What classes will be in the martial power book?

[Doug McCrae]

a swashbuckler *feels* like it should be more of a defender than a striker.

I agree with you. A high armor class defender (due to dex/dodge bonus) rather than a high hit point one. He doesn't do a lot of damage, so he's not a striker, but he jumps and swings and befuddles the enemy with his quick fire puns and use of the environment, locking his foes down and preventing them from hurting his allies.

The swashbuckler isn't Wolverine, all serious and deadly. He's Nightcrawler, the flippant devil-may-care type who bounces bamfs round the battlefield annoying people.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Once again consulting the holy text of Races & Classes...

The controller specializes in dealing damage or inflicting conditions on multiple targets at once, usually at range. They might do less damage per target than the striker, but they're in their element when they can catch multiple foes at once.

So a barbarian that does stuff like swinging to hit multiple enemies, stunning enemies with his mighty blows, and using things like knockback and trip in an area around him, would be a martial controller? Sounds reasonable.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I agree with you. A high armor class defender (due to dex/dodge bonus) rather than a high hit point one. He doesn't do a lot of damage, so he's not a striker, but he jumps and swings and befuddles the enemy with his quick fire puns and use of the environment, locking his foes down and preventing them from hurting his allies.

The swashbuckler isn't Wolverine, all serious and deadly. He's Nightcrawler, the flippant devil-may-care type who bounces bamfs round the battlefield annoying people.

And again, the high-mobility guy who bounces around the battlefield--whether he's befuddling or drawing blood--is the striker, IMO, not the defender. Sure, he's also making a target of himself, but that's not his primary purpose. His primary job is offensive.

 

[Klaus]

Do we know, conceptually, what Races & Classes is going to be about? Is it new classes? Expanded options for existing classes? New Paragon paths? New feats? All of the above?

I can see additional paragon paths being a good addition to the game, as well as feats and items. And maybe a new class or two. I hope they don't expand existing classes, though. If I make a first level Fighter, I want to only have to consult a single book when determining his core class features.

I knew 3E was broken when I went to create a fighter/cleric for an eberron campaign, and I had to use the FLOOR instead of a table because I had these books open and spread around:

PHB
PHB 2
Eberron campaign setting
Player's Guide to Eberron
Races of Eberron
Explorer's Handbook
Book of Exalted Deeds
Heroes of Battle
Complete Warrior
Complete Divine
Complete Adventurer
Unearthed Arcana
Races of Destiny
Spell Compendium

Good grief. Talk about rules bloat.

In fact that awful, aggravating, 6-hour experience was what made me give up 3E. And it's why I'm really, really excited about the Digital Initiative. I want to be able to tell WotC's site which books I own, and have it produce a SINGLE collection of feats from all my many sources. Which I can then sort by category (say by cutting any nonapplicable feats, like feats for arcane casters, or for races other my own), and then print. Or, better yet, import into an online character generator which goes the extra step of calculating all the modifiers from my feat, race, class, and item choices.

My god, such a utility would be *so* worth ten bucks a month.

Good grief, why would you want to consult all those books to make a character?

 

[TwinBahamut]

I don't think those two facts are automatically correlative. Even if you can't have a martial controller, that doesn't automatically mean you couldn't have a divine controller, or a psionic controller, or a shadow-based controller, or... or... or...

The fact that one couldn't have a martial controller--if that does, indeed, turn out to be a fact--is hardly the same thing as saying "controller = wizard."

Well, let me demonstrate my logic a bit, then.

If a Martial Controller is impossible, but Psionics, Divine, and Shadow-based Controllers are possible, then what exactly are these kinds of Controllers? If there can't be a Martial Controller because there is no way for a Martial character to emulate certain kinds of effects, then every Controller has to emulate those kinds of effects, and thus has to end up looking very similar. It is the same problem as last time around, where the Psion was just a repackaged Wizard under a new name.

Let me explain this from a different angle... (I apologize if the following examples are flawed, but I don't know the rules yet, after all)

Striker is a good role because there are many ways for a character to be a Striker. Rogues are melee focused, rely on hitting an enemy who is off balance, and sneaking through enemy lines to reach their target. Rangers use ranged attacks, and can hit distant enemies accurately while staying out of harm's way. Both are very different, but they both fill the role of quickly doing a lot of damage to single enemy targets.

Leader is a good role because there are many ways for a character to be a Leader. Warlords enable their allies to perform more actions, while Clerics are stronger at healing and buffing directly.

But so far, Controllers seem to just be... Wizards. Controllers do Wizardly things, and those that do Wizardly things are Controllers. I don't think it has to be this way, but this is the only way that would deny the existence of a Martial Controller. As such, it does not have the flexibility of being a Striker or Leader, which have very different interpretations, so it is not as good of a role. However, if you look deeper at the role system, this is not the necessary state.

