If I was to run a completely martial powered game (probably setting it in some fantasy free world) this role could be crucial to a party's survival. Should there be more focus on creation of such a class? If so, what would it be like?
Thus far I have two possibilities lined up:
1. Some sort of Grenadier/Siege-master, specializing in thrown weapons and projectiles with area effects, this could also be supplemented with abilities that affect the battle field directly. Destroying cover, or breaking concealment, etc.
2. A trap runner, focusing on a specific battlefield setting traps and/or mines probably before, but possibly during battle. This has some very obvious disadvantages. It requires a certain familiarity to the battlefield that is very often not present in a dungeon crawl. It seems like there would be relatively little adventurous spirit with this one, but every class has it's little quirks this could just be a little bit bigger one. Would it be worth it just to have the combination?
So in general, I'd just like some opinions. Is this combination something R&D should consider more fully, or is it better to just pass this one by?
His abilities would require him to be able to move through combat quickly and get into position. Lots of "Move up to your speed and at the end create Burst 2 around your position" things.
I don't think there is going to be an official class.
Well, I suppose I might as well propose my idea (which I haven't seen mentioned before):
An archer. Not of the Ranger 'snipe one guy' sort, I'm talking area effect attacks representing rains of arrows, immobilization by pinning, ongoing damage from bleeding out, being dazed or stunned from suppressive fire, etc. etc.
It could work easily, and, honestly, we kinda need more bow wielding classes. Ammo would be an issue from the perspective of realism, but really, suppressing some disbelief on ammo usage has been necessary from the beginning (Blinding Barrage, anyone?)
The primary attribute would obviously be Dex, with Wisdom as a possible secondary (maintaing the Elven place as master archers). I have no idea what their other secondary attribute would be.
That's probably the closest we'll get to a martial controller.
See: Censure of Pursuit Avenger.
That's probably the closest we'll get to a martial controller.
Actually, I think a closer one would be archer ranger in epic tier.
I like the suggestion I've seen floated of the Gladiator as a martial controller (yes, yes, I know all about the gladiator articles in Dragon...that does not invalidate the existence of a potential Gladiator class). I know that WotC has said they don't feel compelled to fill out the grid. However, who says a controller has to be a ranged AoE monster to perform its role as a controller of the battlefield? In fact, the Druid looks like a trial run for a more melee-oriented controller (albeit a hybrid melee/ranged controller). I am playing a Predator Druid right now in LFR, and it is a fun close-range controller option.
A Gladiator could have weapon-based melee at-wills with control mechanics such as knocking prone, or dazing, slowing, immobilizing, and similar. Unlike other martial builds, burst at-wills, encounters and dailies alike (with a burst equal to your melee reach with the weapon used, of course), would be a common feature on such a character rather than an unusual toy to play with every now and then. They could also have melee versions of at-wills that punish the opponent for trying to get away from the controller, or get too close to the controller, thus controlling where they go on the battlefield.
Gladiators could have more exploits that draw enemies to it (pulls), or that force them to run away (pushes), or that simply maneuver enemies and allies alike around the battlefield with expert precision (slides), and ALL could easily be explained as purely martial-based abilities. No magic required whatsoever, lots of potential control mechanisms.
Gladiators would have beefier hit points than other controllers (a hair better than Druids, who are not overpowered with their extra hit points), and better low-armored defenses that do not require Dex or Int, albeit the former (Dex) could certainly be one of the secondaries that gets a build associated with it (PH2 quite clearly indicates this is a perfectly viable concept). Gladiators would also have the potential to deal slightly more damage with each attack than other controllers, due to their damage being based on weapon damage.
In exchange for this, Gladiators would lose out on some incredibly important mechanics for existing controllers: They'd lose out on all those wicked ranged options, conjurations, and zones. Instead, they'd use stances or neo-stances (all those non-stance "for the rest of the encounter" dailies we see in PH2) to beef up their control aspects with additional status effects, pushes, pulls, slides, damage redirection, and so on.
Essentially, Gladiators would be a primary Controller, with two builds going into secondary Defender (focusing more on being a somewhat "sticky" character with impressive control exploits), or secondary Leader (who focuses more on maneuvering yourself and allies around the battlefield, and providing allies with buffs against whomever you are attacking and distracting, again with impressive control exploits). A close combat combatant with potent dazes, stuns, knock prones, immobilizes, slows, and so on, often in bursts around him or her, with reach weapons, or both combined, would make for a very different feel overall than what we currently have.
Apparently, there will be a Martial Power II book. Perhaps there will be martial controller in that book.
They've said that new classes will only appear in PHs and Campaign PGs, never in power books.
either that or a MC only class.
The big problem with all the cool Martial Controller concepts is that they don't lend themselves well to a full two build (with more possibly later) 30 level write up. Having the controller role filled by suplementary option would be best IMO.
1. Some sort of Grenadier/Siege-master, specializing in thrown weapons and projectiles with area effects, this could also be supplemented with abilities that affect the battle field directly. Destroying cover, or breaking concealment, etc.
An effectively infinite supply of arrows is easy to imagine. Not only can you carry a couple dozen comfortably and make your own as you travel from literally stuff lying around, you can also recover them after a fight. An infinite supply of grenades? How are you getting these? You can't recover them, so how are you making more on the way? Also, why can't other characters use these grenades? Additionally, this would have to be in a setting book, since the default setting of D&D is not high tech enough for grenades or man-portable siege weapons. So what setting would it be? Eberron already has Artificer. Oh, and is this concept really Martial? Does the person really create these effects? This would be more like a "tech" power source or something. This is not martial.
2. A trap runner, focusing on a specific battlefield setting traps and/or mines probably before, but possibly during battle.
Same questions as above. Do you understand how complicated most traps really are? You cannot set a trap in a few seconds. And, this isn't really even Martial.
So in general, I'd just like some opinions. Is this combination something R&D should consider more fully, or is it better to just pass this one by?
Pass. This has been talked to death, and its never anything interesting. Here are additional suggestions that others have made in the past:
Archer with control effects:
Please tell me how this class differs from an Archer ranger. And I don't mean the individual powers, I mean the class. Whats special? Would it not be Dex with a secondary in, most likely, wisdom? Would it not shoot multiple arrows in rapid succession? Explain to me why Twin Strike with a bow is not already a "controller" power. Two targets is about what controllers tend to hit with their area at-wills, unless they get really lucky. Oh, and furthermore explain how you'd keep this ranged weapon user with area attacks from vastly outdamaging other controllers (since they can be limited by spell damage, while a martial controller archer could use the biggest, heaviest weapon's damage for all their powers)?
In before the can of worms gets opened....crap, too late.
i lol'd
In the end, every class already has a little controller in them
This is a bit more accurate.
Just because Swordmage is a little controllerly, as are Bard, Warlock, and Sorceror, does that mean the Wizard class is useless?
Just because the Avenger, Cleric, and Paladin have controller like powers, does that mean that the Invoker shouldn't have been made?
Just because Shaman, Warde, and Thaneborn Barbarians have a varying amount of controller-ish powers, does that negate the Druid?
NO.
So, just because the Rogue, Ranger, Warlord, and Fighter have some controller-like abilities, does not negate the use, nor does it negate the existance, of a Martial Controller.
1. Thank you to everyone who participated constructively in anyway in this conversation.
2. I have come to believe the main problem with the idea of a martial controller lies within the make up of the controller role. Any other role can have a secondary role as a defender, but according to Wizards the controller must be soft. This doesn't make much sense. The controller is a little bit a part of every class. "Tech boy" is right in that grenades can't work, arrows ammunition seems still too far fetched. About the best idea until this point is the gladiator/reach weapon fighter. However, I have decided to drop the conversation with in the confines of this system, obviously it's simply not worth trouble you get on the threads.
3. To those whom this concerns, I understand that the internet, and these threads are a place for each everyone to speak freely. They are the spawning grounds for the ideas that Wizards will inevitably put out their latest material. Sure, if you spend all day surfing this thing some ideas are going to get old as hell. That's no reason to take the time to write a reply and stunt someone else's conversation. When you come to a stupid conversation in a party a polite person will turn on their heel and find a more interesting one. If you don't like what you read on a thread, the simplest answer is to not waste anymore time on it than you have to. Stop wasting your and everyone else's time writing replies that try (and succeed in many cases) to make people feel stupid about their questions and ideas. It stunts human creativity, and I would think that at the very least players of Dungeons and Dragons would understand the value of creativity. If none of this says anything to you stop wasting your time on the threads. Go suck on World of Warcraft for a while and let the big boys have their conversations.
Just because Swordmage is a little controllerly, as are Bard, Warlock, and Sorceror, does that mean the Wizard class is useless?
Just because the Avenger, Cleric, and Paladin have controller like powers, does that mean that the Invoker shouldn't have been made?
Just because Shaman, Warde, and Thaneborn Barbarians have a varying amount of controller-ish powers, does that negate the Druid?
NO.
So, just because the Rogue, Ranger, Warlord, and Fighter have some controller-like abilities, does not negate the use, nor does it negate the existance, of a Martial Controller.
I think you missed the underlying point. Martial as a power source has less design space than the others. A spell that blasts an area is distinct from a spell that blasts one person. It really is. However, a guy who stabs one guy with a polearm or a guy who sweeps two or three guys with a polearm is in the same design space.
Explain to me what is different from an archer who focuses on attacking multiple foes vs. an archer who focuses on attacking multiple times? What is the difference between a melee fighter with multiple attacks and a melee fighter that attacks multiple targets? How about an agile and clever melee fighter who maneuvers enemies with guile, causes status effects, and has the occasional area attack different from well, you get the picture.
Explain to me what is different from an archer who focuses on attacking multiple foes vs. an archer who focuses on attacking multiple times? What is the difference between a melee fighter with multiple attacks and a melee fighter that attacks multiple targets? How about an agile and clever melee fighter who maneuvers enemies with guile, causes status effects, and has the occasional area attack different from well, you get the picture.
Hitting the multiple Targets and putting Status effects on them.
Hitting the multiple Targets and putting Status effects on them.
the difference between a Martial Controller and a non-controller is the CONTROL aspect. Yes, my Taclord has controllerish powers. but he is definitely a leader, no matter how much I try to make him a controller.
My Archer Ranger/other Ranger/Rogue is still a Striker, no matter how much I try to be a controller.
My Fighter is still a Defender, no matter how much I try to be a controller.
I get the picture. The differences are there for those who pay attention.
You're just being contrary and inflammitory. You want to stop us?
Try making an actual arguement other than "It isn't this way, so it shouldn't be this way."
Which is the only thing you've actually said.
Class name: Sergeant
Main Stats: Charisma, Strength, Constitution
Primary Role: Controller
Secondary Role: Leader or Defender
Concept: You lead your small ragtag band of men into battle, guiding them to where they can do the most damage.
You'd have three 'cohorts' that you'd direct in combat. These cohorts would work like summons in many ways. They'd be very durable and have their own HPs and healing surges. They'd provoke OAs as normal PCs do, and would get opportunity actions that trip enemies provoking OAs.
They would not get to roll attacks unless you used a power to give them attacks. However, their presence near an enemy would impact the enemy's ability to fight. You might have a class feature that allows you to give enemies a -1 to attack or AC per cohort adjacent to the enemy.
You'd have a class feature that would allow you to select what type of men are in your band: One aimed at a secondary leader role, where your men would be weak holy soldiers that provide some healing, or one aimed at a secondary defender role where the men in your band would be able to take OAs.
They'd be able to make cohort attacks as shamans make spirit attacks, but they could choose to make the cohort attacks with any one of their cohorts.
They'd use standards or bugles as implements.
At-wills might look like:
Mob Attack
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma +1 per cohot adjacent to the target vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Charisma modifier damage AND target is pushed 1 square
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Assume Formation
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Charisma modifier damage + 1 damage per cohort adjacent to you.
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Pinned In
At-Will * Martial, Implement
Standard Action Melee cohort 1
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma +2 vs. AC
Hit: d8 + Charisma and target is slowed until end of your next turn. If three cohorts are adjacent to the target, role a secondary attack:
Secondary attack: Charisma vs AC
Hit: Target is immobilized until the end of your next turn as long as three cohorts are adjacent.
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Split Up
At-Will * Martial, Implement
Standard Action Melee cohort 1
Target: One creature
Special: Before the attack, move each cohort 5 squares. If any cohorts are adjacent to the same creature at the end of this movement, you do not make the primary attack.
Attack: Charisma +2 vs. AC
Hit: d8 + Charisma
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Let 'Em Have It!
