What classes will be in the martial power book?

[Cadfan]

The problem with most postulated 'Martial Controllers' I see is that they're not REALLY Controllers...they're Strikers or Defenders with a few Control like abilities.

Amen. On top of that, some people seem to be confusing the natural overlap between defenders (mission: hamper enemies so that they hold still while you beat on them) and controllers (mission: hamper enemies so they stay over there, and don't come over here and beat on you). Just looking at the fact that enemies are being hampered is too high a level of abstraction. Of course everyone looks the same at that point. Even the rogue bludgeons people so that they grant combat advantage, or have other negative conditions. That doesn't make him a controller just because he imposed a negative condition on someone.

A lot of the martial controller ideas in this thread also have two other flaws: First, they're only really appropriate for high level characters. Low level characters probably shouldn't be running through the middle of the battlefield and disarming like 6 dudes, or firing a storm of arrows that hits everyone in a cone. So, what are these characters doing for the 15 levels it takes them to get to the point where its plausible for them to do these things? Second, there are a few vague balance issues involved. If a character can sprint through a battlefield safely, disarm like 6 dudes, and emerge on the other side, he basically has to take some kind of hit in normal combat power so that he doesn't overpower the regular fighter who can't do these things. But why, logically, would a guy who can accomplish something that impressive, be comparatively bad at fighting just one guy? He has to, for metagame balance reasons, but it doesn't make a ton of sense.

I'd love for some character classes (or paragon paths or whatever) which are intentionally designed to overlap multiple roles. But I'd prefer to just take the few genuinely controller-ish martial abilities out there and give them to the classes that they most fit, rather than to create entire new classes to stuff full of contrived material after we run out of actual controller material.

Take this hypothetical power:

Clearing Sweep: Per Day Ability. You swing your weapon in a full circle, forcing back every foe within reach. Make an attack against Will targeting all enemies that you threaten. Those enemies who fail automatically move one square directly away from you. Those who succeed may choose to move one square away from you, or remain in their current square. Those enemies still in a square you threaten after this attack is made receive a followup attack against AC.

Personally, I see that as a defender ability, but I know some people would disagree. Whatever. We COULD make a martial class and give this ability to it on the grounds that its sort of controller-ish. But why? Just give it to the fighter. From a fluff standpoint, it fits him best anyways. I'd love for the martial control abilities that DO exist to find a home. I just don't think there's enough meat there to create a whole, coherent, balanced class.

 

[TwoSix]

The problem with most postulated 'Martial Controllers' I see is that they're not REALLY Controllers...they're Strikers or Defenders with a few Control like abilities. The monk who leaps into a bunch of guys and stuns them all with a flurry of blows? A melee Striker as he's primarily dealing damage to them, the stun is a side effect. The Chain user who knocks down a bunch of guys at once while sticking close to the party? Defender; a controllerish defender, but he only effects people at melee range (Granted, it's a large melee range) who get close to the party. They're not controlling the field, they're attacking the people right next to them. The controller does area of effect damage/control AT RANGE.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't see any particular definition that says a controller has to be at range. Unfortunately, we only have one example of a controller, and that's the wizard, which makes it hard not to think of a controller that throws lightning bolts and walls of force.

However, a controller doesn't have to be that way. A controller only has a few vital characteristics.

1) Ability to damage multiple creatures in one action, ideally being able to kill minion-type creatures in one action.
2) Lower the number of viable tactical options for the enemy. The most common ways of doing this are movement restriction (wall of force), action restriction (slow), and debuffing (enervation).
3) While not necessary for his role, greater vulnerability to damage than a defender, and usually less than a striker or leader.

That's why I like a swashbuckler type as a martial controller. Quick slashes and swipes on multiple targets, ranged taunts to attract attention, hamstringing slashes, sapping the enemies will to fight by displays of incredible skill, all of these could be martial controller powers that fill a role without stepping on a fighter toes. Certainly there would be some overlap, but it isn't like a fighter and warlord won't have overlap, either. In general, you'll see more overlap between classes of a same power source, which is a helpful way to define the difference between power sources.

