Ranged Defender: Doable?
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
Also, I think one of the things Wizards realized is that there are -already- plenty of classes that have a full range of powers (usually except at wills) that poach another class's scthick. Avengers can play single-target controller if they want to; Paladins have everything leaderish they need except an encounter heal; clerics have a full range of encounter and daily control prayers (and psions typically play much more as leaders without healing than controllers, preventing damage with one at-will and putting down bulls-eyes with another, but that's a special case), etc. What makes a class fit its role as a primary is its features -- the defender's mark, the leader's encounter heals (and at will buffs), the striker's damage (or in the case of Avengers, to-hit) bonus, and the controller's control and area at-wills. As long as your new subclass doesn't have access to those from the original class, poaching isn't really a big deal.
(and yes, it is a big deal that the sentinel -can- poach these things, but it can't poach wild shape, at least).
(and yes, it is a big deal that the sentinel -can- poach these things, but it can't poach wild shape, at least).
You lost me. Sentinel and Slayer are not subclasses, they are standard essentials classes (from what I can tell in the Compendium), and there is no "Sentinel Druid" (Compendium again). Additionally, I want a pre-essentials ranged defender, not essentials. My group has come to the conclusion that pre-essentials and essentials do not mix as well as people would like to think, especially in our games where the weaknesses of each type become more obvious. Neither of my groups allow essentials characters as we believe an essentials game to be a different animal, more so for the DM in terms of encounter design than for the players.
I thinkthe Ranged Defender is doable. I think many breakthroughs has occurred in 4e class design, and I think there are multiple things that folks would have said "you can't do that with 4e" back when it first came out that is now out.
This is off topic, but I would really like to see you start a thread on this. I just came back and just started looking at the essentials, so I would enjoy a discussion thread on this topic.
This is incorrect. They are "essentials classes" (and have any comonality at all) only in that they are both printed in the Essentials books. But there's nothing particularly special about the Essentials books except that it introduces the non-ADEU subclasses, and the classes introduced in that book are all over the map in terms of how they operate.
A Sentinel is a druid, and can take most Druid powers (exceptions include only encounter powers and wild shape powers). A human Sentinel can easily be as good a ranged controller as a normal druid while still acting fully as a leader. They are a very wide subclass.
A slayer is a fighter -- but, lacking at wills, dailies, and encounter powers, is very limited subclass. The same for Knight.
By the same token, a mage is a different subclass of Wizard than the original wizard, now titled "arcanist", but there's really nothing "essentials-style" to a mage at all; they're a totally normal subclass with some different base class features and one fewer implement proficiency.
Functionally, there are two tech changes that were introduced in Essentails:
1. Classes are now defined as Class(Subclass), where Class tags powers and feats, and Subclass determines the range of class features available and the class substructure. Presuming that Wizards eventually (as they seem like to do) recodes all existing classes in this paradigm, Earlier classes will become subclasses of their overall class; we already know several of the names in question (Fighter->Weaponmaster, Cleric->Templar, Wizard->Arcanist) but not all of them. This doesn't necessarily involve a change in mechanics; the Mage doesn't include a mechanics change at all, the Templar is no more limited than the PH1 Warlock, and the vast majority of other new subclasses are only limited by restricted at-will choice (pretty normal, and avoidable by being Human as it was for the Warlock) and/or limited or no choice in terms of encounter powers.
2. The introduction of classes with highly variant structure; from the (non-essentials) no-power-choice Vampire to the Stance+U Slayer. Particularly of interest here are the no-daily classes, as they have only a single daily resource (surges/hp) instead of the dual sets of daily resources other classes here.
It sounds to me like you're saying you don't like #2, or rather don't like them mixed with some other classes. That's off topic--particularly since I'm talking about #1 that the tech now allows for different subclasses (call them different classes if you like--though they can share powers, so not so much) that share a theme and overall means of operating, and thus are the same class. By creating a new class (and here, I think the Runepriest and Seeker were mistakes) or rather sublcass of an existing class, you get access to a pile of useful material that immediately makes your class useful directly along its flavor lines, rather than having to...not simply build a new thing from scratch, but having to duplicate material that has already been printed in order to fill your new class out in more or less the same lines as the old one.
Rechan: I agree that a ranged defender is doable -- but either you need to explicitly expose them despite operating at range (thus range gives them target choice, not invulnerability), or you need to factor their ability to operate at range, get behind cover, and sneak around into their defenses when balancing them.
So, a ranged defender might have wizard HP and defenses, for instance, but have the ability to operate from a significant distance, with an extra defense against ranged/area attacks (maybe a NAD bonus, or damage reduction vs non-melee). Opponents would have to make the same choice about "do I target the defender with a high chance of failure, or get punished for ignoring her" they do for, say, a fighter -- but instead of the thing providing a high chance of failure being great HP and defenses, it would be the fact that the defender is 10 squares away and hiding between a rock; the overall chances of taking her down are similar because she's squishy, but her defenses are the defenses of a ranged attacker, not of a melee character. [one one level, this is a word trick, as the above feels more like a specialized controller rather than a defender who takes hits. But on another level it makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter; you can play terminology games all you want and I won't care; the long and short of it is that one could make a balanced and interesting character this way].
