Who will "fill in the grid"?

[Kwalish Kid]

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

It serves as a way to help ensure that every PC will have something to do in combat.
[qutoe]The "power source" thing is pure fluff, and the "role" thing has been an underlying assumption of the system since 1e.[/quote]
What's bad about fluff? That fluff is part of role-playing.

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.

One doesn't have to fill in the grid and one doesn't have to fill in the grid with the obvious. If might be that there are ways to meet the needs of a role in ways we haven't thought of yet.

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.

A psionic leader would be perfect. They could really foster party coordination and they could boost the ability of PCs to use mind over matter to "heal" themselves (this is my guess for the martial leader).

 

[Raduin711]

I think it is interesting to think of ways to fill slots... Arcane Leader? Martial Controller? and so on.

I don't think filling the grid is strictly necessary (so long as we have a variety of class options) but it is fun to think of. Maybe we will end up seeing some grid-filling by WOTC. Maybe not. I don't think it is anything to get too worked up about. I say, enjoy your speculation. =]

In any event, I imagine that some power sources will be better at some roles than others. We may be seeing more arcane controllers, for instance, since that seems to be a role arcane magic is well-equipped for. (Illusionist, maybe?) so we can't rule out overlap.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

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.

Well, it seems to me that since we have been told "Wizard is a controller", some folks are turning it around and saying "Controllers are wizards," and rejecting any proposed controller that isn't a wizard by another method. On the other hand, noone seems to be rejecting proposed strikers on the logic that "strikers are rogues, and I don't see how this idea would work for disarming traps." This may be the biggest problem in only having one controller in the phb - setting up the narrowest perception of the role and what is needed to fill it.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Well, it seems to me that since we have been told "Wizard is a controller", some folks are turning it around and saying "Controllers are wizards," and rejecting any proposed controller that isn't a wizard by another method. On the other hand, noone seems to be rejecting proposed strikers on the logic that "strikers are rogues, and I don't see how this idea would work for disarming traps." This may be the biggest problem in only having one controller in the phb - setting up the narrowest perception of the role and what is needed to fill it.

No, people are rejecting proposed ideas for controlers because they don't like the flavor of them. At least that's my reason.

Another view would be:
It's very easy to come up with ideas for strikers, and at the same time hard to find solid controller ideas. As evidenced by there being 3 strikers and 1 controller in the PHB.

 

[Clavis]

I take the position that classes should not be designed simply to "fill out the grid". I believe character classes should be as archetypal as possible, rather than created to exploit game rules. The reason for this is that character classes are essentially a convenience, speeding character creation and encouraging roleplaying. For them to function in that way, they have to exemplify ideas already existing in the minds of players, especially new players. A character class should exist to express one of the pre-existing literary or legendary archetypes. A reasonably well-educated player should know everything essential about playing a character class just by hearing its name alone. Game rules and conventions should follow from the archetype, with the rules being as intuitive as possible. If a pre-existing archetypal class happens to also exploit some facet of the game rules, that's great. But creating a class which is nothing but a set of arbitrary powers with no precedents is playing to the weaknesses of a class system, not its strengths. If you want characters like that, why use a class system at all? After all, a pure point-based system like GURPS allows the creation of any character type imaginable.

 

[The_Pugilist]

I'm rather partial to the wuxia style martial artist (either divorced from mystical aspects of the monk or those being optional) who runs through swarms of mooks, sweep kicking multiple monsters off of their feet or doing limited damage to groups through whirlwind strikes and the like. I think that could be a fun "martial controller" with optional striker/defender elements.

 

[Cadfan]

Striker: guy who singles out an enemy for heavy damage. There's about a billion ways to do this. The only fundamental needs in creating a striker are 1) ability to deal heavy damage, and 2) ability to deliver that to a chosen target. So you've got rogues, who have sneak attack for heavy damage, and tumbling type mobility to get them where they can deliver it. And you have all sorts of ranged attackers.

Controller: Guy who modifies the battlespace itself, whether by altering the terrain, or altering combatant's ability to traverse the terrain, or creating incentives for combatants to choose to move about in particular ways. What accomplishes this? Well, magic can alter a battlefield. It can alter combatant's ability to traverse the terrain, either by hindering them, or by enhancing them. It can create incentives to travel in particular ways, by threatening to explode people who stand too close together, or by creating permeable but damaging walls.

What nonmagical force can do that?

I predict that we'll get a pseudo martial controller sooner or later, but it will be created about the time WOTC starts making power source hybrids. It will be martial in some ways, and arcane in others. The arcane side will handle most of the controlling.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Martial Controller - Artificer, someone who makes gadgets/potions/other stuff

Divine Controller - Predicant, uses his divine authority to shatter enemies' wills, hold people in place, etc.

Divine Striker - Monk, life of spirituality and ascetism allows the use of faith/devotion as his only weapon

 

[SteveC]

Why? ISTM like if there are lots of different arcane controllers (an there will be) the lack of a martial one doesn't make any difference in that respect.

EDIT: Not to mention potentially Psionic controllers, and Primal controllers, and Shadow controllers...


glass.

I actually think this is a very good question so here you go:

At launch, there will be fewer controller options than any other role, which means that if you're playing the controller you have fewer classes to choose from. The reason people complain about playing a cleric in previous editions is because you need someone who can heal, so in many games you get someone who feels they're "getting stuck playing the cleric."

Having four roles that are expected to exist in a party in order for it to be effective in 4E, and having fewer classes in one of those roles means that people may very likely complain "great, I have to play the controller!"

Will that actually be the case: do you really need a controller? I doubt it, just like I have played in campaigns where there wasn't a cleric that worked just fine. That doesn't mean people won't complain about it.

Now the question is: are they right to? In this instance I think they are, but only to a modest extent. Both the "roles" and "power sources" are concepts that are new to D&D for 4E, and they're artificial constructs created to help define the roles that make playing 4E fun. In effect they're metagaming concepts.

So when you create your metagame constructs, why not define them in such a way to make them applicable to all of the roles you expect people play in the game? I guess all of this is a longwinded way of saying, "since the concept of a controller is entirely artificial, why not define it so that all of the power sources can have one?"

--Steve

 

[Darkwolf71]

I actually think this is a very good question so here you go:

At launch, there will be fewer controller options than any other role, which means that if you're playing the controller you have fewer classes to choose from. The reason people complain about playing a cleric in previous editions is because you need someone who can heal, so in many games you get someone who feels they're "getting stuck playing the cleric."

Having four roles that are expected to exist in a party in order for it to be effective in 4E, and having fewer classes in one of those roles means that people may very likely complain "great, I have to play the controller!"

I don't think this is a good compairison. There are far more players who enjoy playing a wizard than there are who like playing clerics.

I see your point, I just don't think it's a stong one.