Standard Action Melee cohort 1
Target: All enemies adjacent to 2 allies, including at least 1 cohort.
Attack: Charisma +2 vs. AC
Hit: d8 + Charisma
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Push 'Em Back!
Standard Action Melee cohort 1
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma +2 vs. AC
Hit: d4 + push target 1 square and repeat this attack using a different cohort that has not already been used this turn to attack
Special: After all attacks have been made, each creature hit at least once takes Charisma modifier damage.
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Hitting the multiple Targets and putting Status effects on them.
So, how do you curtail damage? What weapons do you limit them to? Vanguard's Lightning, for example, does 1d6 for a reason.
the difference between a Martial Controller and a non-controller is the CONTROL aspect.
Please define control then, because Wizard attacks tend to hit multiple enemies for just damage, or one/two enemies with a status effect.
My Archer Ranger/other Ranger/Rogue is still a Striker, no matter how much I try to be a controller.
What makes him a striker and not a controller? Or more importantly, what would make a controller who used a bow and hit multiple targets different from an archer ranger?
First, even the strongest extant controller at will deals 1d10, and that's a single target attack. A longbow does that much all the time, and a Greatbow is even more.
How can you do reach without dealing lots of damage? Reach weapons tend to deal 1d10 damage, so multi-attack at-wills would be a problem.
You'd have to severely limit the weapons available for a weapon based controller. Otherwise, you'll just have a super character who has controller effects with Striker damage.
My Fighter is still a Defender, no matter how much I try to be a controller.
Yes, hence my suggestion for a controller PMC.
I get the picture. The differences are there for those who pay attention.
No, they're not. You've not explained the difference. Give me an example of a martial controller weapon using at-will.
You're just being contrary and inflammitory. You want to stop us?
"...stop us?" That was a weird phrase to use. Well, no, I don't want to stop "you" from coming up with a good idea, I want to stop "you" from using the same ideas over and over. I want to stop "you" from creating yet another painfully unbalanced class on the internet.
Try making an actual arguement other than "It isn't this way, so it shouldn't be this way."
I actually didn't make that argument at all. I thought I was rather articulate about the reasons it doesn't work.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results.
No martial controller.
Bel
I actually didn't make that argument at all. I thought I was rather articulate about the reasons it doesn't work.
Your reasons are: "I don't want one."
It really boils down to that.
EDIT: Myztek, that's a leader who comes with his own party as a class feature.
I don't see how a type of archer, who focuses less on single target damage(i.e.not an archer Ranger. in fact, not a ranger.), and instead uses groups of arrows (Robin Hood: Men in Tights, anyone?) fired at once, to hit a wider area.
Say, (for a quick example, I'm not that good at homebrew), Grab three arrows, shoot them such that they'll hit a three square WALL. As one shot.
Or, um... Grab several arrows, and shoot them such that thye stick out of the ground in an area, making it difficult terrain.
Answer to this thread: No.
Response to you: why not?
Why can't you offer an actual reason?
Response to you: why not?
Why can't you offer an actual reason?
I would say probably because every idea we have seen for a Martial Controller has been incredibly contrived and/or overpowered.
How would he be represented? My take is that it'd be the Artificer. In 3.5, the Artificer functioned by making all sorts of magic devices, but I see no reason not to expand this into devices of all sorts (magic and mundane). He could carry a (dare I say it?) utility belt which would function as the martial equivalent of a spellbook and a bag of parts from which he'd take pieces and build the devices he uses for his encounters and dailies.
The process of recovering those powers would be explained by the Artificer spending his rests (short and extended) rebuilding them (and if it's easy to imagine infinite arrow ammunition, it should be just as easy to imagine a bottomless bag of Macguyver parts).
This would, of course, be a bit gimmicky and possibly not suited for general D&D use, but if this was how the Artificer was manifested, then it would've been in Eberron, anyway.
Long story short: Artificer = Martial Controller.
Unfortunately, the Artificer is already slated to be an Arcane Leader so that ship has sailed.
As an aside, though, power sources aren't set in stone. I can easily recreate the Beguiler class by flavoring everything the Rogue does as casting upclose manipulative spells. That 1st-level Daily where you slide an opponent 1 square for the rest of the encounter? It's Baleful Transposition, where you continually blink/teleport the guy little by little as the fight goes on (remember that the Teleport keyword is there to describe how the power interacts with things that relate to that keyword, not to single out every other power as being incapable of teleportation).
Likewise, if the Druid can Control in melee range, then just ignore the whole "Primal" part and fluff him as a martial guy; at least, until more Controllers come out that also have more melee abilities.
Your reasons are: "I don't want one."
It really boils down to that.
Actually, I do want one. Or did. I wanted to try for the challenge of it, and with a good deal of experience on the subject, I can say it doesn't work with confidence.
I don't see how a type of archer, who focuses less on single target damage(i.e.not an archer Ranger. in fact, not a ranger.), and instead uses groups of arrows (Robin Hood: Men in Tights, anyone?) fired at once, to hit a wider area.
Say, (for a quick example, I'm not that good at homebrew), Grab three arrows, shoot them such that they'll hit a three square WALL. As one shot.
A longbow does 1d10. A Greatbow is 1d12. With a 3 square wall, that's potentially three targets. Please show me the precedence for an at-will attack that can hit three enemies that deals 1d10-1d12 damage.
We do have Twin Strike, which is a striker power, that deals that kind of damage, though this proposed power seems as if it would have potential to be even better.
Or, um... Grab several arrows, and shoot them such that thye stick out of the ground in an area, making it difficult terrain.
That is a good control effect. Tell me how much damage it would deal. If its based on weapon, its too much damage, I guaruntee it. If its not based on weapon, then what's the point of having them use weapons? Its a lose/lose. This is at least one reason why there's no martial controller.
how about a straight w damage with no attribute mod. i fail to see the difference between 1d6 +int and a straight 1d10.
Compare that to Twin Strike.
Of course, the class could use thrown weapons and slings instead of bows and reach weapons if you want to reduce damage, though I don't agree that it's a problem.
. WotC has said they feel no obligation to give every power source a class of every role. This was in response to questions about a lack of a Martial Controller, or in other words their way of saying there won't be one. That being made obvious once more I have yet to see an idea for a martial controller that works well and isn't overpowered or doesn't really bend metagame thinking to function (such as one I saw who was supposed to be able to use a longsword to effect every square in burst 3 with damage and I want to say it was restrained). Now granted there have been a few attempts with archers that warrant merit but most of them are either overpowered, eat through arrows so fast you either need to carry hundreds of them or run out, or both. Its hard to make a martial controller that both is balanced, reasonable from a metagame standpoint, and doesn't have some major flaw. That being said it doesn't mean it can't be done, I just don't see it happening.Response to you: why not?
You can't make a martial controller. You cannot physically, control someone in real life, and martial, and low levels should be believable. If you cannot be believable in heroic teir, you're automatically something other than martial.
Note: Believable is not the same thing as realistic.
AGAIN.
The reason people want a Martial Controller is that its unfair that martial is the only power source with a role they can't fullfill. Unless some other source gets denied a role its not a question of needless symetry anymore but of equality amongst power source.
The real problem with martial controller is that there isn't enough idea to make a full multiple build 30 level class. Sure you can come up with a few powers with controlling effect...but can you realistically do it enough to fill a class without being redundant?
I don't think so.
In my mind the best solutions are
A) An Archery Ranger build that focus on controller effects instead of raw damage, creating an hybrid Striker/Controller where you can decide where to lean on through power choice. Maybe get to replace Hunter Quarry with something more controllery even!
B) Multi-class only option(s). Controller powers you get through a Spellscarred like options called 'school of fighting' or some such. Similar to weapon mastery feat as well but with more power choices and a more controller vibe. Options for reach weapon and ranged weapons would be great.
We're not gonna get another martial class.
The reason people want a Martial Controller is that its unfair that martial is the only power source with a role they can't fullfill. Unless some other source gets denied a role its not a question of needless symetry anymore but of equality amongst power source.
It is not unfair. Nothing is unfair about not having a controller. You're acting as if a controller is even necessary. Controllers are the second least important role (after Striker, which does, well, only damage). Martial is just fine without a controller. Even an all Martial party would work great.
We're not gonna get another martial class.
I absolutely agree.
How would he be represented? My take is that it'd be the Artificer. In 3.5, the Artificer functioned by making all sorts of magic devices, but I see no reason not to expand this into devices of all sorts (magic and mundane). He could carry a (dare I say it?) utility belt which would function as the martial equivalent of a spellbook and a bag of parts from which he'd take pieces and build the devices he uses for his encounters and dailies.
Except that there is nothing Martial about devices and gadgets. This would have to fit in some new Technology power source...
Since nobody seems to have notice it the first time I'll post my thoughts on this.
AGAIN.
The reason people want a Martial Controller is that its unfair that martial is the only power source with a role they can't fullfill. Unless some other source gets denied a role its not a question of needless symetry anymore but of equality amongst power source.
It's not that we haven't noticed it. It's just that it's a pointless line of reasoning.
Life ain't fair, kiddo. And "fairness" and "equality" is just as much a part of power source design as "symmetry". Which is to say, not at all.
Besides, how would this lack of fairness manifest in play? The only ways I can think of that it might crop up are all incredibly contrived, like a campaign that only allowed one power source for the players or some sort of tournament where the power sources faced off against each other. Even in one of these cases, like mpl points out Martial would acquit itself very well even without a controller.
Except that there is nothing Martial about devices and gadgets. This would have to fit in some new Technology power source...
I would agree, except that I think mundane armor and weapons and shields would tend to qualify as less complicated devices and gadgets. Besides, the proposed Artificer's gadgets and all that wouldn't even need to be the crux of his MO, just the means to explain the more widespread of his effects.
Except that there is nothing Martial about devices and gadgets. This would have to fit in some new Technology power source...
This is a contrived argument. Are swords and arrows not a technology? A grenade is no different than an arrow.
By your insinuated definition of martial, only monks/unarmed combatants would qualify.
However, I do agree that an official martial controller is a pipe dream.
This is a contrived argument. Are swords and arrows not a technology? A grenade is no different than an arrow.
A grenade is no different from an arrow? Wha--?
Even beyond the obvious technological differences, an arrow is simple and basic equipment in the setting of D&D. A grenade does not exist at all in the setting of D&D. Hmm, which one of those weapons is believable?
Remember, the key requirement of Martial that other power sources don't have is that it must be believable.
It's not that we haven't noticed it. It's just that it's a pointless line of reasoning.
Is it as pointless as going into a thread you have no reason to be in and wasting your time and energy trying to get someone to stop doing something that has no affect on you?
So sometimes, it may just be possible, that sometimes people do some things without having perfectly logical reasons for doing them?
Interesting.
A martial controller works fine. Polearm / chain / whip wielder focused on trips and multiple attacks that deal [W] without modifiers or just Ability mod damage (no rolling).
Reach-weapon Pros:
Bursts and zones don't target allies, so no friendly fire.
Damage die slightly higher than a standard controller, but total output not as high as a striker.
Reach-weapon Cons:
Very Limited range and area affects.
Walls and difficult terrain hard to manage.
A martial controller based on Monk/Setting Sun would work as well. Throws of an opponent into other opponents dealing area damage and knocking prone. No reason to put Ki somewhere it isn't necessary.
Fear effects also work fine as a Martial Power, since intimidate works on bloodied enemies. Nothing too flashy, just debuffs. Would obviously not work on things already listed as immune to fear, but guess what, fireball doesn't work too well on red dragons and nobody says anything about that making wizards an invalid concept.
A grenade is no different from an arrow? Wha--?
Even beyond the obvious technological differences, an arrow is simple and basic equipment in the setting of D&D. A grenade does not exist at all in the setting of D&D. Hmm, which one of those weapons is believable?
Remember, the key requirement of Martial that other power sources don't have is that it must be believable.
I'm not sure if this is your attempt at being dense.
A grenade is a technology just like the bow and arrow are. His argument that "martial" can't use technology is contrived as any item crafted by man is a technology.
Also: http://www.socyberty.com/History/7-Most-Advanced-inventions-of-Ancient-Times.10780
Ancient times had lots of "unbelievable" stuff. There were early hand grenades long before the modern era.
