My attempt at a martial controller: The Monk

[Kaisoku]

Not everything. But they must fill the same role in the party that the wizard does; that's the whole point of roles, after all.

So a Striker would have to fulfill the role a Rogue does? Or just what a Rogue, Ranger and Warlock share in common?

That's what I'm getting at... where does "Wizard" begin and "Controller" end? We have no points of comparison to make, so whenever anyone suggests a Controller class that is anything but an Arcane Controller, we have people shooting down ideas at every angle because "it's not like the Wizard".

The role the Wizard fulfills is multiple target damage and effect. Some hindering movement capability.

Yet, I've seen arguments against any other type of Controller that have run the gamut of "Needs to be Ranged" to "Needs to be able to make walls" to "Needs to stand still, far away, and affect multiple targets still".

Yes, these are things the Wizard *does*, but why does that necessarily make it a Controller's *role*. Is "doing things at ranged" a role? Is "making walls" a role? Or are these specific effects or flavour for this particular Controller?


Basically, we need to find the line between "What all Controllers need to do" and "What this one Controller does".

I think multiple target damage + status effect appears to be the best approach for a Controller without basically locking him into a Magic User class.

Clerics have implements too. Their holy symbol.

In fact, everyone has implements. Weapon-using characters' implements are their weapons. That's why the Fighter/Paladin/Rogue/Ranger require weapons to use their abilities.

Furthermore, implements are part of the 3 Magical Weapons: Armor, Cloak/Amulet, and Implement.

After going over the info we have on the classes, there's an entry for Warlock saying they don't need their Implement for their abilities.

This sounds like more than just an Arcane vs Others thing.. but maybe more of an individual class thing. Everyone can use an Implement with their abilities/attacks. Some "need" them to function (a Fighter has his weapon, a Wizard has his wand, a Cleric has his holy symbol). Others can perform them without anything at hand (Warlock and I would guess a Monk/Martial Artist would still function unarmed), however they lose the bonuses from the items.

This would be something outside of both Power Source and Role, but rather a functionality of the class in question. Does it make sense if they can use their powers without Implement, or do they need them to work?
Regardless, it's not something specific to a Controller.

 

[Rechan]

So a Striker would have to fulfill the role a Rogue does? Or just what a Rogue, Ranger and Warlock share in common?

A rogue is a striker, and thus must fill the role of a striker. The role of the striker is mobility and doing buckets of damage under certain circumstances to single targets. Warlocks get curses, Rogues get sneak attack, Rangers get Quarry.

After going over the info we have on the classes, there's an entry for Warlock saying they don't need their Implement for their abilities.

After going over the info we have on the classes, there's an entry for Warlock saying they don't need their Implement for their abilities.

This sounds like more than just an Arcane vs Others thing.. but maybe more of an individual class thing. Everyone can use an Implement with their abilities/attacks. Some "need" them to function (a Fighter has his weapon, a Wizard has his wand, a Cleric has his holy symbol). Others can perform them without anything at hand (Warlock and I would guess a Monk/Martial Artist would still function unarmed), however they lose the bonuses from the items.

From the Wizard and Wizards' Implements article:

A wizard without an implement is like a slightly near-sighted man with glasses: The man can still see, but without his glasses, he can’t read the road sign across the way. Likewise, while wizard traditions are associated with a particular implement, a wizard need not possess or hold a given implement to use a power belonging to that tradition. For instance, a wizard belonging to the Hidden Flame order can cast the fire spell cinder storm even if he doesn’t own, has lost, or is not holding a magic staff. But if he does have a magic staff, it aids the accuracy of his attack, and his mastery of the Hidden Flame technique allows him to deal more damage with the spell.

A wizard doesn't need his implement to do some things.

 

[Cadfan]

1. I don't think its a controller, but if you enjoy it, play it. Its not like it stops beign fun if you and I disagree on his proper label.

2. Whirlwind strike is too good. A per encounter ability that does 2[W] to every adjacent enemy? That's like the Ranger's Split the Tree ability, with the rerolled attack switched out for the ability to hit more than two targets. Its too good for a per encounter power, even if its not ranged like Split the Tree.

3. Insightful Dodge is a nice way to carry over the "wis to ac" of the 3e fighter into an era with magically enhanced clothing. But, I personally don't like the idea of intentionally turning two entire stats into dump stats. Adding two stats together 3e style might not be a good plan for 4e ability score scaling... I'm not sure what should be done here.

Alright, here's why I don't think this guy is a controller.

Both defenders and controllers hinder enemies, and move them about. The difference is WHY they hinder or move enemies. What purpose does it serve?