Another approach would be a "stealth defender" -- probably one who would operate ducking in and out of melee (and probably also be very squishiy). I'd say that you could build one out of an Assassin, but the "Assassin" class just can't really lend itself to anything except a striker; to make such a class a sibling of the Assassin, you'd more or less have to make the Assassin a subclass of a larger concept covering the idea; Night Shadow or somethng. So how about making it a new Rogue; a Rogue doesn't technically -have- to be a striker, thematically. Call it Shadow Dancer [yeah, I know, that's a HoS paragon path. But Wizards doesn't shy away from name conflicts, I don't see why I should]. A Shadow Dancer would be a defender rogue, with rogue hp and defenses (so decent, but not great), but with good stealth abilities and the ability to defend at medium ranges. Marking mechanics are overdone, and we've seen the problems with marking auras (plus they don't work for ranged defenders at all), so lets say SD should use a "zone of control" mechanic that represents their attention -- a burst 1 within 5 (make it burst X within 5*X, where X is tier?); they can punish attacks made by creatures in their ZoC that do not include them as a target, and penalize such attacks as long as they have LoE to the zone. Give them the ability to hide behind allies, and they can give enemies nighmares where they're right in front of the squishy wizard, and still have to choose whether to attack the wiz and eat a SD hit (and still maybe miss) or wander around looking for the annoying Dancer.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
The Sentinel is unquestionably a Druid, the Slayer unquestionably a Fighter. They're powers are all labeled 'Druid' and 'Fighter' respectively. The Essentials taxonomy is distinct from that of 4e, with Class being little more than a vague grouping, and sub-class really defining the character. So, yes, you can now have a Druid (or Fighter, or any other Class) sub-class of any role. So far, with have Controller Rangers, Striker Fighters, Controller Warlocks, and Leader Druids. Doubtless more on the way.
The problem with the ranged defender who attracts melee attacks is that he's really a 'ranged /and/ melee' defender. The problem with the ranged defender who uses a 'pet' is that the /pet/ can end up being seen as the defender, and as a melee defender to boot. Neither really quite fulfills the concept.
A dedicated ranged defender - who attracts ranged attacks and encourages enemies to keep up a ranged duel with him rather than melee him or range/melee alllies - is a more niche concept, because D&D monsters are really weighted much more towards melee. It might work beautifully in an unusual campaign, like a more modern setting for instance, where ranged enemies are the norm, but in standard D&D would have a tough time filling the defender role (just as a conventional melee defender would have a tough time dealing constantly with artillery).
The problem with the ranged defender who attracts melee attacks is that he's really a 'ranged /and/ melee' defender. The problem with the ranged defender who uses a 'pet' is that the /pet/ can end up being seen as the defender, and as a melee defender to boot. Neither really quite fulfills the concept.
A dedicated ranged defender - who attracts ranged attacks and encourages enemies to keep up a ranged duel with him rather than melee him or range/melee alllies - is a more niche concept, because D&D monsters are really weighted much more towards melee. It might work beautifully in an unusual campaign, like a more modern setting for instance, where ranged enemies are the norm, but in standard D&D would have a tough time filling the defender role (just as a conventional melee defender would have a tough time dealing constantly with artillery).
Tony: See my last. If one thinks of a character's defenses as the whole package, rather than just AC+NADs+HP, you can build a true "ranged defender" class without a pet by making the character -weak- in melee, with its defenses against melee being "acting at range" and powers that let it escape (rather like quite a number of controller monsters). Since it's giving enemies the same "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice of any other defender, it would still be sitting in the "defender" role despite not going with the historical -reason- for the defender (that is, giving the fighter a reason to be mechanically different from a rogue by letting her high defenses and HP be actively useful, rather than, as in earlier editions, a benefit in exchange for high level flexibility).
DracoSuave
First Post
Defenders soak attacks and mitigate damage by being harder to hit and by having healing be more efficient on them.
Most monsters defenders deal with are melee. The problem with a ranged defender as a concept is its self defeating... if you are taking attacks, you are no longer ranged. You cant really be 'keep them at range' and 'force them close' at the same time. Range is at best a tool to get them to close, not a gameplan.
Pet based is as close as can get.
Most monsters defenders deal with are melee. The problem with a ranged defender as a concept is its self defeating... if you are taking attacks, you are no longer ranged. You cant really be 'keep them at range' and 'force them close' at the same time. Range is at best a tool to get them to close, not a gameplan.
Pet based is as close as can get.
There's a defender that has more efficient healing? What, do they receive more HP when healed or something?
So let me propose a question and let's set everyhing aside.
Set aside what happens when the Defender engages in melee with a target. Forget about Hps, defenses and the like.
The big, mechanics dividing line between a Controller and a Defendert: the Controller will never have the Mark/Immediate Interrupt attack suite that the Defenders have. Controllers can't do anything once the enemy has made an attack, the Defenders can. Controllers are prevention-based, not reactionary.
Can a ranged marking system work? A system where the Defender's marking/punishment power works at range/functions primarily at range.
Bringing it back to the fore, the Swordmage's wards work to some extent, depending on build. One teleports to the target, but the other just negates damage. The Paladin does similar, in that the paladin does not need to be Next to the enemy, he just needs to attack (even from range).
So, would a system where the Defender penalizes targets from range be workable for a class?
Set aside what happens when the Defender engages in melee with a target. Forget about Hps, defenses and the like.
The big, mechanics dividing line between a Controller and a Defendert: the Controller will never have the Mark/Immediate Interrupt attack suite that the Defenders have. Controllers can't do anything once the enemy has made an attack, the Defenders can. Controllers are prevention-based, not reactionary.
Can a ranged marking system work? A system where the Defender's marking/punishment power works at range/functions primarily at range.
Bringing it back to the fore, the Swordmage's wards work to some extent, depending on build. One teleports to the target, but the other just negates damage. The Paladin does similar, in that the paladin does not need to be Next to the enemy, he just needs to attack (even from range).
So, would a system where the Defender penalizes targets from range be workable for a class?
Last edited:
