• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

What is the 2nd controler ?

Aloïsius

First Post
Warlock : striker
Rogue : striker
Ranger : striker
Paladin : defender
Fighter : defender
Cleric : leader
warlord : leader
wizard : controler.

XXX : controler

what will XXX be ? I hope we will have druid.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Anthtriel

First Post
Well, there is a problem.
Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue and Warlord along with their roles are confirmed. The Paladin as the second defender is also all but guaranteed.

That leaves us with two roles, one striker and one controller, along with three classes that have been talked about, Ranger, Druid and Warlock. The Ranger has been confirmed to be a Striker, and the Warlock has been confirmed to be in the book, so either we have only one controller (unlikely), or the Warlock is a striker and the Ranger is out (which seems unlikely, because the Ranger has been mentioned a lot and the Druid only in passing), or the Ranger is in and the Warlock is a controller.

The last case seems to be the most likely one, but if it is true, then either the two strikers and/or controllers have the same power source (martial and arcane respectively), or the ranger and the warlock are divine, leaving us with 3 martial, 4 divine and 1 arcane class for the PHB, which seems fairly odd.

Is it actually confirmed there are just 8 classes in the PHB?
 

Masquerade

First Post
I don't think the 4e warlock is a striker. Setting aside everything we know about the Complete Arcane warlock class and only looking at the 4e previews, it sounds a lot more like a controller class to me.
 

Goken100

First Post
Listen to the latest Podcast. Either the WotC fellow mispoke or the Warlock is a Striker. Not really sure which is the truth, but I tend to believe it's a Striker since we haven't heard any corrections.
 

Intrope

First Post
I'll venture that it won't be a Martial class; I'm just not seeing how the flavor of that would work. And it *is* possible that there will be just one controller class! But, it's no fun to speculate that there won't be one, so here I go :p

Beyond that, I don't think we even have a candidate--and I think that's deliberate. This one is probably intended to be a 'surprise!' moment later on. If so, then it's probably *not* an 'obvious' choice, like say druid (I'm going to guess that Nature Priest-type Druids are now clerics, and Druids in other modes will come later).

I'm also going to guess that Sorcerer won't show up as an Arcane Controller: with Wizards having lots of at-will and per-encounter powers, the 3.x Sorcerer's purpose evaporates. If we see a Sorc, it'll be noticeably different than the current one (my guess: Arcane Leader).

So what does that leave us? Specialist Wizard-like classes, like Illusionist, Conjurer or Necromancer would all work. Some form of Elemental Manipulator might work, but that sounds more like a fourth power source to me (and I think all the Oriental Adventures style characters, like Shugenga, will be in a later book). A Divine Herald, that summons up the servants of the gods? [Solar, I choose you! :D]

Anyway, that's all I can think of...
 


Henry

Autoexreginated
Intrope said:
If so, then it's probably *not* an 'obvious' choice, like say druid (I'm going to guess that Nature Priest-type Druids are now clerics, and Druids in other modes will come later).

Druid actually would be an ideal choice for controller -- in 3E, they were probably the next best battlefield controllers outside of wizards, especially if you threw in the stuff from Spell Compendium. They already had many wizardly powers, and Andy Collins years ago said the Druid "could serve the party like a second Wizard" with the 3.5 revision.

EDIT: Ah, I misread you. I thought you were saying the opposite -- my apologies.
 

Alnag

First Post
And are we sure, that ragner is striker after all. I mean - rogue is martial striker right. And if ranger would be made more into "archery-type" character controling battlefield with arrows he might very well be martial type of controler. Right?
 

Actually several of the missing 'core' classes could make decent controllers.

Druids with summoning, entangle, and so forth.

Bards with charm, fascinate, and the right selection of arcane spells, though I think they may be more bound for the Leader role.

Illusionists, pretty natch there.

would be among the more traditional options, and several of the newer classes could do well.


In terms of what people have identified as the likely 8, there really doesn't seem to be another candidate. Maybe this means we will see 9 classes, but I have my doubts. Eight had seemed like a confirmed number, and certainly matched the number the confirmed number of races.

I'm sort of dissapointed.

One of the things I was looking forward to was the dissapearance of any one 'necessary' class for a party. And while they say that they've engineered it so that a party can function perfectly well without one role, I still think it's rather lame that we might not have a choice of controllers.


I would guess that if we don't get Ranger or Bard here that we get them in the FR campaign guide. Those classes just seem way too central to that setting to delay past the publication of the book.
 

broghammerj

Explorer
Dr. Strangemonkey said:
One of the things I was looking forward to was the dissapearance of any one 'necessary' class for a party. And while they say that they've engineered it so that a party can function perfectly well without one role, I still think it's rather lame that we might not have a choice of controllers.

I think it's lame they even discuss party roles. Doesn't that just hold on to the "old" way of thinking that you must have class X to have a balanced party. To me the idea of roles is going to take up worthless pages of text better used for real material.

Also I think this system is ridiculous to assign these roles to specific class types. It's one thing to say you need a striker, defender, controller, and leader to balance your party. It's another to say each class is one of these roles. I am a bit baffled that I won't be able to customize my wizards to turn him into a striker or defender by good spell selection. Or alter my fighter into a leader by feat customization.
 

M.L. Martin

Adventurer
Anthtriel said:
Is it actually confirmed there are just 8 classes in the PHB?

No; Mearls said 8 was about the 'middle range' of the number of classes that might be in the PH when I asked him about it yesterday, specifically mentioning that the Internet was taking 8 classes as confirmed.
 