These are my conceptions of the most important aspects of the different roles:

A Defender is a character who protects allies. It tries to reach the state where every enemy is hurting the Defender, and no enemy is hurting any allies.

A Striker is a character who harms enemies. It tries to reach the state where all enemies are dead.

A Leader is a character who enables offense. It tries to reach the state where all allies are in top condition and free to attack, and can attack at greater than 100% normal ability.

A Controller is a character who enables defense. It tries to reach the state where enemies can no longer attack, and no enemy can attack at normal ability.

Within this context, I don't see how a Martial Controller is impossible. After all, the basic state of "tripping" an enemy is a Controller action, not a Defender action. It reduces the enemy's capability to attack anyone, much like a Wall of Fire or Wave of Fatigue would, rather than encourage an enemy to attack the user, like Grappling or a Knight's Challenge does. Every time a PC trips an enemy, the PC is functioning more like a Controller than a Defender. A PC who can trip every enemy in a 20 ft radius and keep them down (a build I saw someone try to make to 3E) is a Controller.

If you say that a Martial Controller is impossible, then the definition of Controller is artificially reduced to be more limited than the definitions of other roles. In this case, the only choice is to make every Controller look more like the original Controller (the Wizard), because the Wizard has become the defining factor rather than the Role. You would be judging Controller classes by how they resemble the Wizard rather than how they fill the abstract role itself.

I know this is a bit wordy and repetitive, but I at this point I think someone needs to justify the claim that Martial Controllers can't exist and still have non-Wizard-like classes be possible for me to believe such an idea.

 

[Cadfan]

And again, the high-mobility guy who bounces around the battlefield--whether he's befuddling or drawing blood--is the striker, IMO, not the defender. Sure, he's also making a target of himself, but that's not his primary purpose. His primary job is offensive.

I agree with that, but I don't think that a swashbuckler has to be "bouncing around the battlefield." Look at previous swashbucklers. Yes, they had more maneuverability than a typical fighter. But they were full d10 hit die characters with high armor classes, and special abilities related to both offense and defense. The "duelist" PRC was based around fighting defensively and boosting your armor class through the roof. One of the actual "swashbuckler" class' key abilities was the improved dodge bonus.

In my view, a swashbuckler should be in the center of battle, parrying blows, disarming his enemies, redirecting his foe's strike into another enemy, and so forth. I'm sure he'd have to pay for his improved mobility with the loss of some of his more hard-core defender potential, but I think there's plenty of potential remaining in that regard.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I agree with that, but I don't think that a swashbuckler has to be "bouncing around the battlefield." Look at previous swashbucklers. Yes, they had more maneuverability than a typical fighter. But they were full d10 hit die characters with high armor classes, and special abilities related to both offense and defense. The "duelist" PRC was based around fighting defensively and boosting your armor class through the roof. One of the actual "swashbuckler" class' key abilities was the improved dodge bonus.

In my view, a swashbuckler should be in the center of battle, parrying blows, disarming his enemies, redirecting his foe's strike into another enemy, and so forth. I'm sure he'd have to pay for his improved mobility with the loss of some of his more hard-core defender potential, but I think there's plenty of potential remaining in that regard.

All true. But I never felt those accurately conveyed the swashbuckler. Yep, disarming, redirecting, and the like are vital parts of it. But those aren't necessarily defenderish moves; they're equally viable for the striker. (Remember, dealing "conditions" is just as valuable as dealing damage.) Honestly, to best fit the swashbuckler archetype, I'd rather see the HP and defender-ish aspects reduced, rather than see them artificially maintained to match 3E's vision of the class.

Or, as someone else said upthread, I don't think there's anything wrong with the rogue, rather than the fighter, being the basis of the swashbuckler archetype.

 

[Cadfan]

I know this is a bit wordy and repetitive, but I at this point I think someone needs to justify the claim that Martial Controllers can't exist and still have non-Wizard-like classes be possible for me to believe such an idea.

A controller does a lot of things.

A controller uses area of effect attacks.
A controller uses ranged attacks.
A controller hampers his foes.
A controller boosts his allies in certain ways.
A controller reshapes the battlefield to help his side prevail.

Now, lets think about martial characters, and lets NOT count "ki" using characters who create magical effects that we've just renamed ki abilities.

Can a martial character use an area of effect attack? Possibly, but not too many of them. I suppose a character could throw a spear as a line effect, limited of course by how many spears you have. Or a martial character could move and strike multiple enemies, which sort of approximates an area of effect.

Can a martial character use ranged attacks? Sure. But... can a martial character use ranged area of effect attacks? That's more questionable. I could think up one or two (the aforementioned spear throw), but the list of options is heavily limited because we're constrained here by believability.

Can a martial character hamper his foes? Yeah. But, can he do it at range? Not so well. And the list of ways in which he can hamper his foes is relatively short compared to a magic wielding character. And beyond that, can he hamper his foes, at range, and in an area of effect? Woah. Probably not.