Wikipedia: The first grenades appeared in the Byzantine Empire, not long after the reign of Leo III (717-741).[2] Byzantine soldiers learned that Greek fire, a Byzantine invention of the previous century, could not only be thrown by flamethrowers at the enemy, but also in stone and ceramic jars.[2] Later, glass containers were employed. Byzantine hand grenades with Greek fire in the 10th to 12th centuries are on display in the National Museum at Athens. The use of Greek fire, or rather variants thereof, spread to Muslim armies in the Near East, from where it reached China by the 10th century.[2]
Remember, the key requirement of Martial that other power sources don't have is that it must be believable.
Please provide rule source for this statement.
Then, if possible, please explain the close blast 3 that rangers have believably.
A grenade is no different from an arrow? Wha--?
Even beyond the obvious technological differences, an arrow is simple and basic equipment in the setting of D&D. A grenade does not exist at all in the setting of D&D. Hmm, which one of those weapons is believable?
Remember, the key requirement of Martial that other power sources don't have is that it must be believable.
If we go with the assumption that the Martial Controller could conceivably be an Artificer-esque class, then the nature of that class being Eberron-specific makes grenades a whole lot more plausible. Furthermore, wouldn't all of the alchemy things in AV qualify as grenades anyway?
And when did the Martial power source ever require believability? It can be inspired by stunts and actions that we in the real world are capable of, but the second you constrain the Martial power source (and by extension, all of the Martial classes) to believability when everyone else can do whatever because it's MAAAGIC, then you create an unfairness (which is exactly what this edition is supposed to be avoiding).
Is it as pointless as going into a thread you have no reason to be in and wasting your time and energy trying to get someone to stop doing something that has no affect on you?
Ahhh, the ad hominem argument. I was wondering how soon that old friend would crop up. :P
So sometimes, it may just be possible, that sometimes people do some things without having perfectly logical reasons for doing them?
Yes, it's a well known bug in the educational system. A fix is scheduled for "right after we solve global warming". I'm not holding my breath, though.
Back on topic: the source of a Martial hero's powers is defined as (PH pg. 54) "their own strength and willpower" as well as "training and dedication", and they "are not magic in the traditional sense".
Alchemy is some of the most traditional magic there is, so that's right out. Technology that is not commonly available at the D&D level of civilization isn't manufactured by strength and willpower, that takes a whole different set of attributes. Also, throwing a bunch of darts/shuriken/daggers really fast (like a Rogue can do) takes a good deal of strength and training. Lobbing a grenade? Not so much.
If we confine the martial wannabe-controller to reach weapons as you suggest (heck, I'll be generous and throw in some caltrops and the like), and solve the issue of [W] damage, there still remains the problem of a very limited skill set. This class will have no ranged attacks (AoE or otherwise - the discussion above excludes trick arrows) beyond thrown range, no really big zones or walls, no conjurations or summons. Compared to other controllers, this class will be a lame duck.
It would, however, make a perfectly good defender with controller as a secondary role. Like, you know, some existing Fighter builds.
Back on topic: the source of a Martial hero's powers is defined as (PH pg. 54) "their own strength and willpower" as well as "training and dedication", and they "are not magic in the traditional sense".
Alchemy is some of the most traditional magic there is, so that's right out. Technology that is not commonly available at the D&D level of civilization isn't manufactured by strength and willpower, that takes a whole different set of attributes. Also, throwing a bunch of darts/shuriken/daggers really fast (like a Rogue can do) takes a good deal of strength and training. Lobbing a grenade? Not so much.
If the martial controller used things like grenades and such, I don't see how him building those items doesn't require skill. Overcoming the challenges of the controller class with items and tools strikes me as being a very 'martial' characteristic. You need strength and training? How about getting the grenade far enough away from you that you don't blow up but precise enough to land right at the bugbear's feet?
Learning to use a grenade properly does require training. As do guns (and crossbows!). No, I'm sorry, an 'alchemical' controller could easily be martial. Will we get it? No. For the simple fact we have the artificer.
If the martial controller used things like grenades and such, I don't see how him building those items doesn't require skill.
Never said it didn't. Note that I never even used the word "skill". If I were to use it, I would say that building gadgets is a very different type of skill from using weapons or punching people.
You need strength and training? How about getting the grenade far enough away from you that you don't blow up but precise enough to land right at the bugbear's feet?
Nowhere near the amount of training needed to use a longbow, for example. Someone with a naturally good throwing arm could do it with hardly any practice at all, which can't be said of any martial skill.
But we're just picking nits now...
A grenade is a technology just like the bow and arrow are. His argument that "martial" can't use technology is contrived as any item crafted by man is a technology.
Yes, and these grenades are in a D&D book, where? Additionally, if it did exist, give me any reason at all why only one class would be allowed to use such a grenade. If its just standard technology, then anyone should be able to use it, just like all the other weapons.
If we go with the assumption that the Martial Controller could conceivably be an Artificer-esque class, then the nature of that class being Eberron-specific makes grenades a whole lot more plausible. Furthermore, wouldn't all of the alchemy things in AV qualify as grenades anyway?
If we're assuming its Artificeresque and Eberron specific, then 1) its not in 4e, since even classes in the setting books are considered core, and 2) it'd be arcane, just like the Artificer.
As for the alchemy, explain why this class would be able to use those consumables at-will without any cost or any care for availability of said material. Then explain why this class can throw a vial of alchemist fire while another class cannot without a multiclass feat.
And when did the Martial power source ever require believability? It can be inspired by stunts and actions that we in the real world are capable of, but the second you constrain the Martial power source (and by extension, all of the Martial classes) to believability when everyone else can do whatever because it's MAAAGIC, then you create an unfairness (which is exactly what this edition is supposed to be avoiding).
It is not unfair to say that Divine powers must come from a deity, is it? It is not unfair to say that Primal powers come from spirits, is it? It is not unfair to define a power source. The only issue is, a martial character is completely believable. Not realistic, but believable, at least as much as any action movie.
Please provide rule source for this statement.
Its somewhere in races and classes, I believe, but I don't own that book.Then, if possible, please explain the close blast 3 that rangers have believably.
It would have been nice had you told me what power you were referring to. The first close blast I see is Spray of Arrows, a level 9 daily. Its flavor text is already believable. You shoot a bunch of arrows really fast at a couple close targets, as a daily.
If this is trying to "trap me" into admitting an archer controller would be believable, I'll say straight out that it is, and point you to earlier in the thread in which I explained the problem with that idea. Its a question of balance. It can't do more damage than the other controller powers, nor can it be better than Twin Strike. It also can't completely ignore your weapon.
Yes, and these grenades are in a D&D book, where? Additionally, if it did exist, give me any reason at all why only one class would be allowed to use such a grenade. If its just standard technology, then anyone should be able to use it, just like all the other weapons.
Ah, yes, because we can only base new classes on things that are already in the two released Player core books. I direct you to the Artificer who is poised to use alchemical potions that are not currently in the books. The bard also works. By your argument we couldn't have the bard because we didn't have rules for musical instruments (which only the bard gains benefits from).
Sorry, but your argument falls flat.
Never said it didn't. Note that I never even used the word "skill". If I were to use it, I would say that building gadgets is a very different type of skill from using weapons or punching people.
True, but you did highlight training. And what is training if not honing skills?
Nowhere near the amount of training needed to use a longbow, for example. Someone with a naturally good throwing arm could do it with hardly any practice at all, which can't be said of any martial skill.
But we're just picking nits now...
Course, the Ranger could use a crossbow instead of a bow for his powers but I agree, this is nitpicking.
I don't see requiring training with 'typical fantasy weapons' being in a different category than requiring training with 'any weapons' from a mechanical (or even thematical) perspective.
Ahhh, the ad hominem argument. I was wondering how soon that old friend would crop up. :P
Well. You did try to bring logical arguments into an arena that neither required nor requested them. There is no logical reason to have any class for any game, let alone martial controller. Requiring one at your leisure seems a bit disingenuous if you're using logic as a basis.
There is [Class X] because the game designers and people purchasing the books wanted [Class X].
We want [Class Y].
QED.
Yes, it's a well known bug in the educational system. A fix is scheduled for "right after we solve global warming". I'm not holding my breath, though.
Yes, because life based on cold logic without emotion or desire would be AWESOME.
Back on topic: the source of a Martial hero's powers is defined as (PH pg. 54) "their own strength and willpower" as well as "training and dedication", and they "are not magic in the traditional sense".
Alchemy is some of the most traditional magic there is, so that's right out. Technology that is not commonly available at the D&D level of civilization isn't manufactured by strength and willpower, that takes a whole different set of attributes. Also, throwing a bunch of darts/shuriken/daggers really fast (like a Rogue can do) takes a good deal of strength and training. Lobbing a grenade? Not so much.
I myself am not in favor of grenades (or any limited ammunition solution). I don't think controllers should be required to make zones of difficult terrain or make huge blasts at range. In actual play experience most controllers typically only manage to hit about 3 targets, maybe more if the DM is generous with the ineptitude of his minions placement (I sometimes throw gaggles of them in a cluster just to give the wizard a giggle). Requiring abilities to cover huge areas, when in actual play it isn't necessary, is counter to 4e design philosphy. Fun and balance trump believability and your logic.
If we confine the martial wannabe-controller to reach weapons as you suggest (heck, I'll be generous and throw in some caltrops and the like), and solve the issue of [W] damage, there still remains the problem of a very limited skill set. This class will have no ranged attacks (AoE or otherwise - the discussion above excludes trick arrows) beyond thrown range, no really big zones or walls, no conjurations or summons. Compared to other controllers, this class will be a lame duck.
I wouldn't limit your imagination so much. It's a game of make-believe.
Single-target ranged attacks are a non-issue, as thrown range or bow range is sufficient. Walls are of course a moderate problem, but walls occupying many of the squares at the edge of a close burst would be plausible and sufficient.
Ranged Burst = Charging close burst/multitarget. (I charge one guy, hit two other secondary targets, they take damage and status effect)
Big zone = close burst 2 (reach weapon's normal range of attack) is sufficient.
Feats and paragon classes would expand the burst radius.
Summons and conjurations are of course a "problem" only if you think that they are required for controllers. They aren't. You can build any controller without a single conjuration. Just because it is an option for some controllers doesn't mean it has to be for all.
Trident & Net Fighter
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1153060
You don't need to own it. It isn't a rules source. As such it does not fulfil my request.
It would have been nice had you told me what power you were referring to. The first close blast I see is Spray of Arrows, a level 9 daily. Its flavor text is already believable. You shoot a bunch of arrows really fast at a couple close targets, as a daily.
Away from books at the moment, but that is the ability in question.
If this is trying to "trap me" into admitting an archer controller would be believable, I'll say straight out that it is, and point you to earlier in the thread in which I explained the problem with that idea. Its a question of balance. It can't do more damage than the other controller powers, nor can it be better than Twin Strike. It also can't completely ignore your weapon.
No trap intended, I don't think the ability in question is believable. Not in heroic, not for a human at or above olympian human, not at all.
Fill a square with 9 mobile, self-interested humans, have another human move 30 feet and fire 9 arrows and accurately hit all 9 of them within 6 seconds.
It more than borders on supernatural human prowess (not magic, but prowess beyond normal human means), and as such it makes the possibility of another character with the martial power source (be it polearms or jujitsu or nets/whips/bolas or whatever) to also stretch believability.
YMMV.
If we're assuming its Artificeresque and Eberron specific, then 1) its not in 4e, since even classes in the setting books are considered core, and 2) it'd be arcane, just like the Artificer.
As for the alchemy, explain why this class would be able to use those consumables at-will without any cost or any care for availability of said material. Then explain why this class can throw a vial of alchemist fire while another class cannot without a multiclass feat.
1. Considering it's possible to explain Warforged in Faerun, I imagine it's just as possible for a class reliant on grenades and other techy things to be explained anywhere. So even though this hypothetical Artificer would've been introduced in Eberron, it still would be able to fit in fine in any D&D setting.
2. This hypothetical Artificer could easily be flavored as "the guy that makes stuff". Magic stuff, mundane stuff, any kind of stuff. The official Artificer is going to be Arcane, but the concept of "Artificer" is not dependent on magic power by any means. So no, this hypothetical Artificer would not necessarily be Arcane.
Anyone can learn to use rituals, but only those with the Arcane power source can use Spells and there's no cost associated with them. The Artificer's alchemical devices wouldn't need to be the same thing as in the Adventurer's Vault in terms of how they function mechanically, just how everyone in-game sees them.
It is not unfair to say that Divine powers must come from a deity, is it? It is not unfair to say that Primal powers come from spirits, is it? It is not unfair to define a power source. The only issue is, a martial character is completely believable. Not realistic, but believable, at least as much as any action movie.