 

[Aristotle]

The difference is that most believable martial controller can only control the vicinity near them. Some of the proposed powers would allow them to control as much area as they could traverse in a round. A ranged controller can control the battlefield, which I think is the real prerequisite in my mind. They could theoretically exercise their role 40 squares ahead of themselves one round and 40 squares in the opposite direction the next.


The archer and the siege engine guy are the only options that seem to have that ability. Some of the proposed archer powers break the believability of a martial power source for me, but I guess we will have to see how fantastic things get for other martial characters before it can be thrown out completely. It does overlap quite a bit with Ranger though. The siege engine guy, while a variation of a tinker (which is a concept I'd like to see, though maybe under an Artifice power source) sounds like he needs a lot of time to set up. He'd be a perfectly viable controller maybe, so long as his gear was usable solo and didn't require the whole group to move/man them, but not really conducive to dungeon crawls and small band adventure.

 

[I'm A Banana]

On top of that, some people seem to be confusing the natural overlap between defenders (mission: hamper enemies so that they hold still while you beat on them) and controllers (mission: hamper enemies so they stay over there, and don't come over here and beat on you).

Not to really pick on Cadfan, but to call this out more in general:

That is not the controller's mission.

As far as I know, the only source for what a controller actually does, other than rampant speculation, is Races & Classes.

The controller's mission, as presented in Race & Classes, is to deal damage (not Striker-level damgae, but damage) to lots of enemies at once. The typical controller, the Wizard, does this, I'm guessing, with spells like Fireball and Magic Missile and various other multi-target spells, probably mostly at range (though things like Burning Hands or various self-centered burst effects may be more close-range).

I haven't seen anything yet that suggests the controllers, to fill that role in the party, need to do anything other than this, or anything more than this. They are anti-minion machines, anti-army devices, they control the battlefield by making it, in general, a bad idea to form a close group of people that they can easily blast out with a single spell.

Everything else is icing.

So any concept that can deal damge to several creatures at once is a valid Controller concept, as far as we know, be it through fireballs, through arrows, through throwing axes (and goblins), through tricks with chain weapons, through a quick movement and multiple attacks....any of these fill the role of the controller.

So some defenses:

The monk who leaps into a bunch of guys and stuns them all with a flurry of blows? A melee Striker as he's primarily dealing damage to them, the stun is a side effect.

The stun doesn't matter. What matters is how many targets he can hit with that flurry. If it's "more than most other classes," and if that's something the class can do regularly, it fills the Controller role. A flurry of blows is controller territory because it can hit many enemies, and if the class has a steady, dependable flurry of blows, it can fill the controller role.

Chain user who knocks down a bunch of guys at once while sticking close to the party? Defender; a controllerish defender, but he only effects people at melee range (Granted, it's a large melee range) who get close to the party.

The range doesn't figure into it much. It only does in figuring out basically how he manages to hit that many creatures. If he's got a large radius with his spiked chain, though, wide enough to catch several critters in it's spinning vortex of doom, he can fill the controller role.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Amen. On top of that, some people seem to be confusing the natural overlap between defenders (mission: hamper enemies so that they hold still while you beat on them) and controllers (mission: hamper enemies so they stay over there, and don't come over here and beat on you). Just looking at the fact that enemies are being hampered is too high a level of abstraction. Of course everyone looks the same at that point. Even the rogue bludgeons people so that they grant combat advantage, or have other negative conditions. That doesn't make him a controller just because he imposed a negative condition on someone.

