Who will "fill in the grid"?

Cryptos

First Post
Reading Necromancer Game's announcement about how they want to try and fill in the gaps and replace the "lost" classes and races for 4e right out of the gate, I started thinking about another area that third party publishers might want to look at entering, and it's one that would not be in conflict with WotC's plans at all.

In terms of the combat role / power source 'grid' Wizards has said that they have no interest in filling it in. However, it does seem that there is at least some interest from some fans to see someone take on Martial Controllers and Arcane Defenders, and all the other empty slots on that 'grid.'

For me, it's more an exercise in creating new ideas for classes or at least new approaches for old ideas. I understand it's not strictly necessary. But I see it as a way to experiment with the new design philosophy and see how well it can stand up in terms of diversity and flexibility. I also have to admit, I like to have all the options. It could also lead to some interesting parties or campaign ideas that remain well-rounded despite eschewing certain sorts of power - the PC group that are all divine-powered by the same god or church, or the PC group from some arcane institution, the anti-magic party, etc.

A product like this could not only provide new classes or reintroduce some old ones in a new way, it could also provide some insight as a homebrew design tool, to gain insight into what makes for balanced 4e class construction. As a supplement to the official PHB, it could be an interesting item focusing on new options and ideas to "fill in the grid." It could even become a regular thing as new power sources come out.

So the past is being staked out by Necromancer until WotC comes back around to claim it for themselves with the PHB2 (3, 4, 5, etc.), but WotC has seemingly passed on at least one aspect of the present/future completely. I'm just wondering what publisher, if any, might take on that challenge.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Supposing that the Power Source concept is in the SRD, then other game producers could really get creative with new classes, powers, and such. I could really get into that.
 

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR why is everybody so obsessed with this damn "grid"?

The "power source" thing is pure fluff, and the "role" thing has been an underlying assumption of the system since 1e. Just because you CAN make a grid of the two doesn't mean it's a useful idea. Some concepts just plain don't work. An "arcane leader" can't work almost by definition, since arcane spells can't heal; otherwise, the arcane-divine split is rendered COMPLETELY nonsensical. A "martial controller" is bound to be so ridiculous it's not worth the effort. (Alchemical-bomb-thrower? Really-fast-trap-layer?) Meanwhile, some role-source combos can hold many different classes, each with a unique flavor. The obvious example is "martial striker": I don't think anyone can argue that rogue, ranger, and monk are all very iconic and mechanically unique.

I worry that even WOTC will get carried away with the roles. For example, psionics: they'll probably want three or four classes. Psion (controller) and Mindblade (striker) seem obvious. But if they then ignore Wilder because it's a redundant slot, and try to come up with a "psionic leader" instead... that'd be just plain silly, in my opinion.
 

An "arcane leader" can't work almost by definition, since arcane spells can't heal; otherwise, the arcane-divine split is rendered COMPLETELY nonsensical.

Bards. Besides, Leaders are more then just healing, and also includes buffing. And really, if you think that Arcane Leaders are bad, then how about Martial Leaders? They have no Divine spells to heal. And yet we have the Warlord. In comparison to that, an Arcane Leader is no trouble at all. I can see a Bard using his Bardic Music ability to heal, inspire, or something similar, in addition to his spells (Healing spells being available to Bards).
 

ZombieRoboNinja said:
Some concepts just plain don't work. An "arcane leader" can't work almost by definition, since arcane spells can't heal; otherwise, the arcane-divine split is rendered COMPLETELY nonsensical.
Bull-hockey. *points to Bard in PHB

I worry that even WOTC will get carried away with the roles. For example, psionics: they'll probably want three or four classes. Psion (controller) and Mindblade (striker) seem obvious. But if they then ignore Wilder because it's a redundant slot, and try to come up with a "psionic leader" instead... that'd be just plain silly, in my opinion.
Wasn't there a "Societal Mind" psionic class floating around?

Also, I'm not too worried about Wizards going "grid" crazy. After all, we are only getting 1 controller (supposedly) in the intial PHB for 4e...
 

