D&D 4E The New 4e Class Patterns and what is missing

[Lanefan]

Could the Divine Controller be Necromancer?

And where does Illusionist fit in?

Both are - in theory - coming down the pipe eventually.

Lanefan

 

[Steely Dan]

Unless new info has been revealed, he has been mentioned as the ivine striker on the youtube vids, in posts on the wotc boards, and I'm pretty sure in a couple of blogs. I actually think one of the early articles even said it.

If the ranger is divine and still has spell-casting I will be severely bummed. I've never dug the spell-casting (half-ass) aspect of the ranger class (since 1st Ed).

I like my rangers to be gritty, smelly, Green Beret types.

 

[glass]

A while ago, one of the designers said (paraphrased) "The Role/power source grid isn't a set thing that we feel we must fill out every option."

Yep. IIRC, they went further than that described some combinations as 'ridiculous'. If I had to guess, I'd say they were thinking of Martial Controller when they said that.


glass.

 

[Steely Dan]

Yep. IIRC, they went further than that described some combinations as 'ridiculous'. If I had to guess, I'd say they were thinking of Martial Controller when they said that.

Which funnily enough some people are convinced that the Ranger will be a Martial Controller on some boards.


But yeah, it's true; I remember reading a designer saying something along the lines of their not obsessing about filling out the power source/role grid.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I like the idea of a martial controller who leaves enemies demoralized and shaken. Kind of a reverse-warlord, if debuffs are built into the warlord class.

Though they've already said they see the monk as a melee striker, I could see a monk performing a controller role. If you combine and expand the general concepts of "stunning fist" and "flurry of blows," a monk could weave through a battlefield leaving enemies stunned and hurt. Probably not going to happen, but maybe an idea that could be applied to another class.

Someone posted the idea of a 'Tactician' class that functioned similarly to a 'reverse warlord' at some point. Effectively did the say thing as a Warlord in reverse...demoralizing based debuffs and effects caused by exploiting terrain.

The problem with a monk as a controller, IMO, is that many of the abilities people point to as possibilities are really more in line with a Defender/Striker hybrid. 'Sticky' abilities combined with a Striker's high mobility rather then a proper Controllers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Unless new info has been revealed, he has been mentioned as the ivine striker on the youtube vids, in posts on the wotc boards, and I'm pretty sure in a couple of blogs. I actually think one of the early articles even said it. Since those are easier to find I'll look for it.

Clearly defined as a martial striker in all official sources I've seen (some early speculation that it was a divine striker got squished early on)

 

[TerraDave]

Druids and Barbarians: there have been some posts implying that these will draw from a "nature" source.

Divine Ranger: I also remember this as divine. But R&C doesn't confirm that. However, you will end up with 2 martial strikers if its not.

Controlers: this is what is short. We will have two defenders, two leaders, three strikers, and one controller. Nothing concrete on what would fit that role. Maybe Psion?

Power sources: we also know psionics is coming as a power, along with nature, as noted above, and what else? chi?

Is this really working?: My guess is that this system is going to start to fray. Or already is. All classes have a lot of things in common, more in past editions, but at the same time, a wizard is really not like a warlock in flavour, and paladin is only kinda sorta like a cleric. In terms of role, as they go forward it will probably also start to blur, ie druid may not fall clearly in one role.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Will edit post to reflect


Also the reason I had the 4th "Other Power" in there is some of the desciptions I've read dont lean themsevles clearly to arcane or divine. And as yet I dont think its been confirmed they are the only power courses in the 4e world.

If Druidic power is considered Divine then Barbarian would then be a divine defneder as well

In my mind a Monk seems more Psionic to me, always has , power drawn from within exclusive from gods. I guess when Psionics come out they'll probably offer a Pisionc Defender, Controller and Leader , since a Psionic Striker just screams Monk at me.

I seem to recall both druids and barbarians having the "primal" power source in R&C.

 

[DreamChaser]

Is this really working?: My guess is that this system is going to start to fray. Or already is. All classes have a lot of things in common, more in past editions, but at the same time, a wizard is really not like a warlock in flavour, and paladin is only kinda sorta like a cleric. In terms of role, as they go forward it will probably also start to blur, ie druid may not fall clearly in one role.

I don't know that it is accurate to call the role breakdown a "system"; I see it more as a rubric - a way of generally evaluating the role / purpose of the class in combat. Clearly there is some wiggle room as we can see that both the cleric and the warlord in R&C are pretty heavily armored and thus could probably survive well on the front lines. Additionally, some of the curse "debuff" effects of the warlock clearly have controller implications. Still, knowing that a class is a defender vs. a striker can help inform the overall types of abilities the class is likely to have and where in the party they are likely to be.

It may be easier to approach it like the Myers-Briggs or Enneagram personality sorters: you have points toward various categories and the ones that are highest are the ones you "are" when in reality it is (thankfully) far more complex than that.

A paladin might score 5 as defender, 3 for leader, and 1 in both controller and striker while the fighter could be 7 defender, 2 striker, 1 leader, and 0 controller.

Also, they have mentioned (in R&C for one) that druids will not be the same in 4e as in 3e. They are going to emphasize the shapechanger aspect rather than the spell caster / summoner aspect (IIRC). Still, whether shapechanger or summoner, I think there is strong leanings toward controller.


IMO, to try to turn the roles into a hard and fast system is missing the point. It is a form of shorthand to help understand interclass relationships: not a class - subclass system designed to shackle different characters to just healing, fighting, backstabbing, or artillery. That system already exists: 2e

DC

 

[Rechan]

Is this really working?: My guess is that this system is going to start to fray. Or already is. All classes have a lot of things in common, more in past editions, but at the same time, a wizard is really not like a warlock in flavour, and paladin is only kinda sorta like a cleric. In terms of role, as they go forward it will probably also start to blur, ie druid may not fall clearly in one role.

Roles are just the following:

1) Something the Designers use to attribute what primary "job" a class does, and design said class to do that "job" in their own unique way.

2) Tell players "This is what this class does in combat/contributes to the party in a fight."

It's not a hard, fast grid, but coming out and just saying, "This is what these guys are built to do, primarily, in a fight."