Ranger (Hunter) is a Martial and Primal Controller

[Tony Vargas]

I'm just saying that it seems to me that the Seeker and the Battlemind (and some other classes, to a lesser degree) don't appear to have a clear archetypal reason for existing.

The Battlemind, Warden, Ardent, Avenger, Swordmage, and Invoker all seem to exist for little reason beyond the grid-filling WotC says they don't do. Yet every box in the grid is filled /except/ the Martial Controller. No controlling without magic, here, have a little dose of Primal, now the spirits will let you be a Controller.

It's not just about having a mechanical difference, either. Is the Seeker any more different from the Ranger than the Slayer is from the Brawler?

In terms of the archetypes they model, the Seeker is a great deal more different from the Ranger than the Slayer is from the Greatweapon Fighter. Ecru and Taupe are more different from eachother than the Knight is from the Guardian Fighter.

Now, it's possible to make new archetypes. D&D does this a whole lot. I think (debatably) 4e has done it with the Warlord.

Do you mean manufacture original archetypes from whole cloth? Or do you just mean model an archetype that's never been done in D&D before? Because the archetype the warlord models - the 'leader of men' - is one of the most well-represented archetypes not just in fantasy, or accross genres, but to the point of being one of the few heroic fantasy archetypes that could be said to be 'real.' It's just that the AD&D Fighter attracting men-at-arms to the stronghold he build at 9th level didn't really do a lot to model said archetype.

Because saying "I am a Seeker" is meaningless to anyone who isn't big into D&D.

And entirely the wrong meaning to fans of Terry Goodkind.

 

[drothgery]

The Battlemind, Warden, Ardent, Avenger, Swordmage, and Invoker all seem to exist for little reason beyond the grid-filling WotC says they don't do. Yet every box in the grid is filled /except/ the Martial Controller. No controlling without magic, here, have a little dose of Primal, now the spirits will let you be a Controller.

I think you're overstating things.

The 'guy who uses a sword and magic' is a pretty classic archetype, and needs a dedicated class to be viable. It could have been a striker rather than a defender and worked on different stats (and I expect the Bladesinger in the forthcoming Neverwinter book to be just that), but something like the swordmage was more than just gap-filling.

The unarmored, intellectual divine caster most definitely has a place, and the Cleric does not do that well; maybe another leader instead of a controller like the invoker would have been better, but again, it was hardly pure gap-filling.

Until WotC decided they could have builds of the same class fill different roles (which I don't think was a good idea; it's probably the only thing in the Essentials line that I really don't like), the various things a 3.x druid could do had to be split up into different classes or tossed by the wayside. Melee druids were really good in 3.x; having nothing viable to convert such a character to in 4e would have been bad.

Psychic Warriors are almost as old as D&D psionics. The Battlemind is just the 4e version.

 

[DracoSuave]

I would rule this as stated under Effect in the Rules Compendium (p. 96):



Yes, aspect of the cunning fox is not actually part of the attack power, but I would still rule it as if it were, in a virtual sense. The RAW may be less than clear here.

Firstly, any power of the Ranged attack type and multiple target is considered multiple attacks. Secondly, the stance is not an effect of an attack power. It's a triggered ability, with no listed end per turn. But even if your interpretation is correct:

Follow me:

Power A: Ranged Basic Attack. We know what this does.
Power B: Use Ranged Basic Attacks against each enemy in a given square and adjacent to it.
Power C: Every time you hit or miss, you shift 2.

Power B never involves hits or misses. It is a power that allows you to use a second power again multiple targets, ranged basic attack. Each of those Ranged Basic Attacks is their own power, and each is their own distinct attack.

Power B will never trigger Power C, because Power B never attacks anything. If 'one effect per power' were true, it wouldn't matter because Power C's 'addition' would apply to Power A, where the actual hit and miss happens, not Power B, which does nothing of the sort.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Certainly Sorceror, Warlock, and Wizard would be cause for confusion.
...
The Runepriest also in my mind fails the test. I don't mind the battlemind as much...

The Battlemind, Warden, Ardent, Avenger, Swordmage, and Invoker all seem to exist for little reason beyond the grid-filling WotC says they don't do.

See, it's a subjective call.

For me, the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard are different enough. There's a conceptual divide between "Magic is in my blood," "Magic was taught to me by Satan," and "Magic I learned from studying books" that gives you different sorts of characters in the end. It's also different from the Psion's "Magic is my thoughts." Sorcerer would be an example of kind of creating an archetype in D&D: here is how blood mages are very different from book mages and devil-mages and mind-mages.

Runepriests are a solid archetype, but it does feel like "rune" is something that should be added on top of the class system, something that any class can benefit from, not something relegated to a single class.

The Warden I could see as a Druid build; the Ardent as a Psion build; the Avenger as a Paladin build; the Swordmage as a Fighter build; Invoker as a cleric build.