Last edited:

Anthtriel

First Post
broghammerj said:
I think it's lame they even discuss party roles. Doesn't that just hold on to the "old" way of thinking that you must have class X to have a balanced party. To me the idea of roles is going to take up worthless pages of text better used for real material.

Also I think this system is ridiculous to assign these roles to specific class types. It's one thing to say you need a striker, defender, controller, and leader to balance your party. It's another to say each class is one of these roles. I am a bit baffled that I won't be able to customize my wizards to turn him into a striker or defender by good spell selection. Or alter my fighter into a leader by feat customization.
The idea behind the role model is that there are certain functions that a party needs no matter how the design is ("need" as in, a party will perform a lot better if the function is present), so you might just as well acknowledge it in class design instead of having useless classes that are only good at stuff no one cares about (3E Monk and Bard).
If you give classes the chance to get better at those functions than the classes which traditionally fulfill them, you risk having classes that overshadow other classes (Codzilla).

Besides, for your specific examples: A fighter that fulfills a leader function would become a healer without mutliclassing into cleric. You could never do that and I don't see why you should now.
If you give a wizard the ability to make him a defender or a striker, then that means he can tank as well as a fighter or do as much damage as a rogue. I don't see why wizards should be allowed to do that. They could never outtank the fighter. They could outdamage the rogue, but then again, they made the rogue nearly useless in most editions of the game, which was obviously a flaw.
 

ZappoHisbane

First Post
broghammerj said:
Also I think this system is ridiculous to assign these roles to specific class types. It's one thing to say you need a striker, defender, controller, and leader to balance your party. It's another to say each class is one of these roles. I am a bit baffled that I won't be able to customize my wizards to turn him into a striker or defender by good spell selection. Or alter my fighter into a leader by feat customization.

I believe I've read that the roles 'assigned' to each class are simply what that class is best at. I suspect that you'll be able to fill any role with any class, provided you build your character that way. It's also likely that trying to be all things at once will not be as effective as focusing on one or (at most) two roles.

One would hope anyway. :)

Edit: In fact, check out this thread.
 
Last edited:

Intrope

First Post
Alnag said:
And are we sure, that ragner is striker after all. I mean - rogue is martial striker right. And if ranger would be made more into "archery-type" character controling battlefield with arrows he might very well be martial type of controler. Right?
I don't really see how a Ranger (or Monk, for that matter) would make a Controller. They really seem to me to be about 'Reaching out and touching someone' not 'shaping the battlespace'.
 

Frostmarrow

First Post
Intrope said:
I don't really see how a Ranger (or Monk, for that matter) would make a Controller. They really seem to me to be about 'Reaching out and touching someone' not 'shaping the battlespace'.

I would love to see the monk as controller. A monk (or martial artist) could be a controller by using throws to move opponents around on the battlefield, halting passage with whirlwind attacks, or even using opponents as weapons against their own. He could have thrown weapons as immediate attacks if people approach and maybe cling to a big monster to hamper or steer it's move. The monk could intercept ranged attacks aimed at friends and be better than others when using battlefield features.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
This is the problem might arise from putting too much into "roles". The roles should help the developers but if they are taken too strictly they become a restriction, like deciding that the Warlock is a striker and as a consequence avoiding giving him anything that would make it decent in another role.

However I think the developers have not made such a mistake, and each class can still cover another role significantly well (even if they are best in one role only). So the Warlock could be both a striker and a controller, depending on which powers you choose.

Olgar Shiverstone said:
I'm hoping they put the druid in. I don't want to have to wait a year for a second PHB to get a class I consider to be one of the core historical classes.

I hope that too so much... but lack of mention of the Druid is continuing and my hope is waning.
 

theredrobedwizard

First Post
Alnag said:
And are we sure, that ranger is striker after all. I mean - rogue is martial striker right. And if ranger would be made more into "archery-type" character controling battlefield with arrows he might very well be martial type of controler. Right?

The PHB2 Variant Ranger abilities allowed them to make someone they'd hit with a ranged attack effectively flanked for their allies. I could see a Ranger built around that effect as well as things like "arrow to the knee" slowing a creature's movement or "I said, Dance!" making the creature provoke an AoO.

-TRRW
 

Stalker0

Legend
Wasn't the sorcerer confirmed as a class a while back?

Though a second arcane controller wouldn't feel right either (and frankly with the wizard and warlock in the game I really hope they drop the sorcerer like a pair of a old shoes).
 

Kunimatyu

First Post
I'd really prefer not to see a core Druid in PHB1, regardless of "role". All the gunk associated with the 3.5 Druid (summoning, companion, battlefield control, shape-changing, elemental damage, etc, etc.) has really soured me on the whole concept, and I'd prefer to just have nature priests for a while, with "Druid" as a PrC-ish option for levels 20-30, much like Frenzied Berserker is supposed to be for Barbarian in 4e.
 

Irda Ranger

First Post
I think either the Druid or the Illusionist would make a good controller. My bet though, at this time, is Illusionist. WotC has deliberately said they holding back some "surprise!" moments. Although making the Druid the second controller would be welcome, it wouldn't have the same "Oh snap!, no they didn't!!" effect that bringing back the Illusionist as a separate class would.

A third possibility is that it's an entirely new class, but we've already got the Warlord and the Warlock. That's enough "new" in the class department; and much of the existing customer base is already trying to assimilate Eladrin and Tieflins as core. Another new Core class on top of that might be too much, while bringing back to the Illusionist would be a huge bone thrown to the grongard crowd.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top