I disagree. The Divine power source can be inspired by having people gain them from a deity, but when you establish that that's the only way, you're basically telling people that you know what bad roleplaying concepts are and that they shouldn't be.
The Blighter who learned to steal and manipulate the powers of Nature to further his own ends (including, for whatever reason, the destruction of the world) would be easily represented by the Druid or the Shaman class (just so long as no one declares that only those who respect nature can gain nature powers). The Blasphemer who somehow stole (or became the beneficiary of stolen) divine powers would be represented by any Divine class easily so long as no one actually requires divine power to come from worship.
Well. You did try to bring logical arguments into an arena that neither required nor requested them.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that statement.
There is no logical reason to have any class for any game
Quite. Ideas for new classes come from the imagination, not from logic. (Oh, except if you're a mad symmetrist who thinks it's "unfair" that one source lacks a certain role - that's a kind of twisted logic, actually. But that wasn't the Vegan, it was somebody else.)
However, once you've come up with your concept it needs to be tested to see how it measures up against previous classes, whether it conforms to the system, if you can make exceptions that are not unbalancing etc. etc. This process needs a good dose of logical thought to provide a usable result.
I don't think controllers should be required to make zones of difficult terrain or make huge blasts at range.
It seems the designers don't agree with you.
"Controller: A character who specializes in locking down multiple foes at once, usually at range. This involves inflicting damage or hindering conditions on multiple targets." (Races and Classes pg. 52)
Now, R&C is not RAW, I know. But as it shows the thought processes that went into design and development of the game, it's a pretty strong indicator of RAI. Especially as all 3 of the current controller classes fit the description.
Martial Controller is totally going to be the monk.
PHB1 confirmed the monk to be a ki class, so the monk being a martial controller would be kind of hard.
Martial Controller is totally going to be the monk.
Have you been living in a hole? Monk is a Ki Striker.
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that statement.
Either is fine. As long as it is emotional I'll be ok.
Quite. Ideas for new classes come from the imagination, not from logic. (Oh, except if you're a mad symmetrist who thinks it's "unfair" that one source lacks a certain role - that's a kind of twisted logic, actually. But that wasn't the Vegan, it was somebody else.)
But the problem isn't with their logic, it is that they felt required to present logical reasons for their emotional desires. They shouldn't have been asked or pressured to feel that way to begin with.
However, once you've come up with your concept it needs to be tested to see how it measures up against previous classes, whether it conforms to the system, if you can make exceptions that are not unbalancing etc. etc. This process needs a good dose of logical thought to provide a usable result.
Of course, but that isn't what's happening most of the time. Some of the time, but not most.
I see a lot of nay-saying, but really it should be "All signs point to no official controller" and that should be the worst. At best it should be "Doesn't look like there'd be an official one, here's some ideas for a homebrew" and then test that out.
I think an official one will come eventually, but not soon.
It seems the designers don't agree with you.
"Controller: A character who specializes in locking down multiple foes at once, usually at range. This involves inflicting damage or hindering conditions on multiple targets." (Races and Classes pg. 52)
Now, R&C is not RAW, I know. But as it shows the thought processes that went into design and development of the game, it's a pretty strong indicator of RAI. Especially as all 3 of the current controller classes fit the description.
Not surprising, they disagreed on what a controller was amonst themselves even.
But "usually at range" does not preclude the martial melee controller. They would be the exception that proves the RAI.
I have been creating a Martial Controller for the past several days. It has interesting class features, useful and unique at-wills, and a Martial concept behind it that has had a place in adventure fantasy for decades.
I can't wait for you to see it because, not only is it viable and balanced, it is going to be a blast to play.
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
Bottom Line (and I think even the pro-Martial Controller folk are gonna have to agree):
[u]WotC is never going to make an official Martial Controller.[/u]
Now, for some this means that they will have to make one.
I, personally, side with those that say "WHY!?"
The "grid" that people think needs to be filled to give each power source a class from each role is artificial and contrived. There is no need for a Martial Controller, we have 3 controllers now that can do their jobs just fine. Classes that, I might add have their place in either DnD's history or other fantasy archetypes.
Furthermore, a Martial Controller would be difficult to do given the definition of a Controller by WotC. A Controller needs to be able to inflict status effects, terrain control and, let's not forget, AoE damage, all on a consistent and reliable basis.
AoE damage is one of the big hurdles for a character operating without any magical influence, and terrrain control/modification is the other.
I've heard people discuss "trapmaking" as a possibility.
NO
Your character could not possibly have had access to every battlefield you are ever going to fight on and had time to prepare traps like that in advance. Dungeon crawling would just flat out not work at all. And to say "I'm going to use my daily power, which works based on the assumption that I built a trap there even though I didn't say anything about if before!" Is extremely contrived, and I think even the pro- people can agree.
"Alchemy" has also been discussed.
However, alchemy has already been implemented as a sort of replacement for Rituals that can be done by anybody for the price of a feat. Implementing that as a class feature and saying that they are an alchemist who can do more with alchemy than anyone else is rather unfair to anyone else who has taken the Alchemy feat from Adventurer's Vault.
"Reach Weapon User"
So this character would "control" things a short distance from himself, hindering enemies ability to move past him or succesfully attack his allies due to penalties imposed by the polearm wielder?
So...a defender?
Seriously, many classes have "secondary roles" And it's not hard for a defender to have Controller as a secondary role. Wardens do it. Polearm Fighters do it. Swordmages do it. Short range terrain control does not make you a Controller.
Controller is the one class role who's duties are described by more than just what the title inferrs. Defenders needs to defend to be successful, strikers do damage, and leaders affect allies in a positive manner. But Controllers are about MORE than "just" battlefield control. Area Offense is clearly stated in the definition of class roles in the PHB (page 15) and again in the definition of a Controller (PHB page 16, top).
How are you going to do that without magic?
How are you going to create difficult terrain without magic?
This is the standpoint of all of us "naysayers". To us, the construction of a martial controller class is either a)not fulfilling a definition of a controller b)not balanced for gameplay with current classes or c)Overly contrived in mechanics or theme. Or possibly many of those. We accept DnD as it is now, it's fine.
But to the rest of the "Naysayers" like me: We're not going to convince them. They know they're homeruling and stepping outside RAW to make their little classes. None of us would allow them in our games if we were DMing, but since we're not their DMs, why care? We think they're wrong, let them be wrong.
Let it go...
Oh, and the monk...
Ki class, that much has been confirmed. And Mike Mearls has implied that it will be a striker, because someone asked him over a year ago if the monk would be a martial striker, to which he responded "You're half right".
Note:
I apologize for any spelling/capitalization/grammar errors. I cut up my finger pretty bad earlier this week. Makes it difficult to type.
Ninja(Martial Striker)
Pirate(Martial Striker)
Gladiator(Martial Controller)
And yes, I still think the Martial Controllers are a bad idea.
Response to you: why not?
Why can't you offer an actual reason?
I'm pretty sure every reason 'why not' has been covered at this point, on the myriad "OMG WARE IS TEH MARITAL CONTROLER?" threads these forums have seen thus far.
Seriously, guys. Get over it. It's okay. Not every power source needs every role. I very much hope that one of the the remaining power sources lacks a role, because it's probably only then that this ridiculously overplayed argument might cease to come up.
"Reach Weapon User"
So this character would "control" things a short distance from himself, hindering enemies ability to move past him or succesfully attack his allies due to penalties imposed by the polearm wielder?
So...a defender?
Very similar. Defenders are a type of control. There really is not much difference between the various classes as is. Sub-role is a big part of the game.
Seriously, many classes have "secondary roles" And it's not hard for a defender to have Controller as a secondary role. Wardens do it. Polearm Fighters do it. Swordmages do it.
Oh awesome. So the fact that some classes have secondary roles means that no one anywhere ever can create a home-brewed class that has a primary role very similar and even attempting to do so is crazybadfun. I'll take that into serious consideration.
Short range terrain control does not make you a Controller.
So range 12 bursts 2 and zones 2 are short range? Thats the range a martial controller could move and charge, presumably with one of their many charging bursts. And if Burst 2 or Zone 2 is too much for your imagination to handle, just change it to 2 or 3 targets. . .
Controller is the one class role who's duties are described by more than just what the title infers. Defenders needs to defend to be successful, strikers do damage, and leaders affect allies in a positive manner. But Controllers are about MORE than "just" battlefield control. Area Offense is clearly stated in the definition of class roles in the PHB (page 15) and again in the definition of a Controller (PHB page 16, top).
How are you going to do that without magic?
How are you going to create difficult terrain without magic?
How does a fighter draw mindless/resistant creatures to him without magic? Please see my response to your contrived comment below.
And what requires controllers to make difficult terrain? I can understand making a zone of the battlefield that causes bad things to happen or hinders movement in some way, but why is everyone so hung up on "difficult terrain" specifically? It boggles ones mind how much effort the opponents of this class existing put into finding minor contrivances to quarrel over.
This is the standpoint of all of us "naysayers". To us, the construction of a martial controller class is either a)not fulfilling a definition of a controller b)not balanced for gameplay with current classes or c)Overly contrived in mechanics or theme. Or possibly many of those. We accept DnD as it is now, it's fine.
A> Arbitrary, even the designers can't decide what it means. The only thing people typically settle on is AoE and status affects/zones. And for some reason some people also believe controllers can't defend themselves. Please give a "definition of controller" that a guy with a polearm/whip/chain/nets/bolas/throwing training (without marks or high AC) doesn't meet. If you just say "has to at some point use magic to make difficult terrain" then your definition is wrong.
B>Balance issues always crop up with home-brew, that doesn't mean it is an invalid exercise.
C> Contrived, like pulling up to 9 mindless, blind, deaf creatures 3 squares with nothing but a simple call (come and get it)? Contrived, like a non-magical ability to shoot a "spray of arrows" in under 6 seconds? Contrived, like the mere presence of a buddy making you immune to the effects of you being on fire or covered in acid (Ease Suffering)? Contrived, like the hundreds of other contrived martial powers that already exist?
I'm just making sure we're on the same page here.
Martial Power Source may as well = Contrived Power source. Only calling it contrived when people are trying to make something that doesn't affect you at all is a little hypocritical and downright odd.
But to the rest of the "Naysayers" like me: We're not going to convince them. They know they're homeruling and stepping outside RAW to make their little classes. None of us would allow them in our games if we were DMing, but since we're not their DMs, why care? We think they're wrong, let them be wrong.
"[Our] little classes"? What the heck? Why are you insulting something that doesn't even really exist?
I'm really confused as to why there is so much vitriol against something that you realize, and even go so far as to point out, does not affect you in the slightest.
It's like the mere thought of a person having fun somewhere else that you don't agree with makes you physically ill. Chill out, back off, and get over it?
Very similar. Defenders are a type of control.
I would argue that Defenders and Leaders control battles far better than Controllers, but that's more a failure of name. I guess "Area attacks and status inflicting guy" was a big clunky.
Oh awesome. So the fact that some classes have secondary roles means that no one anywhere ever can create a home-brewed class that has a primary role very similar and even attempting to do so is crazybadfun. I'll take that into serious consideration.
Of course people can make a home-brewed class. Guess what? Its going to be terrible. Its not necessarily their fault, either, but the idea is doomed to failure.
This is like arguing that I shouldn't try and stop people from putting vinegar in their chocolate chip cookies or something. I guess its their right to eat crap, but if they post it on the internet and ask for opinions, I'm not going to say, "Oh, how creative!" Consider this a pre-emptive PEACH (Oh how I hate that acronym).
So range 12 bursts 2 and zones 2 are short range? Thats the range a martial controller could move and charge, presumably with one of their many charging bursts. And if Burst 2 or Zone 2 is too much for your imagination to handle, just change it to 2 or 3 targets.
Yes, that is actually a short range, because guess what? The guy does not end the turn 12 squares away, he ends up 2 squares away. Controllers have very low HP/surges, you know. That's sort of a feature of the role. (Druids have one step more not because they get melee powers, but because they are Primal. That's one of the primal sources' "things." It is not a martial thing, for sure, and you won't see another controller with more than 10/4/6). This guy who moves and then charges to create a zone, tell me what, if not distance, keeps him from getting ripped to pieces? How does he even get there when the enemy controllers are creating difficult terrain? Or the party finds itself in a difficult location anyway?
How does a fighter draw mindless/resistant creatures to him without magic? Please see my response to your contrived comment below.
He doesn't draw them to him, he hits them. They are perfectly free to ignore the extra damage he deals in punishment for ignoring his mark.
