Filling Class/Role combos

[drothgery]

In Rich Baker's blog entry here...

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13779533&postcount=11

... he said that a 'swordmage' class grew out of thinking 'what would an arcane defender look like', and got nearly to the point of being included in PH1 before being shuffled off to a later book. Which got me wondering about all the other points on the matrix.

Here's how I'd slice up the 3.5 PH classes...

		arcane		divine		martial
controller	wizard		druid		monk?
		sorcerer
defender	n/a		paladin		fighter
						barbarian
leader		bard		cleric		n/a
striker		n/a		ranger		rogue

Note two arcane controllers, two martial defenders, no arcane defenders or strikers, and no martial leaders. We know all of the 3.5 PH classes aren't making it into PH1, and it seems very likely that a new martial leader (the warlord) is going to be there.

So what about the other slots? I'd bet something's in the works for them, too.

arcane defender: A new swordmage, apparently. Looks like it killed the PsiWar and took his stuff. Maybe a little of duskblade in there, too.

arcane striker: I'm not sure, here. I think strikers are supposed have mobility, the ability to overcome unusual challenges (locked doors, tracking) and the ability to hit really hard. I'm thinking an arcane striker should be using magic for all three. The Knight Phantom PrC from Eberron seems like close to what I'd think for this.

martial controller: I sort-of slotted the monk there because I didn't know what else to do with him. But the best proposal I've seen for this spot is some sort of sapper/grenadier type.

martial leader: The Warlord looks like an improved mashal/'noble' type class at first pass.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is the Monk "martial" power-source-wise? Seems more like Divine to me, with all his fancy business.

How do we know the re-done Sorcerer isn't an Arcane Striker? It seems quite possible, as it's now more distinct from the Wizard.

You have the Ranger as a "Divine" striker? I think that's a pretty funky view. He does have some Divine spells in 3E and 2E (and Divine and Arcane in 1E), but none of his other abilities derive from Divine power, so I'd be surprised.

Similarly Druid as "Divine Controller" is far from a lock.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I assume the monk is martial, as there's a martial sourcebook confirmed IIRC that sounds like a good place for them to publish it. They seem a lot more like striker in their 1e & 3e philosophy. Although, a thought occurs to me; the sourcebook classes may stretch a little further over two roles? The swordmage seems like to could reach into striker if they give it enough options.

Druid as divine controller makes the most sense, near as I can tell. You know, assuming we ever get a straight answer on the druid's presence in PHB I.

There's just so many arcane options I find it hard to narrow down.

 

[Felon]

The term "striker" is a reference to a character build that excels at inflicting heavy damage to a single target. Stealth seems to complement the role (allowing him to lauch an "alpha strike" that minimizes retaliation). A good candidated for this in 4e will be the warlock, with his mighty eldritch blast snipery.

Don't be surprised if the ranger no longer casts spells, thus removing his divine component.

Monks are martial. I suspect we will see lots of "fancy business" coming from many a martial class in 4e. the monk is a good choice for a martial controller. He can flurry blows to hit multiple targets, and stun them in doing so. And he has lots of mobility so he can reach the targets.

the barbarian is noteworthy because he is sort of a double-threat, a defender/striker. Not sure how he'll change, though maybe Iron Heroes' berserker is an indicator.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

The term "striker" is a reference to a character build that excels at inflicting heavy damage to a single target.

Reference?

 

[hong]

I still reckon the best bet for a martial controller is a machine-gun archer.

 

[F4NBOY]

My take

		arcane		divine		martial	  	psychic/ki
controller	wizard		druid		D2 barbarian	psion
defender	swordmage	paladin		fighter		psychic warrior
leader		bard		cleric		warlord		n/a
striker		sorcerer	ranger		rogue		monk

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm having a bit of a problem with the concept of a martial controller.

A controller, at least for me, needs to be able to handle battlefield control. Typically in DND, that means wall spells or web/entangle spells or grease spells or silence spells or darkness spells, etc.

It's the ability to force your opponents into a certain mode or corridor of attack.

One way to do this with a martial character from what I know of 4E will be similar to computer games were one character has some way to get enemies to attack him and him alone. Or, one character has some way to cause fear in his opponents.

I'm not real comfortable with a martial character having supernatural abilities like this. This goes way beyond Intimidate and into the arena of Mind Control. Even with concepts like the Bo9S's Iron Guard's Glare, it just doesn't seem like something a martial character should be able to do without magic of some sort (this goes way beyond Aid Another for example, -4 versus -2, swift instead of standard action, no action to do it every round, and multiple allies, not one). At least IMO.

If this is the case, I'd just as soon not see a Martial Controller if they are all going to have supernatural battlefield control abilities masquerading behind non-plausible martial rationales.

 

[F4NBOY]

I put a D2 barbarian for the Diablo 2 barbarian.
A barbarian could be a martial controller with lot of shouts and using the intimidating skill a lot, to make enemies step back, have penalties on their attacks, attack each other in confusion, provoke AoOs etc.
It may look a little silly, but who knows?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not real comfortable with a martial character having supernatural abilities like this. This goes way beyond Intimidate and into the arena of Mind Control. Even with concepts like the Bo9S's Iron Guard's Glare, it just doesn't seem like something a martial character should be able to do without magic of some sort (this goes way beyond Aid Another for example, -4 versus -2, swift instead of standard action, no action to do it every round, and multiple allies, not one). At least IMO.

If this is the case, I'd just as soon not see a Martial Controller if they are all going to have supernatural battlefield control abilities masquerading behind non-plausible martial rationales.

I completely agree that that would make me want to throw the book at the designer who made it, it just fills me with a kind of disgust and disappointment, but I don't think it's the ONLY way a Martial Controller could work.

I mean, look what you could do without any mind-control:

Stuns
slams
dazes
trips/entangles
disarms
interrupts
grapples
bull rushes
shoves
dirt-throwing
throwing people/enemies
nerve strikes
expert caltrop throwing
hamstringing

- The class could hit people in fairly normal ways but be utterly expert at stopping them doing stuff. Wizard opens his mouth to cast, catches a rock in it. Rogue sneaks up behind him, he gets sweep-kicked to the floor. Fighter tries to move past him, he gets a shield-bash in the face and is stunned for X rounds. Cleric tries to smash him in the noggin with a two-handed blessed hammer, gets dirt chucked in his eyes and is blinded for a round, and so on.

That's how I envision a Martial Controller, either a sort of martial-arts dude full of tricky moves, or a brawling dirty-fighter (quite possibly armed and armoured), who is more focused on stopping enemy action than doing damage etc.