Can a martial character boost his allies in the way that a controller might? We know a martial character can boost his allies like a leader, because we have the Warlord. But how does a controller boost his allies? By granting his allies abilities which essentially modify how they interact with the battlefield. Casting "fly" on your allies would fall into this category, because it is essentially a "change the battlefield" type ability- it negates elevation as a concern for the PCs. It is unlikely that a martial character could achieve much in this category.

And finally, can a martial character reshape the battlefield? Well, I suppose he can kick down a door. But he certainly can't conjure pools of acid or walls of icicles. He's going to be pretty limited here.

That's the problem, overall. A martial character might sort of approximate a controller with an ability or two, but he's going to be never achieve the breadth and scope of a character with some sort of magical power.

Now, a hybrid martial/something character might make a good hybrid defender/controller. The hexblade might provide something of a model- it could use magical effects to curse and debuff its enemies (at range, perhaps even as an area of effect). It could have an "aura of unluck" effect which creates an area of effect debuff around it. It could have a spectral companion that debuffs those near it, and which can rove around the battlefield. It could have a couple spells to boost itself, or its allies, in controller-ish ways. It could have martial abilities that focus on controller type powers to the best of its ability to do so, and then it could fill out all the rest of its abilities with martial powers that more plausibly fit what a person using their own prowess with a blade might accomplish- that is, Defender type powers.

Now, this analysis all changes if you decide that "ki" powers count as martial. In that case, you might as well let the character throw fireballs of ki energy and so forth. But personally, while I'm cool with ki being in the game, I don't really think its martial.

 

[Moochava]

Oh, this sounds like fun. Granted, I find some of your strictures unnecessary, but let's say that your definition of "controller" is the only one possible. Then:

A controller does a lot of things.

A controller uses area of effect attacks.

Ruinous charge (1/encounter): The chevalier performs a charge action. All targets in the chevalier's line, and all targets in squares adjacent to that line, receive an attack. Followup: all targets of smaller size than the chevalier's mount are knocked back one square per four levels of the chevalier.

First In (1/encounter): The gladiator (champion?) makes one attack against every adjacent enemy within one square (plus one square per four levels).

A controller uses ranged attacks.

Battlefield Circle (1/encounter): The chevalier selects one target within his mount's basic movement rate and delivers a charge attack on that target, ignoring all attacks of opportunity, then moves anywhere within the mount's movement range.

The Dagger You See (at will): The champion can draw and throw any ranged weapon as a standard action, even if his hands are full.

A controller hampers his foes.

Rear Up (at will): The chevalier lets out a cry and targets all subjects within 30 feet, attacking their Will. Any targets struck suffer a -5 penalty to attack (save negates).

Blinding Strike (1/encounter, vs. bloodied only): The champion strikes all foes within reach. Followup: any struck struck foes that are bloodied (by the attack or previously) are Blinded (save negates).

A controller boosts his allies in certain ways.

Join The Charge (per day): The chevalier selects one target and charges. Any allies who charge that opponent in that round receives a +4 to hit and damage to that target for the rest of the encounter.

Trick Attack (at will): A successful critical hit, if the champion chooses, causes normal damage, but one ally chosen by the champion gains an additional Second Wind usable during that encounter only.

A controller reshapes the battlefield to help his side prevail.

Reactive Charge (1/encounter): The chevalier's threatened area increases to four squares. Any enemies that enter any of those squares receives an immediate attack of opportunity. Followup: Struck enemies are stopped immediately and lose their action for that round.

Lashing Snare (1/encounter): The champion makes a net attack against a bloodied target with a barbed net. If successful, the captured target can be maneuvered to interfere with enemies' movements. Once per round, the champion can make an immediate action when an enemy moves within thirty feet. The champion attacks against the moving target's reflex; if successful, the subject is Knocked Down and loses his action.

Speaking hypothetically, of course. Of course, I find your strictures a bit severe. Generally, only one element strikes me as necessary: a controller hampers his foes. That's the key; secondarily, a controller tends to hit more targets, less hard, when compared with a striker. That's where the focus should be. A knight who smashes through footmen, terrifying them and knocking them down; a duelist who trips, blinds, disarms, and makes enemies skewer one-another; a gladiator who entangles enemies in a net and intimidates and confuses his foes; all can be made, I think, into valid controllers without stretching credibility.

 

[Klaus]

But what if Martial characters can generate magical effects (less flashy than a fireball, sure)?

If a Martial character can slash you with his sword from 30 feet away?

If a Martial character can pound the ground with his warhammer and cause shockwaves that trip his opponents?

If a Martial character can fire a bow with such strength that it pierces several targets?

If a Martial character can send several opponents flying with the force of his blows?

If a Martial character has *such* mastery with his sword that he can cleave *reality itself*, creating a dimension door?