Ranger should have been Martial Controllers

[Minigiant]

I think you could make a martial controller, but it would make more sense as a monk (who isn't martial, but can look martial to an observer). Give them a bunch of abilities that let them move X squares and hit every enemy they run by (some abilities like this would grant status effects or push enemies). Give them some interrupts or stance-like things that let them stop ranged attacks that go within 2 squares of them (and possibly send said ranged attack back at an opponent). A few kinds of abilities like that and you effectively have a controller. You could claim it is martial, but it makes more sense as something slightly different.

That monk you described is a striker/defender hybrid.

The controller makes the enemy less effective (just like the leader make his allies more effective). This is done by

Nuking minions (killing 10-25% of the enemies' XP is makes them less effective)
Slowing/Immobilizing melee enemies (let's see you flank when you can't move)
Weakening/dazing/stunning enemy damage dealers
Lowing the attack of enemy controllers and leaders

all at range (so you can take them whenever they are).

 

[drachasor]

That monk you described is a striker/defender hybrid.

The controller makes the enemy less effective (just like the leader make his allies more effective). This is done by

Nuking minions (killing 10-25% of the enemies' XP is makes them less effective)
Slowing/Immobilizing melee enemies (let's see you flank when you can't move)
Weakening/dazing/stunning enemy damage dealers
Lowing the attack of enemy controllers and leaders

all at range (so you can take them whenever they are).

I agree with all of those save that it has to be at range. The monk I described is most definitely a controller, able to impart multiple status effects on numerous enemies by striking them as he runs by. Granted, a monk would need some abilities to boost his speed (so he can move out quickly into and out of the enemy position), but that's well in line with what monks had before. One of his class features would undoubtedly be an attack-on-the-run-esque beyond a healthy speed increase.

In any case, I don't see how I described a defender at all, since nothing in my post was about making allies more effective.

 

[generalhenry]

Every Sorcerer I've ever seen was a walking artillery platform due to the low count of spells. Sorcerers would be strikers long before controllers as far as I can tell.

Sorcerers where wizards with different numbers of spells known/per day.

They're an artifact of bards being given a more flexible casting system than wizards.

In 4E all classes have the same numbers of powers per day. While WOTC is sure to make a Sorcerer class, the archetype is redundant.

 

[lutecius]

a power source is a single paragraph.

The game needed an archer, and I think rangers fit best as martial anyways.

So do barbarians, and yet they're primal.

I'm not saying the ranger wasn't needed, just that it was the last class confirmed for phb1 (some iconic classes and abilities are deliberately withheld to sell the next phbs. It was just a matter of which would cause the least outrage)

And I think I read somewhere that they wanted to introduce a new power source in each phb. I don't think the idea stuck though, seeing how many classes will be in phb2.

Completely agree on the controller.

 

[Minigiant]

I agree with all of those save that it has to be at range. The monk I described is most definitely a controller, able to impart multiple status effects on numerous enemies by striking them as he runs by. Granted, a monk would need some abilities to boost his speed (so he can move out quickly into and out of the enemy position), but that's well in line with what monks had before. One of his class features would undoubtedly be an attack-on-the-run-esque beyond a healthy speed increase.

In any case, I don't see how I described a defender at all, since nothing in my post was about making allies more effective.

Stop nearby attacks is very defenderish. Running around hitting people is striker-like. What you describe kinda exists.

You are describing a rogue(or TWF ranger) multiclassed with fighter (or the other way around).

 

[drachasor]

Stop nearby attacks is very defenderish. Running around hitting people is striker-like. What you describe kinda exists.

You are describing a rogue(or TWF ranger) multiclassed with fighter (or the other way around).

Stopping ranged attacks in an area (particular with some stance-like mechanics or better yet an zone-effect) is controller-ish because it makes ranged attackers less effective. A defender-like ability would probably block one attack and make the attack strike the defender instead; very different. Running around and hitting ONE person is very rogue-like. Running around and hitting EVERYONE you pass in a single round is not.

 

[balard]

Another controller we will see is the Artifice and all the Summoners classes. A extra creature limits their movement AND hit then, making then less effective.

 

[Victoly]

Another reason that strikers are represented more heavily in the class list is that party balance can typically support two or three strikers for each defender and leader in the party.

 

[Zsig]

Druids, Monks, Barbarians, and all the roles discussion aside, I do think that rangers would fit better as Controllers.

The idea of slowing targets, interrupting actions, dazing, knocking prone (KD), placing snares/traps, spreading poison and such fits well with the class, and not the one hit kills.

I really think that the designers should have looked a bit more into Guild Wars over World of Warcraft for a second... ... ...(but as you can notice from my avatar, I'm biased)

 

[Witchfinder General]

We just need people to realize that some source-role combinations won't work. "Martial Controller" is a prime example. (IMO, Divine Striker is another.)

I was planning to use Battle Pope as inspiration for a cleric or paladin, but divine striker would be even better.