And what requires controllers to make difficult terrain? I can understand making a zone of the battlefield that causes bad things to happen or hinders movement in some way, but why is everyone so hung up on "difficult terrain" specifically? It boggles ones mind how much effort the opponents of this class existing put into finding minor contrivances to quarrel over.
No, I don't think this is that critical. Clearly, Shamans, a leader, make plenty of zones. And both Wardens and Barbarians make difficult terrain. I don't think that's necessary at all.
The only thing people typically settle on is AoE and status affects/zones.
That's thanks to the evidence that all current controllers do those things and the fact that the guys who write the game say that's what they do.
And for some reason some people also believe controllers can't defend themselves.
Each role has set Starting HP/HP per level/Surges. The primal source boosts those slightly, because that's their thing, and the Paladin gets an extra surge because of Lay on Hands and the fact that Con does very little for them. Otherwise, the numbers are set. The Controller role gets 10 HP to start, 4 HP per level, and 6 surges. Those are the rules of the role. So, yeah, by the rules, they can't defend themselves.
Please give a "definition of controller" that a guy with a polearm/whip/chain/nets/bolas/throwing training (without marks or high AC) doesn't meet. If you just say "has to at some point use magic to make difficult terrain" then your definition is wrong.
First of all, a class that is designed around the capabilities of specific weapons (nets/bolas) makes no sense. First of all, both of those weapons already have a multiclass feat and special powers for them. Secondly, the idea that one class can make a bola work but another can't is bizarre.
As for what definitions they violate, well, the reach weapon user is the closest to a viable martial controller as you can get. The problem is less with concept and more with balance. Especially when you consider just about everything you want them to do a Fighter can already do, just not at-will. They can even just choose not to mark and take a really low Con. This is solved by my earlier proposed idea that "Martial Controller" be a PMC only deal.
B>Balance issues always crop up with home-brew, that doesn't mean it is an invalid exercise.
It does if the ideas are inherently imbalanced. Specifically, an at-will that can deal [W] to two or more enemies is problematic. Twin Strike hits two, and is highly considered as the most powerful and broken at-will around. And its for Strikers. That's more damage than a controller should do. It gets worse when it becomes a Burst 1 (or 2) or blast 2 or 3. Then, you could potentially hit more than twice. That is too much damage for a controller. And if you don't have it do [W], if it just does stat damage, then the weapon you choose doesn't matter at all and you can just use the most beneficial weapon ignoring damage, which is problematic because weapons frequently give up damage for other qualities. And, yeah, that is very much against the philosophy of weapon based classes.
C> Contrived, like pulling up to 9 mindless, blind, deaf creatures 3 squares with nothing but a simple call (come and get it)? Contrived, like a non-magical ability to shoot a "spray of arrows" in under 6 seconds? Contrived, like the mere presence of a buddy making you immune to the effects of you being on fire or covered in acid (Ease Suffering)?
Are those powers at wills? Or are they isolated gimmicky powers? Are they the backbone of the class, or just minor tricks that push the boundaries? There is a big difference between a few "pushing it" gimmicks like Come And Get It as an encounter power, and building your whole class on the backbone of Come And Get It.
I'm really confused as to why there is so much vitriol against something that you realize, and even go so far as to point out, does not affect you in the slightest.
Its not vitriol, not for me at least. Its saving you time and effort. Its not vitriol to say, "Hey, don't bother trying to swim across the Atlantic, and I can't believe there are so many people who still want to try."
It's like the mere thought of a person having fun somewhere else that you don't agree with makes you physically ill. Chill out, back off, and get over it?
This is the kind of bad argumentation that begs for vitriol. You're no longer arguing against points. You're not saying, "I think you're ideas are incorrect and this is why." This is saying, "You are a bad person for disagreeing with me and I will make you feel bad for it. You are not allowed to discourage a waste of time and effort based on evidence because you will just be labeled a 'buzzkill' or 'no fun.' No matter how good your points are, just let me make a bad class in peace, so that all the people who don't know how to judge such things can think its a good and balanced idea."
Stuff
Explain the Avengers larger than normal amount of HP.
Having nonstandard HP is not just a Primal thing.
Explain the Avengers larger than normal amount of HP.
Having nonstandard HP is not just a Primal thing.
Its bizarre, clearly. Its not even a true increase. It should go up to 15.
The general formula is at level 1, you get HP as if you had 2.5 levels (rounded down). So defenders with 6 HP per level start with 15. Strikers and leaders who get 5 per level start with 12, Controllers who get 4 per level start with 10. Even the Warden follows since they get 7 per level and start with 17.
The avenger is off. It just is. Obviously, this invalidates literally everything I said in this thread so far. Because the Avenger breaks hit point rules (thus obviously allowing the Martial Controller to do so), every point I've ever made is moot. You win the thread.
You know, because giving a martial controller striker hit points will really make it a viable heavy melee combatant. For sure.
Its bizarre, clearly. Its not even a true increase. It should go up to 15.
The general formula is at level 1, you get HP as if you had 2.5 levels (rounded down). So defenders with 6 HP per level start with 15. Strikers and leaders who get 5 per level start with 12, Controllers who get 4 per level start with 10. Even the Warden follows since they get 7 per level and start with 17.
The avenger is off. It just is. Obviously, this invalidates literally everything I said in this thread so far. Because the Avenger breaks hit point rules (thus obviously allowing the Martial Controller to do so), every point I've ever made is moot. You win the thread.
You know, because giving a martial controller striker hit points will really make it a viable heavy melee combatant. For sure.
Warlord doesn't have a problem being in Melee. Warlord only has 1 more surge than a striker... so yeah.
Bunch of pointlessness.
I get it! You don't want a class like this in your game. DONT ALLOW THEM.
You speak of "saving time" but you're just wasting both of our times with your responses.
The point is you've admitted multiple times over the possibility and plausibility of a martial controller. You've said that all martial classes have elements of control and you can build a fighter that does a decent job.
You ignore the contrivances of PHB classes or my bringing them up, which is fine because its a game and I also ignore them, but that doesn't make them any less contrived.
I see no reason why a martial controller is limited in the ways you say, except that apparently creating them makes you very, very angry.
There are already martial abilities that deal fixed, non-weapon damage (Shield Bash, Cleave extra damage, etc), so that is a non-issue.
There are already AoE and zones created by Martial Classes (Several Close burst and blasts) so that's a non-issue.
There are several status affects created by Martial classes (slows, stuns, etc ad nauseum) so that's a non-issue.
Almost all of the martial power source abilities are contrived, I just picked out the best (I'm on fire, but I'm sure glad you're standing near me friend!) so that's a non-issue.
And vinegar is a fine ingredient for cookies (makes them fluffier) so that's a non-issue.
Nothing you said was really an issue with the concept of the martial controller. You just don't like it and will go to great lengths to bash any idea that comes up.
IF you don't like the concept or contrivances you may want to get out of fantasy gaming boards, because you're probably going to see a lot of contrived concepts that could quite possibly be fun (I'm a hippy that turns into animals! I'm a nerd that reads from a book and makes things explodez! Etc.). If it really is a balance issue, which is the only logical reason to object to any other person's homebrewed material, since they would be posting it here for assistance with mechanics, and typically not fluff, post suggestions on how to correct it or don't post at all. (And don't get me wrong, the balance points you bring up are good ones. If this were a thread for class design I'd go into it)
I think we've said all we need to as far as future releases go. Good day sir. I'll see you in the next Martial Controller thread!
Unless we can get this moved to the controller forum. . .
TSeriously, many classes have "secondary roles" And it's not hard for a defender to have Controller as a secondary role. Wardens do it. Polearm Fighters do it. Swordmages do it. Short range terrain control does not make you a Controller.
Controller is the one class role who's duties are described by more than just what the title inferrs. Defenders needs to defend to be successful, strikers do damage, and leaders affect allies in a positive manner. But Controllers are about MORE than "just" battlefield control. Area Offense is clearly stated in the definition of class roles in the PHB (page 15) and again in the definition of a Controller (PHB page 16, top).
How are you going to do that without magic?
How are you going to create difficult terrain without magic?
I dunno if you've checked out my Trident & Net fighter build. It can use cleave to attack two creatures per turn, one of them at a range of 7 (higher with -2 penalty). It slows every time it hits with the net. Antipathy gloves make mobility in the terrain around him annoying for enemies constantly. If you wanted to do more area offense, you could replace the multi attack powers with close burst powers. It means that the fighter has to be in the middle of his area offense, but who better to be on the front lines with the enemy?
So he's got battlefield control in spades. He can apply status effects at-will, the same status effect as the wizard at-will cold spell. On an initial hit, he can attack two enemies per turn and those enemies don't have to be anywhere near each other. Even if he misses the second attack, he's still applied the fighter mark to the target.
link to the build:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1153060
I haven't gotten area powers yet with a ranger, but the Bola Proficiency is a good start on a ranger controller because it immobilizes on hit and you can twin strike 2 things at once.
Bottom Line (and I think even the pro-Martial Controller folk are gonna have to agree):
[u]WotC is never going to make an official Martial Controller.[/u]
Agreed (sort of).
The "grid" that people think needs to be filled to give each power source a class from each role is artificial and contrived. There is no need for a Martial Controller, we have 3 controllers now that can do their jobs just fine. Classes that, I might add have their place in either DnD's history or other fantasy archetypes.
Disagree. We have more than 3 strikers and we will have more on the way. We'll also be getting future controllers in the other power sources. Saying that we already have X of a class is contradictory to what we know is going to happen in the future.
Furthermore, a Martial Controller would be difficult to do given the definition of a Controller by WotC. A Controller needs to be able to inflict status effects, terrain control and, let's not forget, AoE damage, all on a consistent and reliable basis.
AoE damage is one of the big hurdles for a character operating without any magical influence, and terrrain control/modification is the other.
Only if you make it. It's actually a rather easy hurdle to pass, especially since the martial characters already have abilities that let them deal AoE damage.
"Alchemy" has also been discussed.
However, alchemy has already been implemented as a sort of replacement for Rituals that can be done by anybody for the price of a feat. Implementing that as a class feature and saying that they are an alchemist who can do more with alchemy than anyone else is rather unfair to anyone else who has taken the Alchemy feat from Adventurer's Vault.
What?I direct you to the Artificer, who basically does alchemy and tinkering. But while we're at it, let's expand a little.
We have rituals which are spells. We have classes that cast spells. By your argument this is unfair because it gives the classes that cast spells an unfair feature since anyone can take a feat to cast rituals but they can't cast Thunderwave.
This is just a silly standpoint.
This is the standpoint of all of us "naysayers". To us, the construction of a martial controller class is either a)not fulfilling a definition of a controller b)not balanced for gameplay with current classes or c)Overly contrived in mechanics or theme. Or possibly many of those. We accept DnD as it is now, it's fine.
All of these are terrible reasons for not having a martial controller.
Why don't the naysayers say these:
a) A martial controller adds nothing that isn't already covered by other classes (a druid adds wild shape, an invoker adds summons).
b) There is no need to fill out the grid.
c) The devs have other power sources to explore. The next PHBs will be devoted to Ki, Shadow, Elemental etc... They won't be revisiting the martial just to fill out the grid.
Note: Does this mean we will never get a Martial controller? Well, no. There might be a sudden inspiration that gets them pumping out a martial controller class. However, the chances are slim to none, so just go and homebrew.
Tl;dr - naysayers, you have better arguments against the martial controller than the contrived ones constantly being repeated.
This is the kind of bad argumentation that begs for vitriol. You're no longer arguing against points. You're not saying, "I think you're ideas are incorrect and this is why." This is saying, "You are a bad person for disagreeing with me and I will make you feel bad for it. You are not allowed to discourage a waste of time and effort based on evidence because you will just be labeled a 'buzzkill' or 'no fun.' No matter how good your points are, just let me make a bad class in peace, so that all the people who don't know how to judge such things can think its a good and balanced idea."
This.
mplindustries, I think I love you.
How are you going to do that without magic?
How are you going to create difficult terrain without magic?
To which I reply: watch and see.
I simply think it is funny to hear arguments like this while I have spent the day making fun ways for a martial class to do just that. Trust me. It works, and it is fun. Be patient.
As for whether WotC will ever do a Martial Controller themselves, it is silly for anyone to state one way or the other. It doesn't even merit argument because, for now, it is moot.
The reason I'm building a Martial Controller is because they didn't. I knew exactly what I wanted a Martial Controller to do from the day I learned about Power Sources and Roles.
