Filling Class/Role combos

[Zamkaizer]

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.

Well, they've already stated that bards are arcane leaders. Admittedly, they don't actually use the word "arcane," but I can't conceive of them designing a singing power source. Please don't argue with me on this point.

It makes me wonder which role will have the greatest instance of power source redundancy, and which will have the least.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I could see them creating a "nature" power source though, and putting bards as leaders, druids as controllers and rangers as strikers in it. Bards cast druidic spells in 1e, and I think thematically they should always be bundled with druids.

I don't think they're going to do that, though, because they haven't mentioned a nature source at all, and they've talked about rangers quite a bit, leading me to believe they'll be in the first PHB, which means they'll have to be arcane, divine or martial.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I've been wondering if the divine controller could actually be the warlock. The things we've seen a warlock do in the castle Smoulderthorn playtests look pretty controllerish:

Logan’s warlock laid down a Mire of Minauros on one side of the room, dissolving a couple of vampires and creating a nice acidic bog to guard our right flank

Dessin, my warlock, mostly stayed at the back. He was just making enemies attack each other, firing some eldritch blasts, and concentrating fire on badly damaged foes (turns out that makes him do more damage).

They don't sound like a striker or leader to me.

And the warlock "fey or fiendish" power source in 3.5, assuming it hasn't changed in 4e, seems closest to a divine power source.

 

[Intrope]

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.

I'd forgotten that suggestion. Admittedly, I find a Grenadier, well, odd for D&D and maybe a bit stretching to be a Martial Controller--but having said that, I can see that as a potentially viable Martial Controller.

 

[Intrope]

Well, they've already stated that bards are arcane leaders. Admittedly, they don't actually use the word "arcane," but I can't conceive of them designing a singing power source. Please don't argue with me on this point.

It makes me wonder which role will have the greatest instance of power source redundancy, and which will have the least.

Well, Song has been used in the past as a power source--but I'd be tempted to build a Bard as the TrueName/TrueSong (TrueTongue?) Leader class.

 

[breschau]

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

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.

No, no blunder. The druid was confirmed as being "just as good of a healer as the cleric." Leaders are specifically slated to be healers.

If you can't follow "leaders are healers," "clerics are leaders," and "the druid is just as good of a healer as the cleric," resulting in druids being leaders, that's your issue. The quotes are either official statements, or agreed to, by WotC employees about 4th Edition. I'm sorry that you disagree. These quotes are facts. That you draw a different conclusion from these facts is not my concern.

Yes, the paladin is a healer, but the paladin was not mentioned in the roles video as being "just as good at healing as the cleric."

I have not specifically insulted you. Show me the same courtesy.

 

[Gloombunny]

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.

This is only true if you assume that defenders don't deal damage. I trust Mearls & Co. not to make that mistake. I think defenders and strikers will both be capable of inflicting heavy damage, with the difference being that defenders also have meatshielding capabilities (both durability, and stuff like knight's challenge or Thicket of Blades), while strikers are better at focusing that damage on vulnerable enemies (better mobility, strong ranged attacks, resistance to control effects, etc).

Saying that the barbarian must be half-striker because it has damage-enhancing abilities doesn't seem very convincing to me. Fighters have access to feats like Improved Critical, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and so on that enhance their damage quite a bit too... in fact, the only abilities unique to fighters are in the very offense-oriented Weapon Specialization chain. If barbarians are part striker because they deal damage, then fighters are part striker too.

 

[Gloombunny]

I've been wondering if the divine controller could actually be the warlock. The things we've seen a warlock do in the castle Smoulderthorn playtests look pretty controllerish:

They don't sound like a striker or leader to me.

While the Mire and the making enemies attack each other are definitely controller abilities, the part about doing extra damage to wounded targets sounds very striker-ish to me. So it's hard to say. I think we can safely assume that classes will have abilities not directly related to their official role - they're not going to make the warlord and cleric useless in melee just because they're not defenders or strikers, for instance - so we don't really know yet if that was an example of a striker using a control ability, or a controller using a striking ability.

 

[Felon]

Saying that the barbarian must be half-striker because it has damage-enhancing abilities doesn't seem very convincing to me. Fighters have access to feats like Improved Critical, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and so on that enhance their damage quite a bit too... in fact, the only abilities unique to fighters are in the very offense-oriented Weapon Specialization chain. If barbarians are part striker because they deal damage, then fighters are part striker too.

OK, fighters can be strikers too. Sure, whatever. Applying 4e's role structure to 3e classes is completely subjective, because the current crop of classes weren't designed tightly around the four roles. They just did stuff that seemed appropriate for the class to do, and roles were side effects, happy accidents as much as design.

The question isn't what role the 3e barbarian will play, but rather what role the 4e barbarian will play.

 

[Gloombunny]

The question isn't what role the 3e barbarian will play, but rather what role the 4e barbarian will play.

True, but my point is that high damage output alone won't qualify them as strikers. If the 4e barbarian is going to be a striker, he'll need to have abilities that have no parallel in the 3e barbarian. And in exchange for that he'll probably need to lose abilities that the 3e barbarian has, like big hit dice and DR, or he'll be impinging on the defenders' niche.

(Intrope's idea about reckless charges through minions is interesting, though. I'm imagining something like "when you charge an enemy, you gain DR 10/- until the end of your turn and may overrun enemies in your path as a free action".)