I am just going to say that I don't agree with your definition here. If you ask me, hampering is the role of a Controller. If someone other than a Controller hampers his foes, than that character is acting slightly controllerish, rather than acting purely in their role. Also, I don't agree with the presumption of fragility that you make in stating the controllers role. I can imagine that Leaders or Strikers can vary greatly in how tough they are (a Warlord will not be the same as the inevitable Bard in this regard, I am certain), so I have no problem with a Controller who can actually take damage.

A lot of the martial controller ideas in this thread also have two other flaws: First, they're only really appropriate for high level characters. Low level characters probably shouldn't be running through the middle of the battlefield and disarming like 6 dudes, or firing a storm of arrows that hits everyone in a cone. So, what are these characters doing for the 15 levels it takes them to get to the point where its plausible for them to do these things? Second, there are a few vague balance issues involved. If a character can sprint through a battlefield safely, disarm like 6 dudes, and emerge on the other side, he basically has to take some kind of hit in normal combat power so that he doesn't overpower the regular fighter who can't do these things. But why, logically, would a guy who can accomplish something that impressive, be comparatively bad at fighting just one guy? He has to, for metagame balance reasons, but it doesn't make a ton of sense.

Will you comment on the various ideas for the cavalry soldier who tramples foes or the reverse-Warlord who fills his enemies with fear? These ideas are still valid Controller concepts, but don't suffer at all from the problems you describe above.

Take this hypothetical power:

Clearing Sweep: Per Day Ability. You swing your weapon in a full circle, forcing back every foe within reach. Make an attack against Will targeting all enemies that you threaten. Those enemies who fail automatically move one square directly away from you. Those who succeed may choose to move one square away from you, or remain in their current square. Those enemies still in a square you threaten after this attack is made receive a followup attack against AC.

Personally, I see that as a defender ability, but I know some people would disagree. Whatever. We COULD make a martial class and give this ability to it on the grounds that its sort of controller-ish. But why? Just give it to the fighter. From a fluff standpoint, it fits him best anyways. I'd love for the martial control abilities that DO exist to find a home. I just don't think there's enough meat there to create a whole, coherent, balanced class.

Well, I am a person who disagrees that it is a Defender ability. It in fact does the exact opposite thing a Defender is supposed to do: it makes enemies move away from the user. It does two things that make it a controller ability: it moves enemies and hurts a large number of enemies at once. Anyways, we already know that the fighter is better at hurting a single foe, rather than many, so I would not call this a necessarily appropriate Fighter ability. I am not sure that you can build a whole class out of such abilities, but that does not mean you should dilute existing classes with abilities contrary to their main role (since that makes the game harder to learn and play, especially for beginners).

 

[Cadfan]

I am just going to say that I don't agree with your definition here. If you ask me, hampering is the role of a Controller. If someone other than a Controller hampers his foes, than that character is acting slightly controllerish, rather than acting purely in their role.

Then what's all the debate about? If you want to define "controller" so broadly that a rogue who chooses options that let him knock enemies senseless is labeled a controller, then you've already got a big pile of martial controllers to choose from.

Will you comment on the various ideas for the cavalry soldier who tramples foes or the reverse-Warlord who fills his enemies with fear? These ideas are still valid Controller concepts, but don't suffer at all from the problems you describe above.

I haven't been responding to specific suggestions in a specific manner, because I believe that my general objections stands well enough on their own. There aren't enough martial controller ideas to make a whole class. Look at the examples people offer- one or two abilities that by their nature will need to be high level, or which are of questionable plausibility for a martial character, or are of questionable in game worth.

Since I don't see enough design space available, I believe it is best to give those controller-ish abilities that DO make sense to pre existing classes. Take the cavalry example- do you honestly believe that there is enough controller material available to make a cavalryman into a dedicated controller? For that matter, do you really think there's enough material available to make a character class that focuses on riding a horse, even if we don't restrict it to controller abilities? I doubt it. Isn't it extremely likely that what you would get would be a defender (the cavalryman is most likely going to be good at slugging it out, and will have to default to that when not mounted) who happens to have a controller-ish ability or two, that he can use only in highly situational moments, ie, when mounted? And finally, while something like a reverse warlord might be cool, wouldn't it be more cool if, rather than desperately attempting to fill a grid, we opened it up, added the arcane power source, merged the class with the hexblade, and increased the plausible ways in which the character could act like a controller by at least a factor of 10?

