What classes will be in the martial power book?

[TwinBahamut]

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.

I hope you don't mind if I snip the rest for simplicity's sake...

What you are doing is exactly the logical trap that I said should be avoided: using an overly limited definition of Controller based solely on the first implementation of a Controller, the Wizard.

More specifically, you are defining a Controller based on how the method the class goes about being a Controller, rather than the end state. For example, you seem to think that a controller needs to be a ranged fighter. However, there are both ranged and melee Strikers already, and I can easily imagine the existence of a ranged Defender (though not necessarily a Martial one). The only reason a Controller needs to be ranged is if you want the Controller to be more wizard-like.

Anyways, of all the things you list, the only ones necessary to a Controller are hampering foes and being able to affect multiple targets. Manipulating terrain is merely an means to that end. Area-effect blasts are merely a means to that end. Ranged attacks are merely a means to that end. And you admit yourself that being able to attack multiple targets is a good alternative to normal area of effect (and this isn't even discussing logical Martial AoE moves, like the cavalry charges/trample attacks I discussed earlier on this page of the thread). I also should mention that I see no problem with a Martial character who can hamper foes at range, with a good thrown weapon or bowshot, or even a Warlord-style inspiration/taunt effect.

Finally, one of your important categories, helping allies, is the domain of Leaders, not Controllers, and since there is a Martial Leader already, I see no reason that should be a stumbling block for a Martial Controller. Your example, Fly, is more based on the idea that Controllers should be Wizards (3E Wizards, even) than a pure concept of what a Controller needs to be.

I guess, as an alternative way of arguing things based on other elements in this thread...

I don't agree that a swashbuckler should necessarily be a Striker just because he dances around the battlefield like a Rogue might. Warlocks and Rangers are Strikers also, but there is no reason to believe that they dance around the battlefield dodging attacks. Dodging around the battlefield is the method a Rogue uses to achieve the ultimate aim of focusing attacks against a single foe, and is not necessary for a Striker or limited to being a Striker ability. Meanwhile, a character can logically use such agility to function as a Defender, Controller, or even Leader, so there is no need to associate such abilities with only Strikers. When a person argues that agile characters must be strikers, that is only because they are thinking that all Strikers should be Rogue-like and that everything Rogue-like should be a Striker. It is a line of thought born from the old "default party" mentality being carried over to 4E rather than a logical deduction from the Roles themselves.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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

I'm a gamer; I want to consider all the options before making a character. Turns out, there are a lot of options to consider. For the character in question, he wound up being a warforged (eberron books) sword & shield fighter (heroes of battle, and PHB 2 for the shield feats) who used his Turn Undead ability to power divine feats (complete divine, complete fighter, exalted deeds), and had a few skill tricks (complete adventurer). And he could cast (complete divine and spell compendium).

I know I could have made a simple PHB fighter/cleric. Not interested in that kind of game experience. I like expanded options. Point is, after a certain threshold all that information in all those physical books ceases to be easily accessible, and therefore ceases to be really usable.

Anyway, more on topic: I sincerely hope that all the crunch in the new splat books is fully integrated into DI, and searchable/sortable.

 

[HeinorNY]

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.

They are also able to manipulate the battlefield to create advantages/disadvantages for friends/foes, such as walls of fire/ice, causing thorny undergrowth to rise, etc

Leader buffs and heals the party, the controller damages and debuffs the enemies. Would it be right to consider the Controller to be somehow the opposite of the Leader?

If that is at least partially correct, I could think of a martial controller as a class that damages and debuffs the enemies the same way the Warlord heals and buffs the party.

If the Warlord uses his strength of personality and gift for leadership to make his allies fight better, the Martial Controller could use the same "tools" to make enemies fight worse.

The first concept that comes to my mind is the Barbarian character from Diablo 2. He has a "talent tree" that gives him "Warcries", that in D&D terms are clearly powers from the Leader and Controller roles.
The "leadership" warcries increase, in D&D terms, the allies' AC, HP, Power lvls.
The "controllership" warcries decrease enemies' AC and damage output, damage and stun enemies, frightens monsters or taunt them.
Those are pretty straightfoward, but they are a nice startpoint to think about other debuffing warcries for a martial controller class. If the Warlord has a power the let his allies make a free ranged attack, the martial controller could have a warcry that forced opponents to halt their attacks against one of his allies.

Maybe these are not enough for a whole class, or maybe we need to stretch the believability too much, but they show it's not impossible to create a martial controller.

My main point is that the warlord is a martial character, but he doesn't always use his "martial prowess" to buff and heal his allies, so a martial controller also wouldn't need to draw all of his "controlling powers" specifically from his martial power source.