Sure, there's a strong desire for symetry. I'm a human. Most of my kind crave this sort of thing. You may look back at what WotC said about symetry. They said they were getting rid of needless symetry. My idea for a certain class fit so well into this Role and Power Source, it would be silly for me to avoid it because it is symetrical.
Does the game need a Martial Controller? No, of course not. Do we want a Martial Controller. Sure do. Why is that a problem for you (meaning all those who are against it)? The game doesn't need a Primal Controller either, but people want it, and came up with concepts that work in that framework.
Again, to those who say that this cannot be done, I say: Wait and see. I'm doing it right now, and I can proudly say that it is different from every other Controller while still doing the job.
Patience.
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
To which I reply: watch and see.
I simply think it is funny to hear arguments like this while I have spent the day making fun ways for a martial class to do just that. Trust me. It works, and it is fun. Be patient.
As for whether WotC will ever do a Martial Controller themselves, it is silly for anyone to state one way or the other. It doesn't even merit argument because, for now, it is moot.
The reason I'm building a Martial Controller is because they didn't. I knew exactly what I wanted a Martial Controller to do from the day I learned about Power Sources and Roles.
Sure, there's a strong desire for symetry. I'm a human. Most of my kind crave this sort of thing. You may look back at what WotC said about symetry. They said they were getting rid of needless symetry. My idea for a certain class fit so well into this Role and Power Source, it would be silly for me to avoid it because it is symetrical.
Does the game need a Martial Controller? No, of course not. Do we want a Martial Controller. Sure do. Why is that a problem for you (meaning all those who are against it)? The game doesn't need a Primal Controller either, but people want it, and came up with concepts that work in that framework.
Again, to those who say that this cannot be done, I say: Wait and see. I'm doing it right now, and I can proudly say that it is different from every other Controller while still doing the job.
Patience.
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
Tonight, a common household item you could be using right now may kill you. More at 11.
He inspires them, that's how. A melee martial controller need be little more than a flipped over Warlord.
Looking over Warlord recently, I occured to me that there isn't even one good reason at all for NOT having a martial controller. Does that mean there SHOULD be one? Not necessarily, but that also doesn't mean that there shouldn't be one either. It's a neutral concept in that regard.
I do think it would be fun and worthwhile though. I still like th concept that you could build a party entirely out of one power source, and still fill all roles. I don't care about the grid, and filling the grid is the worst possible justification for making a martial controller. Saying a martial controller shouldn't exist because it isn't necessary is, to me, just as bad if not worse than doing it just to fill the grid.
A martial controller would be a very fun concept. It would perform its job as well as the Warlord acts in the leader role, and it would make it much easier for homebrewed low-magic campaigns where martial is the primary power source in the world...or similar worlds.
Some Warlord powers would have to be reworked heavily, and some replaced entirely. But most could simply be flipped over and touched up. Leaders assist allies...controllers impede enemies. Largely their means of doing so are quite similar, just applied differently to different targets.
Warlord is just waiting...begging even...to be retooled into a kick-
melee martial controller.I don't know if there will EVER be an official martial controller. I'd like there to be one just so people can never use the argument, "but that's a homebrew class, it doesn't count," or some equally moronic nonsense. But, I do think WotC won't actually ever publish one. If they do, it'll be in some campaign setting, which considering Eberron and what's likely to come out next year, won't be happening.
A melee martial controller is NOT necessary by any stretch. It IS a good idea no matter what.
Tonight, a common household item you could be using right now may kill you. More at 11.
It's official. I srsly <3 you.
It's official. I srsly <3 you.
I too wanted to say it was funny, but I thought he'd not believe me because we disagree a lot.
Side note: Get a room?
Side note: Get a room?
Lulz
This doesn't mean that a martial controller is impossible. I think it's not possible to make a believable one thruogh the "force-of-arms" approach that's been used so far. if you think of the martial controller more like a con artist/smuggler/charlatan/ trickster, it becomes easier to see a believable martial controller. Someone who confuses & confounds enemies & causes them to hesitate for a turn, or who uses misdirection to get adjacent enemies to look the other way for until the end of his next turn. Someone who can mimic the enemy leader & countermand the orders he just gave. A character who can draw enemy fire & dodge like crazy. someone who can dodge an attack & have it hit an adjacent target. Doesn't this qualify as controllerish?
Granted the range would be more limited then the other controllers but it is within the realm of possibility in the parameters of the definition of the martial definition.
As for weapons, probaly light blades, shuriken, caltrops & anything else that does annoyingly small amounts of damage. and armor would be as limited as a rogue.
I'm not gpnna deisgn a class or anything (I'm not comfortable enough with the system yet) but this seems like a step in the right direction.
I think that the whole reason that there isn't a martial controller is simply that the designers haven't been able to think of a way to make one within the parameters of the definition of the martial power source. There have been quite a few good ideas in this thread, but they are kinda reaching and/or crossing the line.
This doesn't mean that a martial controller is impossible. I think it's not possible to make a believable one thruogh the "force-of-arms" approach that's been used so far. if you think of the martial controller more like a con artist/smuggler/charlatan/ trickster, it becomes easier to see a believable martial controller. Someone who confuses & confounds enemies & causes them to hesitate for a turn, or who uses misdirection to get adjacent enemies to look the other way for until the end of his the next turn. Someone who can mimic the enemy leader & countermand the orders he just gave. A character who can draw enemy fire & dodge like crazy. someone who can dodge an attack & have it hit an adjacent target. Doesn't this qualify as controllerish?
Granted the range would be more limited then the other controllers but it is within the realm of possibility in the parameters of the definition of the martial definition.
As for weapons, probaly light blades, shuriken, caltrops & anything else that does annoyingly small amounts of damage. and armor would be as limited as a rogue.
I'm not gpnna deisgn a class or anything (I'm not comfortable enough with the system yet) but this seems like a step in the right direction.
I like the concept, and agree with you in large part. I still adamantly maintain that any sort of melee martial controller use the Warlord as its basis though. Many Warlord powers affect allies with line of sight. The range on Warlord powers always specifies the range at which the Warlord strikes an enemy, while any range or positioning of allies affected is merely a part of the power's effect description.
I don't think it's a stretch of any sort to say that a martial controller striking an enemy in melee with a power can negatively affect other enemy creatures in the same manner that a Warlord positively affects allies by striking an enemy in melee. Now, powers based on the concepts presented in the quote would be useful, flavorful, and class-defining additions, but I still think that the Warlord should be the martial controller's daddy.
Speedster.
Relies on physical prowess (innately supernatural physical prowess, granted, but I'm just tossing it out). Powers can affect any number of area effects, usually connected to a teleport or full-move shifts. Create whirlwinds by spinning your arm really fast. Cross holes simply by refusing to fall (not controllery, but it's a thing).
Heck, if you want to get silly with it, you can create areas of difficult terrain by tearing up the ground with your rapid footfalls.
(Break out the 'why your martial controller idea won't work' checklist for this one, plz)
Yeah, I'm just going to say this, get it off my chest, let it be picked apart, and depart, happy in the knowledge of a job more or less done:
Speedster.
Relies on physical prowess (innately supernatural physical prowess, granted, but I'm just tossing it out). Powers can affect any number of area effects, usually connected to a teleport or full-move shifts. Create whirlwinds by spinning your arm really fast. Cross holes simply by refusing to fall (not controllery, but it's a thing).
Heck, if you want to get silly with it, you can create areas of difficult terrain by tearing up the ground with your rapid footfalls.
(Break out the 'why your martial controller idea won't work' checklist for this one, plz)
I don't need to.
It's NOT martial. It's decidedly supernatural.
I have been creating a Martial Controller for the past several days. It has interesting class features, useful and unique at-wills, and a Martial concept behind it that has had a place in adventure fantasy for decades.
I can't wait for you to see it because, not only is it viable and balanced, it is going to be a blast to play.
Looking forward to reading it when you've finished. I've seen some very cool ideas come from homebrewers trying to create a MC, innovative things from control zones to beastmaster-like minions. I don't know if it's possible to create a MC, but if you've started with a strong concept then whatever role/power source it ends up will work fine. The concept is the glue which binds it all together - in working on my inquisitive class I've revised like crazy to stay tight to the concept. Good luck.
Sure, there's a strong desire for symetry. I'm a human. Most of my kind crave this sort of thing.
Citation needed.
Does the game need a Martial Controller? No, of course not. Do we want a Martial Controller. Sure do. Why is that a problem for you (meaning all those who are against it)? The game doesn't need a Primal Controller either, but people want it, and came up with concepts that work in that framework.
If it adds someting new and is within martial, that's great. It'll be the first of it's kind (though I'm curious why you're being all hush-hush).
As to your other point, the new controllers add more to the game. Druid adds wildshape, the invoker is riddled with conjurations. All the ideas kicking around for a martial controller are basically taking a martial striker/defender/leader and throwing more AoE/status ailments on it. Yes, it works, but it's neither new, interesting, nor distinguishing from what we already have.
If it adds someting new and is within martial, that's great. It'll be the first of it's kind (though I'm curious why you're being all hush-hush).
As to your other point, the new controllers add more to the game. Druid adds wildshape, the invoker is riddled with conjurations. All the ideas kicking around for a martial controller are basically taking a martial striker/defender/leader and throwing more AoE/status ailments on it. Yes, it works, but it's neither new, interesting, nor distinguishing from what we already have.
But it is easy to dismiss things. All the barbarian did was add another damaging class that uses weapons. All the bard did was add another leader.
If you focus on the negative you won't see anything of use.
Wildshape doesn't do anything other than make a class that has wildshape. It serves little to no mechanical purpose and definitely doesn't add anything to the controller aspect of druids. It enables them to be a hybrid striker with control elements and even then it is an unnecessary feature except as an attraction to shape-shifter lovers. It isn't interesting and it isn't necessary. It is distinguishing... if you think contrived "shapechanging" that doesn't do anything is distinguishing.
By definition a martial controller would add something new, because we don't currently have a martial controller. It doesn't have to bring anything new to the game, you may have some opinionated restrictions to the contrary, but the fact that some people want it is more than enough of a reason for those people to work on a homebrew.
But it is easy to dismiss things. All the barbarian did was add another damaging class that uses weapons.
No, the Barbarian did two things that had never been seen before:
1) At-will attacks with striker bonus damage already included (well, and all the later encounter and daily powers with striker damage built in)
2) Rages, which give a big attack followed by an encounter-long effect
All the bard did was add another leader.
The bard added crazy multiclassing, the first true melee/ranged hybrid leader (The cleric could do either, but usually not both), his "leader feature" is unique in that it reacts to enemy action, and they added lingering effects to the end of most of the bard dailies.
By definition a martial controller would add something new, because we don't currently have a martial controller.
The best ideas for martial controller are basically fighters, rangers, or rogues with different at-wills. Some just take Warlord and flip him. None of those things are new. Those are rehashes.
Citation needed.
You're kidding, right? This can't possibly matter enough that you require someone to hunt down specific references to a fact that has no real relevance to the topic of the thread? Yes, he mentioned a human craving for symmetry, but who cares, it has nothing to do with anything.
On the topic of adding something new...
A melee martial controller with powers structured like those of the warlord would be new to controllers because as far as I can tell, all controllers so far have bursts and blasts and AoEs. Warlord has some ranged attack triggers for its leader powers, but as I've said before, most of their leader powers affect allies at a distance, often in groups, without benefit of bursts, blasts or areas. That is something no controller currently does. The new thing it brings to the martial power source is a melee controller. Does it really NEED to bring more to the power source than that? From the way the naysayers are so adamant that it cannot or should not be done, I say that an effective martial controller is its own reward.
Now, before any nimrods come to this thread and skip my previous posts just to ensure their opportunity to complain about how copying the Warlord is a lousy way to make a Martial controller... I say go back and read my other posts, as I've suggested several ways to alter them, and also supported the suggestions of one or two other posters to mix things up a bit.
The best ideas for martial controller are basically fighters, rangers, or rogues with different at-wills. Some just take Warlord and flip him. None of those things are new. Those are rehashes.
I've seen a lancer reach-specialist and a control zone auxilliary that introduced several new things and are very well developed. So, there definitely is design room for creative new classes qualifying as martial controllers.
A class I'm working on has "monstrous" powers which turn an enemies' abilities against it, like a strike which causes a troll excessive regeneration, or an attack which ignites a creature's aura against its allies (to prevent swingy-ness there's a "monstrous" power swap class feature). It's definitely something that hasn't been done before.
