Who will "fill in the grid"?

[Darkwolf71]

Clearly some people want it. If it comes to that, so be it. And I'm certain a 3rd party is willing to publish it.

So? Let a third party publish it. In fact, I HOPE a third party publishes it. Then WotC can be free to make more serious classes.

 

[Darkwolf71]

In the PHB, from what we can tell:

Defender - Fighter, Paladin
Striker - Rogue, Warlock, Ranger
Leader - Warlord, Cleric
Controller - Wizard

I personally dislike there being only one controller. Everyone has more options than 1.

While I don't agree with 'grids' I do agree that there should be more than one option for each role. I'm sure WotC sees this too. I know the Warlock is primarily a Striker but I would be very surprised if, through various invocations, feats, and abilities they cannot adequately fill a Controllers spot as well.

 

[Set]

It's AoE for Area of Effect, not Area of Everywhere. I think the "reach" of many AoE wizard spells is being overstated or overestimated here. I doubt AoEs would be significantly greater in radius from 3e to 4e.

Precisely. A low level Wizard using a Grease spell as 'battlefield control' to restrict or channel his foes movements is affecting an area as small as, or smaller than, the Spiked Chain wielding fighter, although he is beating out the Rogue throwing down Caltrops or using Tanglefoot Bags...

The 'role' doesn't mean that every single class is going to be *identical* at that role. They just have to be able to do it effectively, and a trip-specialized Fighter is a very effective build, who will be better than a Wizard with Grease spells in some cases (being able to 'control' an area with fellow PCs in it, for instance), and less useful in others (not being able to throw up some disposable 'control' to slow enemy advancement while the party flees), depending on the situation.

This isn't 'forcing' anything to fit a grid, this is pre-existing builds *already available* in 3rd edition being usable in 4th edition.

Is that the argument I'm hearing here? Is 4th Edition being unable to do what 3E already does being lauded as a feature?

 

[Cadfan]

Precisely. A low level Wizard using a Grease spell as 'battlefield control' to restrict or channel his foes movements is affecting an area as small as, or smaller than, the Spiked Chain wielding fighter, although he is beating out the Rogue throwing down Caltrops or using Tanglefoot Bags...

You're not getting it. The problem isn't just the area of effect, its the reach. A low level wizard using a grease spell may only be affecting a 10 by 10 square, but he can affect any 10 by 10 square on the battlefield. The trip attacking fighter can only attack what he can reach. Now, enemies that the fighter can reach can generally reach the fighter. This makes him a defender, pretty much by definition, since the specific way that he hinders foes is by holding them adjacent to him and forcing them to do battle with him, rather than with his allies.

Trip (when used in melee) is pretty much a quintessential "defender" type ability. It stops enemies from easily leaving your reach, forcing them to fight you instead of the rest of your party.

 

[Set]

You're not getting it. [snip] This makes him a defender, pretty much by definition, since the specific way that he hinders foes is by holding them adjacent to him and forcing them to do battle with him, rather than with his allies.

Trip (when used in melee) is pretty much a quintessential "defender" type ability. It stops enemies from easily leaving your reach, forcing them to fight you instead of the rest of your party.

You may be right, I may not be 'getting' the 4E designations at all.

I was not aware that the Defender was a battlefield controller with no (or limited) reach, and the Controller was a battlefield controller with reach.

 

[Cadfan]

You may be right, I may not be 'getting' the 4E designations at all.

I was not aware that the Defender was a battlefield controller with no (or limited) reach, and the Controller was a battlefield controller with reach.

Its not precisely the same.

Knocking someone off their feet stops them from moving around the battlefield as much as they'd like. It may also grant attacks of opportunity if someone is nearby to exploit it.

Defenders hold enemies nearby, stopping the enemy from attacking weaker party members, and keeping the enemy within reach so that the defender can pound on them.

Controllers affect, amongst other things, the general conditions of the battlefield, including who may move where.

The general act of "knocking someone down" can fit into either paradigm. If your goal in knocking someone down is to curbstomp them while they're there, you're probably acting as a defender. You're trying to keep an enemy nearby so that you can hit them, and they can't hit anyone else but you.

If your goal in knocking someone down is to, say, stop them from charging your party and keep them at range so that your party can pepper them with ranged attacks, you're being a controller.

To make the first work, you need to be able to knock down enemies within your melee reach, and you need a character who is durable enough in melee to survive having an enemy nearby him, and damaging enough in melee to accomplish something while the enemy is trapped.

To make the second work, you need to be able to trip at a long reach. You don't need much melee durability or damage, since that's not where you necessarily expect to fight.

See the difference? Its not about the tool (in this case, knocking enemies over), its about what you're using the tool to do.

 

[Aristotle]

I like the Alchemist idea... I'm not sure it's a martial class though. I think I prefer it under the Artifice/Invention/Science power source we've discussed in the past.

 

[Set]

It occurs to me this late in the discussion that the primary strength of the battlefield controller was to prevent enemies from being able to get those devastating full-round attacks, by making movement expensive for them (via grease, slow, sleet storm, walls of whatever) or too risky (attacks of opportunity, black tentacles, summoned swarms, flanking sneak attackers).

If 4E is getting rid of full attacks / multiple attack actions, the real need for a controller seems to be diminished.

 

[Cadfan]

If 4E is getting rid of full attacks / multiple attack actions, the real need for a controller seems to be diminished.

Not necessarily. If you're getting attacked by 12 orcs, using a wall of fire to divide them into two groups lets you suffer fewer attacks while you clean up each set. And area of effect attacks become automatically more powerful as the number of enemies increases.

 

[Knight Otu]

My problem with Engineers or Machinists as "Martial Controller" is that - well, it is not a martial controller. They are using technology, not their pure fighting skills.

Keeping in mind that Martial in the context of 4E means exceptional training, and not necessarily weapon training alone (Rogues have been mentioned to be masters at skills, rather than arms) - "Just as fighters do more with weapons than any other character, rogues push skills beyond the limits that constrain other PCs." An "engineer" class might push other equipment in the same way.
Still, the possible flavor of a martial controller is a puzzler. I'm thinking of a few paths, but none really do a lot for me at this point.