Filling Class/Role combos

[breschau]

First he says

Then he says

So, we'll just note that there's some backpedaling being attempted here.

After your big production about how tiring it was that other people aren't doing their research and they shouldnt post unless they have their facts straight, you wind up hoisted on your own petard.


This off-the-cuff remark from James Wyatt is your big confirmation about the druid? That's really not all that solid. It might be best for all concerned if you dropped the snide know-it-all act from here on out. Leave it to the pros.


Translation: you're trying to save some face by treating some fast-and-loose remarks as hard evidence. It'd be a lot easier to apologize for your initial tone and be doen with it.

No, not backpedaling. Just citing my sources and making it perfectly clear what information I used to form my opinion.

At this point all/most of the information we have about 4th Edition is from the videos and random posts by WotC staff. "Off the cuff" is the rule of the day.

The cleric's primary role is healer. He's not a defender, he's neither a controller or striker, yep... the clerics a leader. The video confirms that you have to have the cleric to fill out the roles (pre-4th edition) and that the cleric's role (in 4th edition) is leader. Unless the cleric no longer heals, I'd say that's a fairly large "the leaders heal and buff."

If the leader doesn't heal and buff, who does? The defender, striker, or controller?

Just as a final bit of evidence, bolds mine:

Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly.

The entire article can be found here.

So, to recap. James stated that the druid was going to be just as good at healing as the cleric. From the above article, that makes him a leader.

Oh, and yes, I do think the Warlord will be healing the party as well. Why? Because WotC has officially stated that's exactly what they're supposed to do.

And yep, this is tiring, because if people would take the time to read the info that's out there...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

So, to recap. James stated that the druid was going to be just as good at healing as the cleric. From the above article, that makes him a leader.

You're assuming the druid retains healing abilities in 4E, which isn't confirmed. And while leaders may heal, healing ability doesn't necessarily imply a leader role (paladin, for example, explicitly stated to be a defender ... though we don't know if paladins retain lay on hands in 4E).

Actually, GZ used the example of druids and clerics both healing as examples of how two different classes could fill a role.

At the point James was talking about clerics and druids, the conversation had been about the 3.5 classes and the concept of roles in general. When they started talking about the concept of roles in 4E, the druid never came up.

In fact, we don't know (1) if druids will be in early 4E (though we can probably expect they'll show up at some point), (2) what powers and abilities druids will have (for all we know, they won't even have spellcasting anymore, but only be shapeshifters with animal companions), or (3) what role WOTC ultimately envisions the class to fill -- and by James' statements, they are looking at classes which cover multiple roles, so it is entirely possible the druid won't be filling any specific niche.

You may ultimately be right, but there is in fact not concrete evidence that says druid = leader in 4E except from the inferences you draw.


I don't know why I've inserted myself in this discussion, because this speculation has no impact on the game either way. Please jump to any conclusions you wish!

 

[Charwoman Gene]

If the leader doesn't heal and buff, who does? The defender, striker, or controller?

Leaders buff.
The only evidence that they heal is that the cleric is one.

I think the Warlord/bard Healing is Dragon-Shaman-like at best, and druids will be cotrollers with healing as an off role perk.

I do admit you could be right, but its all a house of cards.

 

[Zamkaizer]

I was slightly annoyed when Mr. Baker stated that certain power source/role combinations might be redundant, while others would be unrealized.

Were I responsible for 4th Ed's design, I'd give each power source a presence in three roles. That way you'd have nine classes in the Players Handbook. You could also avoid strange combinations - like arcane defenders, or martial controllers - or you'd at least have unfilled niches for later sourcebooks.

Granted, I'm not designing 4th Ed., so I'm pretty much screaming at a wall. Perhaps, when I'm developing homebrew stuff, I'll pursue this idea further.

 

[Gloombunny]

Why do people keep suggesting barbarian as a striker? Just because of 10' faster movement than fighters? The medium armor, d12 hit die, damage reduction, and temporary rage-hp all scream "defender" to me. I think strikers will be classes that have defender-bypassing abilities like Tumble, and not enough durability to stay in melee for long.

For that reason, the 3.5 monk is clearly a striker-wannabe. Where do people get controller from? The Stunning Fist and grappling? Note that both of those work much better on enemies like wizards than on melee brutes. Classes that specialize in getting to and hitting the soft targets are strikers. And the monk is not "martial" power-sourced, ironic as that is, because everything we've heard about martial characters indicates that they have no supernatural abilities.

I don't think any melee-based class could qualify as a controller. The role implies being able to affect the battle at large, not just the people next to you.

Speaking of which... a spiked-chain guy would be a defender, not a controller. He doesn't control the battlefield; he prevents people on one side of him from getting to the other side, or people who are near him from moving away from him. That's pure defender.

 

[Zimri]

Why do people keep suggesting barbarian as a striker? Just because of 10' faster movement than fighters? The medium armor, d12 hit die, damage reduction, and temporary rage-hp all scream "defender" to me. I think strikers will be classes that have defender-bypassing abilities like Tumble, and not enough durability to stay in melee for long.

