Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4045684" data-attributes="member: 32536">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.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.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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification