Who will "fill in the grid"?
- Thread starter Cryptos
- Start date
Klaus
First Post
SO...
We want a controller, someone who affects multiple opponents, who affects the battlefield.
We want a character class who does this through his own martial training, not some outside force.
What are some ways that a non-caster type could do this?
- Kicking up dirt to hinder sight in a small radius.
- Smashing scenery to hinder movement.
- Throwing large objects at a group of enemies.
- Causing shockwaves (like the Hulk's stomp) through the ground to create rubble and possibly deal damage.
- Intimidating groups of foes.
Could the monk be rejigged into a Martial Controller class that accomplishes this?
We want a controller, someone who affects multiple opponents, who affects the battlefield.
We want a character class who does this through his own martial training, not some outside force.
What are some ways that a non-caster type could do this?
- Kicking up dirt to hinder sight in a small radius.
- Smashing scenery to hinder movement.
- Throwing large objects at a group of enemies.
- Causing shockwaves (like the Hulk's stomp) through the ground to create rubble and possibly deal damage.
- Intimidating groups of foes.
Could the monk be rejigged into a Martial Controller class that accomplishes this?
Something that occurs to me.
In R&C, it says that the balancing factor for the wizard is that while the wizard is the most offensively potent, he's defensively weak (specifically, low defenses and HP). He gets toe to toe, he's likely going to get smooshed.
Do you think this is universal to controllers?
Defenders, by their nature, are going to be sturdy - they need the hit points, the AC, to take the punishment of monsters. Strikers seem less sturdy than Defenders; we're told the rogue weaker, defensively, than the Defender. And Leaders, at least to me, look pretty sturdy from a defensive perspective (and not as offensive).
So would this mean that controllers, by nature, are offensively potent due to their ability to effect multiple foes but easily smooshable? And how would that color a martial controller?
In R&C, it says that the balancing factor for the wizard is that while the wizard is the most offensively potent, he's defensively weak (specifically, low defenses and HP). He gets toe to toe, he's likely going to get smooshed.
Do you think this is universal to controllers?
Defenders, by their nature, are going to be sturdy - they need the hit points, the AC, to take the punishment of monsters. Strikers seem less sturdy than Defenders; we're told the rogue weaker, defensively, than the Defender. And Leaders, at least to me, look pretty sturdy from a defensive perspective (and not as offensive).
So would this mean that controllers, by nature, are offensively potent due to their ability to effect multiple foes but easily smooshable? And how would that color a martial controller?
I don't think "easily smooshable" is a very good downside in 3e.
The reason is that DMs don't want to actually smoosh you. And there's plenty of other, nonsmooshable party members for the monsters to attack, and those party members interpose themselves so that the smooshable characters don't get smooshed.
Having effectively negated the downside of a wizard, the party then exploits the heck out of the upside. Can't blame them, of course. The upside of a wizard is much more easily exploited than whatever upside exists for a 3e fighter.
"Easily smooshable" only works as a downside to a character if there is some reason that they will encounter a risk of being smooshed. A rogue is more easily smooshed than a fighter, and both might fight in melee, which means that the rogue's higher smooshability is an actual downside because it will force the rogue player to react to it. The wizard is unlikely to have to react to his smooshability except by keeping behind the fighter, so it doesn't really count.
In a different play environment, this could be different. But its how its appeared to me in 3e.
The reason is that DMs don't want to actually smoosh you. And there's plenty of other, nonsmooshable party members for the monsters to attack, and those party members interpose themselves so that the smooshable characters don't get smooshed.
Having effectively negated the downside of a wizard, the party then exploits the heck out of the upside. Can't blame them, of course. The upside of a wizard is much more easily exploited than whatever upside exists for a 3e fighter.
"Easily smooshable" only works as a downside to a character if there is some reason that they will encounter a risk of being smooshed. A rogue is more easily smooshed than a fighter, and both might fight in melee, which means that the rogue's higher smooshability is an actual downside because it will force the rogue player to react to it. The wizard is unlikely to have to react to his smooshability except by keeping behind the fighter, so it doesn't really count.
In a different play environment, this could be different. But its how its appeared to me in 3e.
Well I was referring to 4e.Cadfan said:
This is true. I've heard the complaints that in 3e, DMs don't make monsters run past the fighter to chomp the wizard. Because in 3e, there's little reason not to do that; the fighter's going to get off an AoO and that's about it. A troll sneezes at some stupid sword, he wants to stop the guy with the fire.
And with the mobility of 4e, the point has been made several times, the wizard can't quite stand in the back if the back becomes the middle.
Last edited:
Darkwolf71
First Post
Well, the Defenders abilities to 'force' the monster to attack them instead of other PCs may address this. To a degree.
If the opportunity for a monster to attack a squishy is less likely to happen, the DM may be more inclined to take advantage of it when it does.
If the opportunity for a monster to attack a squishy is less likely to happen, the DM may be more inclined to take advantage of it when it does.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
Cadfan said:
As the GM, I'm always rooting for the PC's to win the day. Unfortunately for them, the monsters and NPC bad guys don't care about my desires. If they identify the Wizard as the primary threat then they usually do whatever they can, within their intelligence, capabilities and resources to eliminate them.
I reckon that over 50% of the PC deaths that have happened in my games over the years are because a smooshable PC was suddenly left hanging in the wind and the bad guys took advantage of them.
zoroaster100
First Post
I am really looking forward to having parties that can do without certain powersources. For example, I love the concept that balanced and effective parties could be created without any divine characters. It should be possible provide a game that can be enjoyed by four players even if all four are really adverse to the concept of divine characters, so long as one of them wants a leader role. This also opens up the possibility of having effective parties in campaign worlds where the DM can say there are no gods or divine beings, and the only source of magic is arcane.
I do a lot of head-shaking with the grid-brained folk as well. It's a mentality that extends way beyond this particular topic. They seem to really think there's some reducto logic at work--that if you create something that exists at one end of a spectrum, that you have also created a hole on the other end that imbalances the universe until it's been filled.ZombieRoboNinja said:
For example, there are folks who really get obsessed with the alignment wheel for various reasons. If you have a lawful good paladin, there should be a CE analogue. And an LE analogue. And a CG analogue.
If you have a LE outsider (devils), and a CE outsider (demons), then it's inevitable some bright child comes up with NE outsiders aas well (lame-arse "daemons"). And then you are compelled to go to the good side of the wheel and fill it out with guardinals and eladrin and devas and all this other stuff that really don't have interesting or important distinctions.
And let's not even get started on dragons, giants, and anything remotely based on color or elements.
Symmetry is good in some ways, but it does seem to command way too much of a priority with some folks. Do we really need a martial controller? Should we just naturally expect that there's going to be one?
Last edited:
Raduin711
Hero
Just a quick anecdote.
When the new World of Darkness was announced, they began with Vampire, then Werewolf and lastly Mage.
Each followed a pattern that there were 5 inborn splats and 5 social organizations. Well, there was a lot of speculation about Werewolf and Mage regarding what (old idea) was going to fit into which slot.
For instance, Vampire had the lordly Ventrue, monstrous Nosferatu, bestial Gangrel, etc. When werewolf came out, people looked for the same pattern, or something close... but inevitably they were looking at the new game through OWoD glasses. There were elements of the old there, and there were new elements, and nobody was ever completely right, because there is no accounting for creativity.
When Mage came out, the same thing happened, only speculators had more ammunition. Now they were drawing commonalities between the 5 clans of vampires and the 5 auspices of werewolves to find out what the 5 paths were going to be. Again, everyone was caught off guard, things didn't come out like predicted.
I guess the idea is that you can't cling too much to these "grids". You can't use your knowledge of what a wizard was in 3rd edition to tell you what a controller is like in 4th. There is no real telling of what it means to have a character with a martial power source. Game designers also have a talent for surprising you. They know it, too; which is why they are giving us information with the knowledge that we will use our 3rd edition glasses to fill in the blanks, so that when the product comes out we will be surprised, and hopefully wowed.
When the new World of Darkness was announced, they began with Vampire, then Werewolf and lastly Mage.
Each followed a pattern that there were 5 inborn splats and 5 social organizations. Well, there was a lot of speculation about Werewolf and Mage regarding what (old idea) was going to fit into which slot.
For instance, Vampire had the lordly Ventrue, monstrous Nosferatu, bestial Gangrel, etc. When werewolf came out, people looked for the same pattern, or something close... but inevitably they were looking at the new game through OWoD glasses. There were elements of the old there, and there were new elements, and nobody was ever completely right, because there is no accounting for creativity.
When Mage came out, the same thing happened, only speculators had more ammunition. Now they were drawing commonalities between the 5 clans of vampires and the 5 auspices of werewolves to find out what the 5 paths were going to be. Again, everyone was caught off guard, things didn't come out like predicted.
I guess the idea is that you can't cling too much to these "grids". You can't use your knowledge of what a wizard was in 3rd edition to tell you what a controller is like in 4th. There is no real telling of what it means to have a character with a martial power source. Game designers also have a talent for surprising you. They know it, too; which is why they are giving us information with the knowledge that we will use our 3rd edition glasses to fill in the blanks, so that when the product comes out we will be surprised, and hopefully wowed.