Well, we don't know a TON about controllers yet, but we do know a fair amount about defenders. And the fighter certainly hinders and moves his enemies. He does so in order to keep those enemies nearby so that he can more efficiently bash them in the face. Tide of Iron? It might as well be renamed "The thing that sets up my Cleave attacks." And his attack of opportunity powers serve to keep enemies nearby, in bashing range, and even functions BY bashing. So, lots of bashing.

Now lets look at this monk. He seems to be pursuing the same goals.

Slowing Strike: Why would a monk want a nearby enemy slowed? It doesn't stop them from attacking. Oh yeah! So they can't run very far away, and he can kick them in the head. Defender.

Trip: Why would a monk want to trip someone? They can still get up and attack. Oh yeah! So he can kick them in the head when they get up, and again when they can't run away. Defender.

Whirlwind Attack: Too good for its level. Also, in my opinion, an area of attack with an area of "the reach of my arms" falls under defender work. Its like Cleave, except bigger. Defender

Twisting Defense: Defensive, doesn't really have an associated role.

Throw: Keeps enemies nearby for better head kicking. Defender.

Stunning Blow: Honestly, could be lots of roles. Would fit as a sap attack for a striker, for example. This is ok though, not everything has to be solidly in a particular role.

So... anyways, the overall point of this monk seems to be to stop enemies from getting away while he beats them down. That makes him a defender. It also outlines why its so hard to create a martial defender. You're already dealing with a subset of the overall list of abilities a defender might have, simply because it isn't quite plausible for a martial character to be throwing ki fireballs. And amongst that subset, you're in competition with another character role that already borrowed a big portion.

Anyways, I'm not writing this to diss your monk class. I like it! I just think its a Defender. Why not accept that, lighten up on the pushing/tripping theme, and add some solid Defender type powers? Given that Defenders already push and hinder, you can undoubtedly make a good, solid Defender who focuses on the pushing and hindering more so than the existing classes do.

 

[ZetaStriker]

On the topic of Martial Controllers... I have a hard time seeing the Monk as one. In fact, the only two good examples of Martial Controllers that come to mind are some sort of specialty archer(although that might be stepping into the Arcane Archer's territory...) or something like a Siege Engineer, although the latter would be very difficult to pull off in most situations. Not sure if something like an Alchemist, with the standard alchemy projectiles(tanglefoot bags, etc) and more as powers, would fit... but then again, I wouldn't know what power source to apply to that sort of class. Maybe Eberron's Artificer will give us a hint later on, who knows?

 

[Olfactatron]

Power: If you take a full round action to use a monk attack power, you can add your strength modifier to the damage.

I read through the thread and this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere; There aren't full round actions anymore. And as far as I can tell move actions aren't used for anything except moving. So I would probably makethis a class feature akin to "spend a minor action to add your strength bonus to damage when using a monk attack power." Which kinda encroaches on the striker's territory.

As a side note, the monk reimagined as a divine striker gets the closest to it's 3e roots.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'd just like to throw in the 1st draft of a monk power I've thought of. No prizes for guessing the source.

Monk attack, Encounter
Rising Dragon Punch
Leaping into the air, you deliver a devastating uppercut to your foe that sends him flying back from you.
Wis vs AC, damage 2W+wis and push target 3 squares.

I'm not entirely clear on the correct format if someone would like to tidy it up, but you get the idea.

Of course, it's also obligatory for the Monk's player to shout "Sho-ryu-ken!" at the gaming table. And I'm guessing you could do the Hadoken as a ranged daily power, too.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I want to see a double kick. The monk flys up and delivers a kick each to two adjacent opponents.

And also, what's that column of air called you can deliver with a fist up to 20'? That would be cool.

If the monk could pick one enemy up and throw him into another one that would make me glee.

Of course any monk worth his salt should be able to piggy-back on big monsters and deal damage to the biggie and hamper it at the same time.

 

[hong]

Honestly, 4E monks should steal from Soul Calibur instead of Street Fighter. That game is for BUTTONMASHERS.

 

[glass]

I think there is a difference between monster controllers and PC controllers. The PC ones seems to be expected to have some form of AoE.

Yeah, it is a shame that they chose the same name for a monster role and a class role in this case, when they seem to be quite different things.

FWIW I'll join the chorus of 'that's not a controller'.


glass.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Honestly, 4E monks should steal from Soul Calibur instead of Street Fighter. That game is for BUTTONMASHERS.

Oh yes. Although everyone in Soul Caliber waves weapons around, but Streetfighter characters tend to fight unarmed (apart from that dirty cheater Vega). And Streetfighter characters shout their moves out as they do them, which makes them easier to name.

Back on topic - I think a Martial Controller could work with lots of throwing, tripping and disarming powers, but a Martial Striker would be a better use of the equivalent of the 3e Monk.