Though I think the Ardent, Avenger, Swordmage, and Invoker all do carve out their own niches pretty well, too. "Divine Assassin," "Magic is emotion," and "I am the God's Prophet" (vs. the clerics "I am the God's Servant" or the Paladin's "I am the God's Protector") all seem fairly distinct.

But yeah, it's a judgement call. Where the line falls is going to be different for different people. I do think most of us can probably agree that, currently in 4e, there's some classes that we would probably cut and re-assign as builds to existing classes (helping them pick powers that belong to both).

WotC decided they could have builds of the same class fill different roles (which I don't think was a good idea; it's probably the only thing in the Essentials line that I really don't like)

Out of curiosity, what do you think the negative effects of this will be? Each PC will still only fill one role. The Slayer can pick up a few defenderish powers from the Fighter core list, but I think that kind of helps reinforce the flavor of the Fighter class, personally. Everyone's a little melee defendery.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 'guy who uses a sword and magic' is a pretty classic archetype, and needs a dedicated class to be viable.

In 3.x, yes, you needed a dedicated class or PrC to make the martial/magical combo work, because casters just didn't multiclass efficiently. In 4e, you just have to get stats to align, and MCing or Hybriding delivers, you don't have a 'caster level' to worry about. An Artful Rogue/Fey Warlock, for instance, or a Fighter/Shaman, or an Eladrin Tactical Warlord/Wizard/Wizard of the Spiral Tower, or a Dragonborn Paladin/Dragon Sorcerer (ooh...).

Of course, it's Essentials that's mixing sources, and that may be because there is no intent to include multiclassing or hybrids in Essentials, in which case, yes, as in 3.5, dedicated 'gish' classes become necessary.

The unarmored, intellectual divine caster most definitely has a place, and the Cleric does not do that well; maybe another leader instead of a controller like the invoker would have been better, but again, it was hardly pure gap-filling.

The Invoker gets chainmail. And, really, armored or not isn't that big a deal anymore. The distinction between the Cleric and Invoker is quite subtle, if you had an Invoker concept, before, you could have done it as a Cleric with no problem, you'd have been a leader rather than controller, but you could have covered the /concept/.

Until WotC decided they could have builds of the same class fill different roles (which I don't think was a good idea; it's probably the only thing in the Essentials line that I really don't like), the various things a 3.x druid could do had to be split up into different classes or tossed by the wayside. Melee druids were really good in 3.x; having nothing viable to convert such a character to in 4e would have been bad.

Splitting up classes in that sense was more about 3.x classes being radically overpowered. You still can't do CoDzilla, and that a good thing. Letting builds fill different roles isn't such a bad thing, though, for that reason. It's still 'splitting a class up,' but if it lets it do something cool it could do in the past in a balanced way, there's no harm.

Psychic Warriors are almost as old as D&D psionics. The Battlemind is just the 4e version.

D&D Psionics goes back to the 1e PH. It's always been a horrid, grafted-on bit of sci-fi crap, though, so, whatever...

 

[drothgery]

Out of curiosity, what do you think the negative effects of this will be? Each PC will still only fill one role. The Slayer can pick up a few defenderish powers from the Fighter core list, but I think that kind of helps reinforce the flavor of the Fighter class, personally. Everyone's a little melee defendery.

You need more information than class to determine if a party has all the roles filled, and there are almost certainly weird synergies between the Essentials builds and feats, powers, and paragon paths not designed for them.

 

[BobTheNob]

I like that in "Aspect of the Viper" they scale the damage and NOT the to hit bonus. (One of my great bugbears is scaling feats/powers e.t.c. d20 based bonus's).

As to the discussion, I do like Essentials builds. I think they are clever, simple when you need them to be, but I think an experienced player could get some mileage out of them. The pre-essentials builds require far more dedication (my non dedicated players use there characters VERY clumsily) and to me are a bit more "expert only" (to a degree...).

I just wish they had come up with the essentials classes as the original PHB1 classes, and the Pandoras Box of the existing classes wasnt already open.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4e was harshly criticized for being 'dumbed down' when it came out. Now, it's "expert only?"

 

[AngryMojo]

4e was harshly criticized for being 'dumbed down' when it came out. Now, it's "expert only?"

Just like there's a thread in the General Discussion stating it's too complicated for new players. There's nothing 4e could have been that wouldn't have angered the fanbase.

 

[I'm A Banana]

4e was harshly criticized for being 'dumbed down' when it came out. Now, it's "expert only?"

It's entirely possible that different people have different experiences with the game and different thresholds for what they consider "complex" or "simple."

It's also possible that the game is simple in some ways and complex in others, and that different tables value different sorts of simplicity and complexity to different degrees.

Those who criticize 4e are not a monolithic entity adhering to a strict dogma or attack plan.

They are simply people with a problem or two with the game.

Different people, different problems.