You're kidding, right? This can't possibly matter enough that you require someone to hunt down specific references to a fact that has no real relevance to the topic of the thread? Yes, he mentioned a human craving for symmetry, but who cares, it has nothing to do with anything.
Exactly. Symmetry has nothing to do with it, so I don't know why it was brought up. I was being cute. I'll stop that from here on out.
A melee martial controller with powers structured like those of the warlord would be new to controllers because as far as I can tell, all controllers so far have bursts and blasts and AoEs... That is something no controller currently does.
Right, because that's not controlling.
The new thing it brings to the martial power source is a melee controller. Does it really NEED to bring more to the power source than that? From the way the naysayers are so adamant that it cannot or should not be done, I say that an effective martial controller is its own reward.
By definition a martial controller would add something new, because we don't currently have a martial controller. It doesn't have to bring anything new to the game, you may have some opinionated restrictions to the contrary, but the fact that some people want it is more than enough of a reason for those people to work on a homebrew.
Except that Wizards disagrees with you. They aren't going to needlessly fill out a grid because "it's its own reward." There's no point for filling up lots of pages on a martial controller that does the same thing as something already printed when they can be developing something new that does interesting elements to the game.
I feel like this is getting back to the symmetry thing. We don't need a class that isn't new. Reflavour if that's what you really want. Take a wizard and call their blasts "Arrowstorm" or something. Ask that your staff implement look like a bow. Have fun.
A class I'm working on has "monstrous" powers which turn an enemies' abilities against it, like a strike which causes a troll excessive regeneration, or an attack which ignites a creature's aura against its allies (to prevent swingy-ness there's a "monstrous" power swap class feature). It's definitely something that hasn't been done before.
That is new and interesting. I wouldn't call it martial though.
Except that Wizards disagrees with you. They aren't going to needlessly fill out a grid because "it's its own reward." There's no point for filling up lots of pages on a martial controller that does the same thing as something already printed when they can be developing something new that does interesting elements to the game.
Good thing I said that it shouldn't stop people from creating a homebrew martial controller.
I'm not upset that WOTC isn't making one, I'm upset that people on the boards are so adamant against anyone making one. How about this: if I can use a wizard and rename his thunderburst "arrowstorm", you can not nay-say any martial controller threads out of hand?
How about this: if I can use a wizard and rename his thunderburst "arrowstorm", you can not nay-say any martial controller threads out of hand?
The continuing flaw in your argument is the idea that these concepts are dismissed "out of hand" and not based on serious analysis. Maybe this teasing guy has a real idea that works. I highly doubt it, but when he posts it, I'll evaluate it with an open mind as I've done to all other ideas. The problem is that there are a set few ideas that get brought up over and over and only a set few ways those ideas can be implemented over 30 levels, so in the past, what, 9 months that 4e has been out, I've seen virtually all of the martial controller ideas and judged them all lacking.
Exactly. Symmetry has nothing to do with it, so I don't know why it was brought up. I was being cute. I'll stop that from here on out.
Right, because that's not controlling.
Except that Wizards disagrees with you. They aren't going to needlessly fill out a grid because "it's its own reward." There's no point for filling up lots of pages on a martial controller that does the same thing as something already printed when they can be developing something new that does interesting elements to the game.
I feel like this is getting back to the symmetry thing. We don't need a class that isn't new. Reflavour if that's what you really want. Take a wizard and call their blasts "Arrowstorm" or something. Ask that your staff implement look like a bow. Have fun.
That is new and interesting. I wouldn't call it martial though.
No worries about bein cute. I had a feelin that was the case, but I just wasn't sure. Please, feel free to continue.
What I mean about the Warlord being inspiration for a controller is that instead of damaging and affecting enemies based on blasts, bursts, and areas...rather they attack one enemy, an negatively affect additional enemies in the same manner that Warlords positively affect allies. Which, like I said, they do often with no more than line of sight, singly and in groups. If they're engaging in frontline physical combat, they're a martial melee'r. If they damage and status effect (including pushes and pulls and terrain alteration or its equivalent) enemies in groups more often than not, they're a controller. I happen to think that's plenty unique. But, that's just me.
Either way, I'm sure there're plenty of homebrews that will come up. But an official class would be nice...like I said just to avoid the DM arguments over other people's homebrew in their games.
That is new and interesting. I wouldn't call it martial though.
It does make assumptions about the physiology of monsters that's not going to work in everyone's game (hence it's a homebrew), such as there are specific anatomy which produces the dragon's breath weapon, and that it can be targetted by someone who knows where to look and how to strike it.
Again, not for every genre of game, or every table, but decidely martial in concept.
It does make assumptions about the physiology of monsters that's not going to work in everyone's game (hence it's a homebrew), such as there are specific anatomy which produces the dragon's breath weapon, and that it can be targetted by someone who knows where to look and how to strike it.
Again, not for every genre of game, or every table, but decidely martial in concept.
It doesn't work at all because its too specific. If your power is usable on say, Dragons but not on Goblins for example, then its not a good power or a good class.
It doesn't work at all because its too specific. If your power is usable on say, Dragons but not on Goblins for example, then its not a good power or a good class.
Actually I had considered that. From a few posts up...
(to prevent swingy-ness there's a "monstrous" power swap class feature).
So (a) it's not the basis of the entire class just certain powers with the "monstrous" keyword, (b) it's no different than cleric spells targetting undead, (c) there's a class feature allowing you to switch X number of "monstrous" keyword powers per day. I think that answers your concern.
FYI, I don't post my homebrew work over here because of WotC website's TOU policy. If you're interested in checking out my work head over to ENWorld.
So (a) it's not the basis of the entire class just certain powers with the "monstrous" keyword, (b) it's no different than cleric spells targetting undead, (c) there's a class feature allowing you to switch X number of "monstrous" keyword powers per day. I think that answers your concern.
No, it does not. First there are no cleric powers that target undead except for Turn Undead. Of course, if you don't have undead targets not only do you have another perfectly good Channel Divinity option, but you also can take feats that give you more, and only one of those specifically targets undead as well. There is, I think, a couple paragon path powers that have additional effects if you hit a specific target, but they are still usable on anything. Furthermore, you can't possibly have created enough "monstrous" keyword powers to actually affect everything. I know I've run entire games with strictly humanoid opponents, for example. Or ones with homebrewed monsters.
And on top of all that, if its not the basis of the entire class, then whats the actual martial controller concept here?
There is, I think, a couple paragon path powers that have additional effects if you hit a specific target, but they are still usable on anything.
Right, same idea.
Furthermore, you can't possibly have created enough "monstrous" keyword powers to actually affect everything.
Hey, it's a work in progress and I'm one man. ;)
And on top of all that, if its not the basis of the entire class, then whats the actual martial controller concept here?
Concept is a detective monster hunter - inspired by Gregoire de Fronsac (Brotherhood of the Wolf), Sherlock Holmes, the Witcher, and Van Helsing.
Just to clarify I didn't start off with the objective of making a "martial controller". After developing the class a bit on ENWorld (at that point I was thinking striker but really wasn't sure), it was brought to my attention by a couple folks that I definitely working on a martial controller. Honestly, I could care less what it's classified as, so long as it plays as I envision it to and feels like those sources of inspiration I mentioned.
Utterly and completely stupid, in my opinion. Yet people try to justify this absurd concept, for what ends I have no clue. Nothing more heroic than having your lackeys do the work, right?
Good thing I said that it shouldn't stop people from creating a homebrew martial controller.
You do realize you're on the Future Releases board right?
What I mean about the Warlord being inspiration for a controller is that instead of damaging and affecting enemies based on blasts, bursts, and areas...rather they attack one enemy, an negatively affect additional enemies in the same manner that Warlords positively affect allies. Which, like I said, they do often with no more than line of sight, singly and in groups. If they're engaging in frontline physical combat, they're a martial melee'r. If they damage and status effect (including pushes and pulls and terrain alteration or its equivalent) enemies in groups more often than not, they're a controller. I happen to think that's plenty unique. But, that's just me.
Actually, that does sound interesting. Sorta like an inverse shaman companion (specifically, all the adjacent effects on something else). Come up with some fluff and explanations and you may be on the right track.
And that's the way one should approach a 'martial controller'. Not from the stance of "we need one!" but from a "what's new and interesting that a new class could do."
My suggestion:
Class name: Sergeant
Main Stats: Charisma, Strength, Constitution
Primary Role: Controller
Secondary Role: Leader or Defender
Concept: You lead your small ragtag band of men into battle, guiding them to where they can do the most damage.
You'd have three 'cohorts' that you'd direct in combat. These cohorts would work like summons in many ways. They'd be very durable and have their own HPs and healing surges. They'd provoke OAs as normal PCs do, and would get opportunity actions that trip enemies provoking OAs.
They would not get to roll attacks unless you used a power to give them attacks. However, their presence near an enemy would impact the enemy's ability to fight. You might have a class feature that allows you to give enemies a -1 to attack or AC per cohort adjacent to the enemy.
You'd have a class feature that would allow you to select what type of men are in your band: One aimed at a secondary leader role, where your men would be weak holy soldiers that provide some healing, or one aimed at a secondary defender role where the men in your band would be able to take OAs.
They'd be able to make cohort attacks as shamans make spirit attacks, but they could choose to make the cohort attacks with any one of their cohorts.
They'd use standards or bugles as implements.
At-wills might look like:
Mob Attack
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma +1 per cohot adjacent to the target vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Charisma modifier damage AND target is pushed 1 square
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Assume Formation
At-Will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Charisma modifier damage + 1 damage per cohort adjacent to you.
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Pinned In
At-Will * Martial, Implement
Standard Action Melee cohort 1
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma +2 vs. AC
Hit: d8 + Charisma and target is slowed until end of your next turn. If three cohorts are adjacent to the target, role a secondary attack:
Secondary attack: Charisma vs AC
Hit: Target is immobilized until the end of your next turn as long as three cohorts are adjacent.
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Split Up
At-Will * Martial, Implement
Standard Action Melee cohort 1
Target: One creature
Special: Before the attack, move each cohort 5 squares. If any cohorts are adjacent to the same creature at the end of this movement, you do not make the primary attack.
Attack: Charisma +2 vs. AC
Hit: d8 + Charisma
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Let 'Em Have It!
Standard Action Melee cohort 1
Target: All enemies adjacent to 2 allies, including at least 1 cohort.
Attack: Charisma +2 vs. AC
Hit: d8 + Charisma
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
Push 'Em Back!
Standard Action Melee cohort 1
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma +2 vs. AC
Hit: d4 + push target 1 square and repeat this attack using a different cohort that has not already been used this turn to attack
Special: After all attacks have been made, each creature hit at least once takes Charisma modifier damage.
Increase damage blah, blah, blah...
i know, lets give the cohorts class levels, racial templates, feats, and heck, ability scores and equipment appropriate for a PC of thier level.
even better, a feat that gives you a "cohort" and "followers", based on your level. lets also have the player who takes the feat design his own custom cohort. we can name the feat, "Leadership". all the cohorts could follow the same rules as player characters. Bugbear stormwardens with oversized bloodclaw/reckless scimitars anyone?
You do realize you're on the Future Releases board right?
Clearly. In fact I said multiple times that this wasn't the place to discuss homebrew.
The designers aren't making one.
The other people here are getting shot down discussing homebrew.
People come in and nay-say homebrew.
I say that's bad and should be moved to the controller thread.
This really isn't the place, but the conversation continues anyway.
for martial controller, I was always think of Errol Flynn as Robin Hood battling numerous lesser opponents all at once and using to speed to control the battleground
You mean, like the way a Ranger does?
Very similar. Defenders are a type of control. There really is not much difference between the various classes as is. Sub-role is a big part of the game.
Oh awesome. So the fact that some classes have secondary roles means that no one anywhere ever can create a home-brewed class that has a primary role very similar and even attempting to do so is crazybadfun. I'll take that into serious consideration.
Umm..If it's doing the SAME THING? First off, several of the 'martial controller' ideas that have been submitted have BEEN DEFENDERS. The polearm guy who makes it difficult for enemies to pass? Defender.
What I see when people present half-
ed ideas about a martial controller is that many people do not know what a controller is. Controller is definded in the PHB on pages 15 and 16. The controllers that have been presented so far meet the criteria designated therin.To those who claim that "wotc doesn't even know what a controller is" I say this: Get over yourself. I've heard that tired artgument over and over by people who themselves did not understand what the controller's function was, and used that argument to either build a case for why Wizards (the class) suck, and/or to halfhazardly construct another class and call it a 'controller', viewing that as some sort of catch-all phrase because the class was not a defender or a leader.