I'm actually interested in the amount of "power creep" we'll see between what WotC publishes and what we see from other publishers.

Aside from the quality and fluff issues that came with some of the early 3E 3rd party publishers, there was an amazingly varied difference in power and real understanding of the rules. It will be interesting to see how different designers interpret the rules.
 

ZombieRoboNinja said:
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR why is everybody so obsessed with this damn "grid"?

The "power source" thing is pure fluff, and the "role" thing has been an underlying assumption of the system since 1e. Just because you CAN make a grid of the two doesn't mean it's a useful idea. Some concepts just plain don't work. An "arcane leader" can't work almost by definition, since arcane spells can't heal; otherwise, the arcane-divine split is rendered COMPLETELY nonsensical. A "martial controller" is bound to be so ridiculous it's not worth the effort. (Alchemical-bomb-thrower? Really-fast-trap-layer?) Meanwhile, some role-source combos can hold many different classes, each with a unique flavor. The obvious example is "martial striker": I don't think anyone can argue that rogue, ranger, and monk are all very iconic and mechanically unique.

I worry that even WOTC will get carried away with the roles. For example, psionics: they'll probably want three or four classes. Psion (controller) and Mindblade (striker) seem obvious. But if they then ignore Wilder because it's a redundant slot, and try to come up with a "psionic leader" instead... that'd be just plain silly, in my opinion.

By your reasoning, we shouldn't have the Warlord, either, because shouting out orders while looking and sounding really impressive to inspire the grunts shouldn't provide a healing effect, either. Further, you're relying on pre-4e definitions of "healing." The existence of the Warlord in the leader role actually demonstrates that. Healing is no longer limited to Dial-A-Prayer clerics.

Yes, the power source thing is fluff or mostly fluff. But so is the "Points of Light" default setting. So is the default pantheon. So is all the stuff previewed in Worlds and Monsters. Doesn't mean people aren't interested in it. As I said, someone might have an interest in having a well-rounded party of members from a given religion/church, or some arcane organization. It's fluff, but so is everything that campaigns are based around.

The fact that some people have discussed it favorably, while it irritates others beyond reason, seems to me to make it sound like a perfect fit for a third party to explore rather than WotC, which is why I posited the question in this thread.

I also don't think that you have to worry about 'redundant slots' for psionics. They've said that they're not interested in filling in the grid themselves, and the fact that we have three strikers right from the start seems to strongly indicate this isn't even a consideration on the part of WotC.
 
Last edited:

"Filing in the grid" allow for players and DMs to have a certain flavor or theme to a campaign. Since the "ideal" party would have at least one class from each role. If the grid is filled in you can then have an ideal party from a single power source (theme).

gritty low magic group - All martial; fighter, rogue, warlord, trapper (martial controller)

The inquisition - All divine: Paladin, harrier (divine striker), cleric, priest (divine controller)

Hogwart's wrecking squad - Swordsage, warlock, bard, wizard

etc... etc...

DM's can worldbuild by allowing/denying power sources without closing off necessary roles. "The gods have all died, no divine characters", or "Arcane magic is considered evil and you'll get burned at the stake if you use it." and so forth.
 

captaincursor said:
"Filing in the grid" allow for players and DMs to have a certain flavor or theme to a campaign. Since the "ideal" party would have at least one class from each role. If the grid is filled in you can then have an ideal party from a single power source (theme).

gritty low magic group - All martial; fighter, rogue, warlord, trapper (martial controller)

The inquisition - All divine: Paladin, harrier (divine striker), cleric, priest (divine controller)

Hogwart's wrecking squad - Swordsage, warlock, bard, wizard

etc... etc...

DM's can worldbuild by allowing/denying power sources without closing off necessary roles. "The gods have all died, no divine characters", or "Arcane magic is considered evil and you'll get burned at the stake if you use it." and so forth.

Exactly.
 

Arcane Leader = Bard
Martial Controller = Archer
Arcane Defender = Swordmage (this is one is already planned for the future according to WotC)

Easy. :)
 

Remove ads

Top