Well, I am a person who disagrees that it is a Defender ability. It in fact does the exact opposite thing a Defender is supposed to do: it makes enemies move away from the user. It does two things that make it a controller ability: it moves enemies and hurts a large number of enemies at once. Anyways, we already know that the fighter is better at hurting a single foe, rather than many, so I would not call this a necessarily appropriate Fighter ability. I am not sure that you can build a whole class out of such abilities, but that does not mean you should dilute existing classes with abilities contrary to their main role (since that makes the game harder to learn and play, especially for beginners).

Well, it certainly straddles the line between defender and controller. That was the point. I think its highly appropriate for a fighter, because it helps a fighter do what fighters do- get right in the middle of a bunch of enemies, and slug things out. As for your assertions that fighters should have only abilities which focus on one foe rather than many, and that fighters should focus on bringing enemies towards them only, rather than having an ability or two to create room for the fighter once the enemies are there, I can say on this: I will be highly, highly surprised if the fighter in the PHB matches your vision. I predict that the fighter will have a great deal of abilities that focus on single foes and on bringing enemies close and holding them there, but that the fighter will ALSO have some abilities that focus on things counter to the stereotypical defender role- abilities that assist in combating mobs of weak foes, abilities that club enemies away from the fighter, and so forth.

For the record, I also predict that the wizard, who's focus is on area of effect attacks, will also have some single target abilities. And that warlords will have some abilities that do not require allies. And so forth.

I do not believe that class roles will be straight jackets. I believe they will describe the "gist" of a character's battlefield role, not the totality of it. I think there will be plenty of room for an ability like the example above, and I think that one or two controller-like abilities in an otherwise defender oriented class will add flavor, rather than cause problems.

 

[Aristotle]

I think "controller" was a horrible word choice, which is causing a lot of confusion, and the role in general could probably have been done without. A lot of what is being attributed could have been folded into the other 3 roles as secondary combat choices.

 

[Sadrik]

Then what's all the debate about? If you want to define "controller" so broadly that a rogue who chooses options that let him knock enemies senseless is labeled a controller, then you've already got a big pile of martial controllers to choose from.


I haven't been responding to specific suggestions in a specific manner, because I believe that my general objections stands well enough on their own. There aren't enough martial controller ideas to make a whole class. Look at the examples people offer- one or two abilities that by their nature will need to be high level, or which are of questionable plausibility for a martial character, or are of questionable in game worth.

Since I don't see enough design space available, I believe it is best to give those controller-ish abilities that DO make sense to pre existing classes. Take the cavalry example- do you honestly believe that there is enough controller material available to make a cavalryman into a dedicated controller? For that matter, do you really think there's enough material available to make a character class that focuses on riding a horse, even if we don't restrict it to controller abilities? I doubt it. Isn't it extremely likely that what you would get would be a defender (the cavalryman is most likely going to be good at slugging it out, and will have to default to that when not mounted) who happens to have a controller-ish ability or two, that he can use only in highly situational moments, ie, when mounted? And finally, while something like a reverse warlord might be cool, wouldn't it be more cool if, rather than desperately attempting to fill a grid, we opened it up, added the arcane power source, merged the class with the hexblade, and increased the plausible ways in which the character could act like a controller by at least a factor of 10?


