Filling out the Powers

[SKyOdin]

A well-designed gadget/grenadier class would do fine as a martial controller. Think tanglefoot bags on speed.

That really depends on implementation. I would argue that a class built around making gadgets and grenades would not be martial. Here are two possible powers for a grenadier/gadget class, the first one wouldn't be martial, while the second one is martial. (Please forgive the sloppy/incorrect formating)

Firebomb
You throw one of your custom-made firebombs at the enemy.
Encounter
Standard Action
Target: Ranged Burst
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: Do 3d6 points of Fire Damage to all creatures in affected area.

Big Boom
You time one of your bombs to explode with maximum effect.
Encounter, Weapon
Standard Action
Ranged weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding a grenade-like weapon
Target: Ranged Burst
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: Do 2[W]+Dex damage.

In the first power, the flavor is that of the user throwing a bomb they made themselves in imitation of a spell. In the second, the PC throws a bomb that anyone can use and gets more effect out of it than anyone else. I argue that the first example is not a martial power, but rather belongs to a Mad Science or Artifice power source.

Of course, for there to be a martial class built around grenades and gadgets, explosives need to be fairly commonplace in the world. While I can imagine a Martial Controller class built for a modern campaign that is built around grenades and suppressive fire with a machine gun, I am not sure that concept would work for your typical D&D setting.

I do have no doubt that someone will eventually make a really good Martial Controller though. I would like to see it happen.

 

[Sora Justice]

One (small) thing that irks me about the introduction of 4e is that we do not have one of each role in the three power sets.

We're moving away from needlessly "filling in" all grids. I mean, seriously. Last time we did this, it got us a land of nothing but clockwork inhabited by intelligent ants that were statted so stupidly that they were an appropriate encounter for literally no possible party.

Now you want them to fill out the class / power source grid with ill-considered classes just to fill it out? Well, good news is they aren't, and instead only printing well-designed classes where they fit, without a thought spared towards needless symmetry.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

We're moving away from needlessly "filling in" all grids. I mean, seriously. Last time we did this, it got us a land of nothing but clockwork inhabited by intelligent ants that were statted so stupidly that they were an appropriate encounter for literally no possible party.

Now you want them to fill out the class / power source grid with ill-considered classes just to fill it out? Well, good news is they aren't, and instead only printing well-designed classes where they fit, without a thought spared towards needless symmetry.

You added the part about "filling in." You decided these ideas would be "ill-considered." (Arbitrarily, I might add.) I did not say those things. Please do not put words in my mouth. Your snark is unnecessary and unappreciated. Unless you want to change your tone, I won't be responding to you again.

I believe that Wizards had an opportunity to show us what each of these class types would look like. They did not decide to go in that direction; it's not going to keep me from buying the game. And as I said, it's a pretty small thing.

As it stands we have: 1 controller, 2 defenders, 2 leaders, and 3 strikers. I love variety, but did we really need 3 strikers? Were there no other possibilities for a controller other than a wizard?

Just because some symmetry turned out to be bad does not mean it all could or will be. I happen to think it could have been quite helpful and interesting, especially with the new edition coming.

This thread is supposed to be purely speculative, but also fun. Please don't come in here with your negativity and threadcrapping. If you want to do that, go somewhere else.

 

[Traken]

You added the part about "filling in." You decided these ideas would be "ill-considered." (Arbitrarily, I might add.) I did not say those things. Please do not put words in my mouth. Your snark is unnecessary and unappreciated. Unless you want to change your tone, I won't be responding to you again.

I believe that Wizards had an opportunity to show us what each of these class types would look like. They did not decide to go in that direction; it's not going to keep me from buying the game. And as I said, it's a pretty small thing.

As it stands we have: 1 controller, 2 defenders, 2 leaders, and 3 strikers. I love variety, but did we really need 3 strikers? Were there no other possibilities for a controller other than a wizard?

Just because some symmetry turned out to be bad does not mean it all could or will be. I happen to think it could have been quite helpful and interesting, especially with the new edition coming.

This thread is supposed to be purely speculative, but also fun. Please don't come in here with your negativity and threadcrapping. If you want to do that, go somewhere else.