Thoughts?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Mu Thoughts

I don't think the Martial book will have any classes in it. New Talent trees, paragon paths, and epic destinies,, maybe some feats, etc.

I doubt the need to fill all combos of power source and role. So, while I think the Cavalier described above sounds cool, I really, really doubt anything of the kind will show up any time soon.

I expect classes will most often appear in the PHB's (maybe ONLY)
The first one something like this:
Defenders: Paladin (Devine) Fighter (Martial)
Leaders: Cleric (Devine) Warlord (Martial)
Strikers: Rogue (Martial) Warlock (Arcane) Ranger (Devine or Martial, I'm not sure.)
Controller: Wizard (Arcane)

Note that these are all-but confirmed, and it lacks symetry. To be balanced at all, the Ranger ought to be a Devine Controller (which we "know" it's not) and there ought to be another Arcane class. (To have three of each source.)

Overall, I doubt the designers care about this sort of balance. It's not important.

The Second Player's Handbook might look something like
Defenders: Druid (Primal)
Learders: Necromancer (Shadow) Bard (Primal) Clairvoyant (Psychic)
Strikers: Assassin (Shadow) Barbarian (Primal)
Controllers: Illusionist (Shadow) Psion (Psychic)

Or whatever. If they only do Eight classes per book, they can't have Three Sources over Four Roles have one of each for each, and everything points to that not being the case (and really, who cares?)

The classes should be significantly different from each other, especially as they can be broadened by talent trees. Otherwise they'd split the ranger between the Two Weapon Fighter and the Archer, like they split the Elf between the Haughty Scholar and the Wild Bushman.

Of course, depending on what aspects of any of the classes we are familiar with you accentuate, you can force most of them into just about any role.

Fitz

 

[TwinBahamut]

The first concept that comes to my mind is the Barbarian character from Diablo 2. He has a "talent tree" that gives him "Warcries", that in D&D terms are clearly powers from the Leader and Controller roles.
The "leadership" warcries increase, in D&D terms, the allies' AC, HP, Power lvls.
The "controllership" warcries decrease enemies' AC and damage output, damage and stun enemies, frightens monsters or taunt them.
Those are pretty straightfoward, but they are a nice startpoint to think about other debuffing warcries for a martial controller class. If the Warlord has a power the let his allies make a free ranged attack, the martial controller could have a warcry that forced opponents to halt their attacks against one of his allies.

I've had a similar thought, actually.

I believe there was a PrC somewhere in 3E (some kind of pirate?) that could choose to be either a noble leader or a wicked leader. The good pirate could inspire others, while the evil pirate could inflict terrible fear. A 4E Leader class would be the former, and a Controller class the latter. A Martial Controller who uses something like a seriously buffed up Intimidate skill that can even simulate the effects of a dragon's fear aura. A warrior who knows how to prey on the fears and weaknesses of his opponent's mind.

Turn that kind of character into a warrior who wears black armor and rides on the back of a wyvern, and you have a cool character. Wait, am I not supposed to use the word cool?

 

[UndeadScottsman]

I don't think the Martial book will have any classes in it. New Talent trees, paragon paths, and epic destinies,, maybe some feats, etc.

We know for a fact that the Swordmage is being worked on. I'd be surprised if it didn't show up in the Arcane book. Thusly, I'd also be surprised if there wasn't at least one new class in the Martial book.

 

[AZRogue]

With a PHB every year, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the Power books didn't have new Classes but only expanded powers/abilities/feats/paragon paths. I think it WILL have a Class or two, but if it doesn't I won't be shocked. I will depend on their model. Classes in the PHBs, more options in the Power books is one I can see them using.

 

[UndeadScottsman]

With a PHB every year, I actually wouldn't be surprised if the Power books didn't have new Classes but only expanded powers/abilities/feats/paragon paths. I think it WILL have a Class or two, but if it doesn't I won't be shocked. I will depend on their model. Classes in the PHBs, more options in the Power books is one I can see them using.

The PHB's will have new powers, and I'd expect all the classes in them to be tied to the powers presented in them. The best place to put new classes for old power sources would be the splatbooks, as they're already meant to expand concepts presented in the PHB's.

 

[Sadrik]

To all those who want a Ki power source

We don't need a Ki power source. If we did we would require a "genie" power source for arabian game, a Juju power source for a voodoo game, a "spirit" power source for native american game. These can all be captured in arcane, divine, psionic and shadow.

Each region on the map should not have their own power source. They should be based on the effect not on some hair-splitting endeavor to create new power sources.

 

[the Jester]

Martial controller = engineer.

The problem is, the engineer works best on defense. He needs time to set up the battlefield. He's not good as a dungeoneer. Ergo, I don't think we'll see one published from WotC.