, or perhaps he'll have to use up one of his per day abilities.

Let's do another one. As a Striker the Rogue should be able to deal out big damage fairly easily (I think the 3e version of Sneak Attack is a pretty good example). However, perhaps the Rogue can expend more resources to use a "hamstring" ability that slows someone up and helps control the battlefield, thereby acting as a Controller.

I really believe that all classes will be able to fulfill some of the functions as other classes. Exactly how they do it will be different (for example, when a Fighter is trying to be a Controller that may operate differently than a Wizard being a Controller, and probably not as efficiently), but the results will be much the same. I just think that it'll somehow cost more when a class strives to act beyonds it's general role. And perhaps a class will be better at fulfilling some Roles than others. For example, a Paladin might be better at doing the Leader thing than he is doing the Striker thing, while a Fighter might be better at doing the Striker thing than she is at the Leader thing. And so on.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Is there any PROOF that each class is going to be one power-source + one role?

Well, IMO, no. For example, the Paladin is a Defender, but I suspect many 3e Paladin abilities will be ported over to 4e. So when a Paladin uses Smite Evil, in some capacity he's acting as a Striker, or when the Paladin uses Lay on Hands, in some capacity he's acting as a Leader. I think any given class will be able to duplicate the functions of other roles to some extent, but they won't be as efficient as classes who are "built" for that role.

It is very possible that certain roles are best suited to certain power sources, so there will be no obvious PS+R combo. Arcane Defender seems completely odd as does Martial Controller. I'm sure we all can think of some manner of class that does just that, but I think those will be in future PHBs.

Arcane Defender = something like the Duskblade.

Martial Controller = I don't know, but I think "Mastermind" would be a good name for such a class - manipulating the flow of battle through supreme skill.

Cleric (Leader, Divine)
Fighter (Defender, Martial)
Paladin (Defender, Divine)
Ranger (Striker, Martial)
Rogue (Striker, Martial)
Warlock (Controller, Arcane)
Warlord (Leader, Martial)
Wizard (Controller, Arcane)

Four martials, four "casters" (two arcane, two divine). Seems a good mix IMHO.

Well, personally I don't think combinations will be duplicated, so I don't think we'll have two Martial Strikers and two Arcane Controllers. I really don't see WotC as placing the Ranger into anything but a Divine (or, perhaps, "Nature") slot, and the Warlock strikes me as the perfect Arcane Striker. But I could be wrong.

 

[Victim]

What do you think 'controller' means? It seams to be derived from the WotC board term 'battlefield control' referring to a mostly arcane ability to hinder movement on the battlefield thru such spells as entangle, web, evard's black tentacles and wall of force. A fairly small part of what wizards and druids can do, though very important in fights.

However in the combat examples given so far, the wizard seems to be mostly a damage dealer, area effect or single target ie a striker.

I can see controller also referring to mind-affecting spells such as charms and illusions. 4e might be using the term to include area damage, transportation and utility spells, which doesn't fit the word 'controller' but does fit what a wizard can currently do.

The other thing is I think classes can fill more than one party role, depending on build. For instance a fighter doesn't have to be a defender, he could be a striker. Likewise maybe a wizard is not fixed as a controller, he could also be a striker.

WotC comments thus far indicate that they consider AE damage to fall into the controller role, since it sweeps away lesser monsters.

Mind control, AE blasts, battlefield control spells, summoned monsters and party movement magics all seem like ways to fill the controller niche.

 

[Merlion]

Well, personally I don't think combinations will be duplicated, so I don't think we'll have two Martial Strikers and two Arcane Controllers. I really don't see WotC as placing the Ranger into anything but a Divine (or, perhaps, "Nature") slot, and the Warlock strikes me as the perfect Arcane Striker. But I could be wrong.

I would think Paladins and Rangers will have Martial for their physical combat abilities and "Divine" for their spells and other abilities.

 

[Merlion]

Agreed. I meant though, that each class would be a unique combo of PS+R with no overlapping classes in the PH (such as a rogue and ranger both being martial strikers)



Well said.

I think I am mostly afraid of a PHB wherein theres more talk about Strikers, Defenders Controllers and Leaders than there is about Rangers, Fighters, Wizards, Bards Druids etc. The roles should be relagated purely to jargon and shorthand, not as replacements for refering to the specific abilities and natures of specific classes.

Same thing with the "power sources". I don't want to see the Wizard descreption talk about the "arcane power source" and I really dont want to see text going on about fighters tapping into their "martial power source." All that stuff should be used in a metagame context.

On the subject of power sources, I expect we will see some classes that draw off more than one, as I mentioned a moment ago. Any class that has both physical combat abilites and magical/supernatural ones will probably have Martial and another power source.