Well, it certainly straddles the line between defender and controller. That was the point. I think its highly appropriate for a fighter, because it helps a fighter do what fighters do- get right in the middle of a bunch of enemies, and slug things out. As for your assertions that fighters should have only abilities which focus on one foe rather than many, and that fighters should focus on bringing enemies towards them only, rather than having an ability or two to create room for the fighter once the enemies are there, I can say on this: I will be highly, highly surprised if the fighter in the PHB matches your vision. I predict that the fighter will have a great deal of abilities that focus on single foes and on bringing enemies close and holding them there, but that the fighter will ALSO have some abilities that focus on things counter to the stereotypical defender role- abilities that assist in combating mobs of weak foes, abilities that club enemies away from the fighter, and so forth.

For the record, I also predict that the wizard, who's focus is on area of effect attacks, will also have some single target abilities. And that warlords will have some abilities that do not require allies. And so forth.

I do not believe that class roles will be straight jackets. I believe they will describe the "gist" of a character's battlefield role, not the totality of it. I think there will be plenty of room for an ability like the example above, and I think that one or two controller-like abilities in an otherwise defender oriented class will add flavor, rather than cause problems.

I don't like me too posts. But me too!

 

[TwinBahamut]

Then what's all the debate about? If you want to define "controller" so broadly that a rogue who chooses options that let him knock enemies senseless is labeled a controller, then you've already got a big pile of martial controllers to choose from.

Huh? I never did any such thing. I said that a Striker or Defender who hinders opponents is not a pure Defender, but is instead acting slightly controllerish. It is the exact same thing as saying that any ability of any class to do lots of damage is a showing a slight tendency towards being a striker, or a Cleric's ability to fight in melee and take damage is a slight leaning towards defender abilities. All I am saying is that no class is going to be purely of a role, and is instead going to have elements of other roles. As such, you should not use a class to define the role, because the class is never going to be a pure expression of the role.

I can assure you that I am not yet satisfied with Martial Controllers.

I haven't been responding to specific suggestions in a specific manner, because I believe that my general objections stands well enough on their own. There aren't enough martial controller ideas to make a whole class. Look at the examples people offer- one or two abilities that by their nature will need to be high level, or which are of questionable plausibility for a martial character, or are of questionable in game worth.

I won't agree with you here. You are taking as your premise that a character has to be high level in order to do interesting, controller-style things. I don't agree with that idea, simply because I think every character should be doing interesting, amazing things at every level of the game. I reject your distinction of low-level and high-level abilities.

Since I don't see enough design space available, I believe it is best to give those controller-ish abilities that DO make sense to pre existing classes.

Why not just combine different controller-ish ideas that make sense, and rather than divide them among other classes, just make a coherent Martial Controller class based on more than a single premise? Combine both the cavalry soldier and the reverse-warlord, for example. Both work on the principle of scattering enemy lines with crushing attacks, panic, and intimidation. Think of it as the Ringwraith class if you must. There is a reason I imagined the reverse-warlord riding a wyvern.

Take the cavalry example- do you honestly believe that there is enough controller material available to make a cavalryman into a dedicated controller? For that matter, do you really think there's enough material available to make a character class that focuses on riding a horse, even if we don't restrict it to controller abilities? I doubt it. Isn't it extremely likely that what you would get would be a defender (the cavalryman is most likely going to be good at slugging it out, and will have to default to that when not mounted) who happens to have a controller-ish ability or two, that he can use only in highly situational moments, ie, when mounted?

I think the problems with cavalry are much better solved by improving mounted combat and making horse-riding less situational, rather than denying the long history and importance of cavalry in both real world combat and fiction. Besides, a cavalry soldier would make a terrible defender. You don't use cavalry to sit there and defend something, you use their mobility to attack and scout. A horse is too vulnerable to sit there and defend a point, so you use a mounted soldier to perform hit and run attacks or powerful charges to break up the enemy's formation and momentum.

And finally, while something like a reverse warlord might be cool, wouldn't it be more cool if, rather than desperately attempting to fill a grid, we opened it up, added the arcane power source, merged the class with the hexblade, and increased the plausible ways in which the character could act like a controller by at least a factor of 10?