Your post is a lot more negative than his. :\ He was just pointing out what WotC has said about there not being a grid.

 

[DonAdam]

snip Here are two possible powers for a grenadier/gadget class, the first one wouldn't be martial, while the second one is martial.

Your points are dead on if those are the two possibilities, but I don't really accept the dichotomy of making gadgets vs. using gadgets that are widespread. Here's what I was thinking:

The problem with gadgeteer classes is that you probably don't want a world of weird gnomish technological devices, at least not for a typical D&D setting. In that sense, but the "Mad science" power source and the using-bombs-better-than-everyone Martial source are problematic. The former is problematic because it raises the question of why the gadgeteers aren't outfitting everybody. That has the undesirable effects of changing the flavor of the campaign (PC's with machine guns) and cutting into the gadgeteer's niche. Magic items, while they may or may not have plenty of problems (not trying to start up that debate), are at least a little easier to have some control over (unless you want to start charging XP for making gadgets--but then why does it cost XP to make the same one over and over?).

So what I was thinking was that the gadgets are too complicated for other characters to use, not just make or use well. I think the universality of Powers would allow those sorts of characters to actually work. Limits to mixing and storing ingredients, shelf lives, access to materials, etc. could be the justification (not that we really need one) for the limits on usage. Making isn't so much the issue as using and maintaining. I think that fits the martial descriptor (taken from the rogue class) at least reasonably well:

Your talents depend on extensive training and constant practice, innate skill, and natural coordination.

 

[Traken]

The problem with a class using explosives: It's a lot easier to go nova.

"Okay, the boss is in there, right? I strap all my explosives to my back. When I run up to the boss, cast the biggest fireball you got. Stand back, cause it's gonna be a lot bigger! For <Insert Deity Here>!"

Small attempt at light humor, but I know every single one of my players would end up doing this. We already have had some run-ins with alchemist's fire...

 

[Howndawg]

I really honestly don't think we're going to get a martial controller. I can't see one unless you lump alchemy in with martial.

The Swordmage will definitely be an arcane defender, and the Bard will most likely be an arcane leader, although I don't think arcane has 100% been confirmed.

As to divine, no class names have been confirmed, and no hints have been given. The Favored Soul and the Archivist are the only two 3e classes who I think could make the transition into 4e and still be divine. However, both classes utilize the cleric spell list and it could wind up that the Cleric beats up one or both classes and takes their stuff.

As to a divine controller, they could use the Archivist conception as a scholar priest, or they could go with a prophet type Moses character who calls down divine judgement on his foes. Personally, I think the Archivist should become a cleric build, and they should go with the prophet type.

For a divine striker, they could go with a friar type ala Dark Age of Camelot, who runs around beating up people with a quarterstaff, a zealot more in the lines of flagellants from Warhammer who strike with righteous fury against their foes, or they could focus on the Archivist's dark knowledge ability and uses his knowledge of his god's foes to take them down. As someone who played a Friar in DAoC, I would love the friar choice.

 

[malcolm_n]

The Favored Soul and the Archivist are the only two 3e classes who I think could make the transition into 4e and still be divine. However, both classes utilize the cleric spell list and it could wind up that the Cleric beats up one or both classes and takes their stuff.

Having played an archivist, I feel they would fit well into the roll of Divine striker. in 3.5, they could learn any spell from any divine class list via scroll and time. This meant they could readily cast fireball after learning it from a shugenja scroll, etc...
Keeping their versatility in 4e may be difficult (or really easy IE pick from any powers learned by other divine characters). Depending on what we get before/after this, they could stand to fill several roles, most notably striker (pick all damage dealing spells and accent with class features).

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I really honestly don't think we're going to get a martial controller. I can't see one unless you lump alchemy in with martial.

This one is tough to conceptualize, I'll give you that.

I still think that the bard as a martial controller is possible. Maybe even call it something like a skald, where we consciously move more towards the aspects of fighting, but encounter and daily powers are focused around distracting, debilitating, and fascinating opponents.

The magical music thing always kinda bugged me; just didn't fit my image, personally. I like the bard as a competent warrior who uses his charisma to distract his opponents

 

[Belorin]

There is more discussion on this in this thread

Bel