For that reason, the 3.5 monk is clearly a striker-wannabe. Where do people get controller from? The Stunning Fist and grappling? Note that both of those work much better on enemies like wizards than on melee brutes. Classes that specialize in getting to and hitting the soft targets are strikers. And the monk is not "martial" power-sourced, ironic as that is, because everything we've heard about martial characters indicates that they have no supernatural abilities.

I don't think any melee-based class could qualify as a controller. The role implies being able to affect the battle at large, not just the people next to you.

Speaking of which... a spiked-chain guy would be a defender, not a controller. He doesn't control the battlefield; he prevents people on one side of him from getting to the other side, or people who are near him from moving away from him. That's pure defender.

there was a style in BO9S which had a lot of throws, enemies landing prone in a square of your choosing etcetera seemed very martial and monk-like.

 

[Felon]

If the leader doesn't heal and buff, who does? The defender, striker, or controller?

Sure, any of the above. Paladins heal, don't they? And they're confirmed as defenders, aren't they?

Just as a final bit of evidence, bolds mine:

And yep, this is tiring, because if people would take the time to read the info that's out there...

Despite your attempts to gloss over your initial blunder, you've displayed not-inconsiderable ignorance of 4e rumors. You went from saying "the druid was specifically confirmed as a Leader", to trying to play connect-the-dots to prove it.

 

[Felon]

Why do people keep suggesting barbarian as a striker? Just because of 10' faster movement than fighters?

The fast movement has less to do with it than the damage-dealing boost provide by rage.

But yes, like I said, the current barbarian is a double threat, equal parts defender and striker.

Speaking of which... a spiked-chain guy would be a defender, not a controller. He doesn't control the battlefield; he prevents people on one side of him from getting to the other side, or people who are near him from moving away from him. That's pure defender.

Sort of. Crowd control has some bleed over elements with tanking (in MMORPG's, they can make each other feel redundant). They are both about keeping the enemy pinned down and occupied until the nuker gets to them.

 

[Intrope]

Why do people keep suggesting barbarian as a striker? Just because of 10' faster movement than fighters? The medium armor, d12 hit die, damage reduction, and temporary rage-hp all scream "defender" to me. I think strikers will be classes that have defender-bypassing abilities like Tumble, and not enough durability to stay in melee for long.

For that reason, the 3.5 monk is clearly a striker-wannabe. Where do people get controller from? The Stunning Fist and grappling? Note that both of those work much better on enemies like wizards than on melee brutes. Classes that specialize in getting to and hitting the soft targets are strikers. And the monk is not "martial" power-sourced, ironic as that is, because everything we've heard about martial characters indicates that they have no supernatural abilities.

I don't think any melee-based class could qualify as a controller. The role implies being able to affect the battle at large, not just the people next to you.

Speaking of which... a spiked-chain guy would be a defender, not a controller. He doesn't control the battlefield; he prevents people on one side of him from getting to the other side, or people who are near him from moving away from him. That's pure defender.

I have to agree on one of these: Monk as Controller seems non-sensical to me (the primary way I see people use/discuss the 3e monk tends to be as 'wizard-smacker' or skirmisher style fighters--both Striker roles).

I really doubt that we're going to see classes for every role * power source. Some sources, yes--but probably not all of them. Martial Controller seems unfillable to me.

On the other hand, I suspect some role * power source combos will see more classes than others.

For instance, I think the Fighter will probably be the only Martial Defender--but I could easily see 3 Martial Strikers: Rogue (Precision), Ranger (Skirmish), Barbarian (Rage--think someone who makes reckless charges through minions to fight the true enemy).

On the Arcane side, I've wondered if Sorcerer won't show up as Arcane Leader--charismatic magic weilders (who don't seem studious) could well take up a Leader role. The Forsaken/Chosen from Wheel of Time, Voldermort, Stereotypical Leather-corset clad sorceresses, any number of weird cult leaders, etc.

The Druid strikes me as a class that really needs to be split; Nature Priests are just a particular kind of Cleric. The Druid as Shapeshifter would make a nice Divine Striker: bypass enemies/obstacles as a small animal, then shift into a battle form to dole out the pain.

Anyway, IMHO, YMMV, IANAEG, etc.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yeah, I see the 3.5 Monk as a martial striker (until someone defines what ki is, anyway -- psionic?). I think a case can be made for the 3.5 barbarian in either defender or striker role -- which is partly why I think fast movement and barbarian rage need to be optional fighter talent trees; I don't see that barbarian really needs to be a separate base class.

Arcane leader = something like the current bard, to me. I see the future sorcerer as a class based on the warlock's mechanics and functioning as a striker (higher hit points, blasts, ray spells, and the self-buffing warlock abilities without area damage spells).

I posted a concept for a martial controller in another thread, the grenadier/sapper who uses skills, alchemy, and military knowledge to create area and mobility effects. It may be a stretch, but I think this class role can be accomplished under the martial power.