No. I hate class concept dilution. What you are arguing is the same as making the Ranger a spellcaster by default, and that has always had its detractors. Besides, I don't think it is necessary.

Anyways, I am not going to go too deep into the rest of what you posted. I don't want to get into a debate about what may or may not be a good ability for a class we don't know much about yet. Still, I will say that you misunderstanding me. I don't disagree with your "predictions" about classes. Of course class roles are not straight jackets. We have been told as much already by WotC. But there is huge difference between an ability outside of the role and an ability which contradicts the role. The ability you described pushes people away from the fighter, dissuades them from ganging up on him or stnading near him, and possibly pushes them closer to his allies, which are all bad for a Melee Defender. It is a great controller ability (and if the Barbarian turns out to be a Primal Controller, a great move for that class), but a terrible one for a Defender. A newbie fighter who thought that move would be great might end up severely failing at his main role as a Defender. It is a lot the same as giving a Wizard the Swordmage's supposed "summon enemy" spell, which teleports the enemy right next to him. It might make sense for a Wizard to have the ability to do that, but it just isn't smart for the Wizard to ever do such a thing.

 

[Cadfan]

I won't agree with you here. You are taking as your premise that a character has to be high level in order to do interesting, controller-style things. I don't agree with that idea, simply because I think every character should be doing interesting, amazing things at every level of the game. I reject your distinction of low-level and high-level abilities.

Previously in this conversation, I asserted that I doubted a martial character would be unable to do even basic controller like things with much regularity. Specifically, he would have trouble 1) hindering 2) multiple 3) foes at range. The response I got was that 1) disarming or tripping is hindering, 2) he could affect everyone he moved past, and 3) moving really fast is kind of like affecting targets at range. All technically true statements. But, while I don't know what the power level will be like in 4e, I highly suspect that a character who can blitz through a battlefield and disarm or trip everyone he runs past is going to be, by definition, a high level character. Similarly, characters who fire storms of arrows? I could be wrong, and that could be the sort of thing a low level character does, but I really, really doubt it. Some of these abilities are cool, and I wouldn't mind them being in the game- but a controller needs to control right out of the box at level 1. He can't afford to wait until level 17 to get Tornado Throw from Book of Nine Swords.

Anyways, I am not going to go too deep into the rest of what you posted. I don't want to get into a debate about what may or may not be a good ability for a class we don't know much about yet. Still, I will say that you misunderstanding me. I don't disagree with your "predictions" about classes. Of course class roles are not straight jackets. We have been told as much already by WotC. But there is huge difference between an ability outside of the role and an ability which contradicts the role. The ability you described pushes people away from the fighter, dissuades them from ganging up on him or stnading near him, and possibly pushes them closer to his allies, which are all bad for a Melee Defender. It is a great controller ability (and if the Barbarian turns out to be a Primal Controller, a great move for that class), but a terrible one for a Defender. A newbie fighter who thought that move would be great might end up severely failing at his main role as a Defender. It is a lot the same as giving a Wizard the Swordmage's supposed "summon enemy" spell, which teleports the enemy right next to him. It might make sense for a Wizard to have the ability to do that, but it just isn't smart for the Wizard to ever do such a thing.

I'll bet you an imaginary cookie that the PHB already has an ability in it for fighters where the fighter hits some dude so hard the dude falls backwards a space or two. Its not that much of an extrapolation from there for the fighter to hit several dudes. And if you think that "it just isn't smart for the [Fighter] to ever do such a thing," I think you're flat out wrong. There's dozens of situations where the best defender behavior would be to force his enemies away from him. If the defender is defending a passage, for example, he could use this to advance down the hall, forcing his foes backwards. If he were fighting on a bridge, he could push people off the bridge. There's lots of reasons a defender might want to shove someone somewhere. And roles aren't straightjackets, and one (probably higher level) power choice is hardly going to cripple a new player's ability to fulfill his combat role. I think you sell new players short.