And what requires controllers to make difficult terrain? I can understand making a zone of the battlefield that causes bad things to happen or hinders movement in some way, but why is everyone so hung up on "difficult terrain" specifically? It boggles ones mind how much effort the opponents of this class existing put into finding minor contrivances to quarrel over.
Actually that was throwing YOU a bone, since "difficult terrain" would be the easiest zone to manage. Difficult terrain usually comes in the form of zones, yes? Contrarywise, a wall that has appeared on the battlefield is now 'terrain', yes? either way, the point is Control. Yes, I know I had pointed out earlier that a controller need to more than just control, but he still has to control.
A> Arbitrary, even the designers can't decide what it means. The only thing people typically settle on is AoE and status affects/zones. And for some reason some people also believe controllers can't defend themselves.
Well, I've already covered this, but it bears saying again: GET OVER YOURSELF. If you think you can design DnD better than the people who do, then go make your own game and stop criticizing this one.
Oh, and as far as controllers typically havng low defenses?
PHB, page 16, uner the bolded Controller: "They favor offense over defense..."
THAT is where people get that idea. From the RAW.
Please give a "definition of controller" that a guy with a polearm/whip/chain/nets/bolas/throwing training (without marks or high AC) doesn't meet. If you just say "has to at some point use magic to make difficult terrain" then your definition is wrong.
You provide no information other than " a guy with x weapon", so how can I? Your little challenge is rendered invalid because you did not provide me with enough information. Was he a fighter that took whip training? then he's probably a defender. Was he a ranger? What can he do?
If I say "You see a guy in plate armor with a shield and a longsword" Do you know what class he is?
He could be a fighter, paladin, warlord. Heck, he could be a valorous bard for all you know.
B>Balance issues always crop up with home-brew, that doesn't mean it is an invalid exercise.
It is on this forum.
Clearly. In fact I said multiple times that this wasn't the place to discuss homebrew.
Ooooooh, caught red-handed!
C> Contrived, like pulling up to 9 mindless, blind, deaf creatures 3 squares with nothing but a simple call (come and get it)?
How many mindless, blind and deaf creatures are in the MM? Round figure?
Answer: None. Even zombies and golems are no longer mindless, blind creatures such as grimlocks still have blindsight, and what does deaf have to do with anything? The taunt from come and get it does not need to be auditory.
Contrived, like a non-magical ability to shoot a "spray of arrows" in under 6 seconds?
Martial characters DO have abilities that occasionally strain credulity. Usually at high levels. Or as dailies. A controller needs to be able to affect multiple targets and inflict status effects consistently.
Contrived, like the mere presence of a buddy making you immune to the effects of you being on fire or covered in acid (Ease Suffering)?
Ever watch boxing? The boxer's coach can get the guy back in the fight with inspiration. Giving him the focus he needs to shake off the effects of hits that would be debilitating to most people. Similar concept. While adjacent to the warlord, his allies can fight through that.
I'm just making sure we're on the same page here.
Martial Power Source may as well = Contrived Power source. Only calling it contrived when people are trying to make something that doesn't affect you at all is a little hypocritical and downright odd.
What I was calling overly contrived was the "trapmaker" and similar concepts. Those are contrived because suddenly claiming that you had set up a trap in a room you're just now seeing for the first time ever is contrived. Like it or not.
"[Our] little classes"? What the heck? Why are you insulting something that doesn't even really exist?
Read again. I was advocating that my fellow "naysayers" back off and let you guys have your fun. The other people who agree with me have a likewise condescending view on the homebrew classes. I was talking to them.
I'm really confused as to why there is so much vitriol against something that you realize, and even go so far as to point out, does not affect you in the slightest.
Mplindustries, your response to this was beautiful.
Since HP are an abstraction of one' ability to avoid harm, and therefor a warlord's nonmagical inspiration merely provides to drive to fight on. Why is it then so impossible that through some other means a character with nonmagical abilities can reduce an enemy's drive to fight on...demonstrated by a loss of HP?
After all...HP are very rarely, if ever, a direct representation of actual physical injury. They instead represent...well...dodging, effectively. Someone swings at you, and they roll successfully against your defenses. The blow does not connect soundly, or perhaps even at all. What it is, is that instead of being missed, now your character must actively avoid being killed by dodging or deflecting just enough, which over time takes its toll. Until finally, your HP are gone therefore meaning you don't have enough fight left in you, and you recieve a blow that actually does physically harmful injury and puts you down.
So...where is it that all things that cause you to lose HP must be from physical weapons or physical affective magic?
Wouldn't that be a worthwhile explanation of an "anti-warlord"?
Here's something...
Since HP are an abstraction of one' ability to avoid harm, and therefor a warlord's nonmagical inspiration merely provides to drive to fight on. Why is it then so impossible that through some other means a character with nonmagical abilities can reduce an enemy's drive to fight on...demonstrated by a loss of HP?
After all...HP are very rarely, if ever, a direct representation of actual physical injury. They instead represent...well...dodging, effectively. Someone swings at you, and they roll successfully against your defenses. The blow does not connect soundly, or perhaps even at all. What it is, is that instead of being missed, now your character must actively avoid being killed by dodging or deflecting just enough, which over time takes its toll. Until finally, your HP are gone therefore meaning you don't have enough fight left in you, and you recieve a blow that actually does physically harmful injury and puts you down.
So...where is it that all things that cause you to lose HP must be from physical weapons or physical affective magic?
Wouldn't that be a worthwhile explanation of an "anti-warlord"?
It still has the problem of the character having to know way too much information for the character to be able to be effective. The warlord gets around this problem because there are a large number of assumptions about the party that you can make that you can't make about groups of monsters. Some of these assumptions include ability to communicate, humanoid body type, not hailing from the far realm, and primary senses of either sight or sound. Those assumptions don't hold up for every single monster from the MM, and as such their reactions to martial jeering or taunting would not be universal and therefore the class would not work as a martial character. However as I said earlier, the concept does work(and quite well I should add) as a psionic controller.
It still has the problem of the character having to know way too much information for the character to be able to be effective. The warlord gets around this problem because there are a large number of assumptions about the party that you can make that you can't make about groups of monsters. Some of these assumptions include ability to communicate, humanoid body type, not hailing from the far realm, and primary senses of either sight or sound. Those assumptions don't hold up for every single monster from the MM, and as such their reactions to martial jeering or taunting would not be universal and therefore the class would not work as a martial character. However as I said earlier, the concept does work(and quite well I should add) as a psionic controller.
Alright...leave it all out then. As far as the power's mechanic is concerned, the effects on enemies (other than the initial target) occur, but the descriptive text can fail to mention it entirely. Now the anti-warlord needs to know nothing. So, why does it work that way? Because it can. The fluff does not need to explain it. Never has. I'm sorry...the fluff just doesn't matter to me. Fluff may as well not exist when it comes to how a thing works.
If fluff has to explain how the anti-warlord negatively affects enemies in the same manner that a warlord positively affects allies...then what about other things? Magic. People love using this one. "It's magic so it can do anything and that's that." Magic exists in the world, and it works. How? Why does this world have magic? Where does the energy come from to violate reality in such a way? Why is it that any given practice consistently violates reality in a given way? How does it function within the laws of thermodynamics? What is it specifically about each implement that ties it to any given effect? If there are gestures and words, why those specific ones? If there are no gestures or words, why not? In what manner do they do whatever it is they do? If it's by thought and concentration alone, how is that suitably different from Psionics?
People can go on all they want about how all that is wrong, but frankly, I don't care...because that's the kind of nonsense I hear when people talk about the fluff justifying how something works. Fluff means nothing. The martial powers can cause the sky to turn puke green with hot pink polka dots everytime someone uses one for all I care, and it's still strictly martial as far as I'm concerned. In a world where magic exists, even martial exploits are beyond credible...still supernatural, just not magical.
Besides, some things may be from the far realm, or at lest equally weird, but the fluff regarding their alien nature is all about the feel, not about what works on it and what doesn't or why. As far as the game is concerned (even fluff-wise) making a specific single-finger gesture of vulgar contempt at a far realm creature will still anger it...assuming that, specifically, such a gesture angers anything at all in the first place in D&D. If Hellboy flipped off Cthulu, I'm pretty sure squid-freak would get the message loud and clear. Not because he's "not alien enough" but because it's more entertaining for the hero to flip the bird and agitate the BBEG than to have him do it and get cricket chirps. And that's what it's all about...entertainment.
Every monster in the MM has only what cultural idioscyncrasies the DM decides to play out...regardless of what experienced players or DMs "know" about a creature from past editions. As far as the book is concerned, they don't have culture at all. Even when they do, as far as mechanics are concerned, all things...jeering, taunting, expressions of vulgarity, yo' mama jokes, whatever...all work equally well on all creatures. The rules no longer make such distinctions.
I'm not making the assumptions...the game has done that for us already. There is no alien nature or otherwise, it's pure narrative, and nothing else. The inscrutable plans and machinations of gods are nonexistent for purposes of player interactions with them. It's not Schroedinger's Cat (which is a stupid concept...the cat is either alive or dead, which doesn't matter, and not knowing which affects nothing) where there may be some unknowable purpose or not, and we can never truly know which. There simply isn't such a purpose, period. If the DM knows it, it's not unknowable, and is perfectly within the realm of mortal comprehension. If the DM has not thought up such a purpose, there is not one at all, and the DM is just pullin it out of his butt (which is fine, and often fun, but there's still no actual inscrutable purpose).
Really I think most of the martial controller concepts should be made, and once they're worked on enough, one should be worthy of class-hood. Until then, saying it won't work is no less speculative and unfounded (no matter how much anyone tries to justify fluff as "proof") as demanding that it will. (Yes, that's an admission that I could be wrong, but I'm sticking with it anyway because no one's yet provided a worthwhile reason to do otherwise.)
Anyway, I quit posting in the other threads, so I'm gonna quit this one too.
*snip due to overly extended nonsense ranting*
Wrong. If you don't like fluff, then go play a videogame.
Fluff is intrinsically a part of a roleplaying game. Good game design combines reasonable mechanics with reasonable fluff.
WOTC has said themselves, that Martial characters are not magical or supernatural. The idea that Martial characters could somehow turn the sky pukegreen is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.
You're completely delusional, Lucifer, and I'm sick of you acting like everyone else who disagrees with you is the delusional one.
They aren't.
You are.
Umm..If it's doing the SAME THING? First off, several of the 'martial controller' ideas that have been submitted have BEEN DEFENDERS. The polearm guy who makes it difficult for enemies to pass? Defender.
Only if he marks people, penalizes them for ignoring the mark, and has high hit points and armor class built into the class and is stated to be a defender.
Fighters do a good job of battlefield control but aren't necessarily controllers. I think a well built polearm fighter functions fine in the controller role, but not as well as a wizard of course, nor would I call them a controller. Just a well developed sub-role.
Oh, and as far as controllers typically havng low defenses?
PHB, page 16, uner the bolded Controller: "They favor offense over defense..."
THAT is where people get that idea. From the RAW.
Ok. So a martial controller that favors offense over defense would fill this criteria. Thanks for clearing that up.
Favoring offense over defense does not mean you can't have any defense at all. A wizard with toughness, durable, full plate specialization, and heavy shield proficiency is still a controller.
A lightly armored, mobile battlefield controller who doesn't mark and focuses on quick attacks against numerous targets or forcing enemies into bad positions would be ideal.
Possible class concepts: Scoundrel (skill-based trickster), Martial Artist (not ki powered, ToB: Setting Sun influenced), Lasher (whip/chain-focused), Reach-weapon wielder, and possibly a knowledge-oriented debuffing class (similar concept to Scoundrel, mabye same class with two different class paths).
And admittedly a lot of these concepts work fine as paragon paths for other martial classes. So do some of the existent official classes.
You provide no information other than " a guy with x weapon", so how can I? Your little challenge is rendered invalid because you did not provide me with enough information. Was he a fighter that took whip training? then he's probably a defender. Was he a ranger? What can he do?
He wasn't a fighter or a ranger, he was a hypothetical martial controller. He has abilities that are similar to some of the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord abilities, but they are specialized to be a bit more "controlly" (such as hitting two or more people consistently, more/varied status affects, possibly targetting NADs more often, possibly targetting nads more often, etc)
Ooooooh, caught red-handed!
Caught? Almost everything I've said has been in regards to homebrew or applies fine to any official creation that may appear. I'm admittedly in the wrong forum and stated that multiple times. The only reason I keep posting here is because people keep arguing with me. Arguing with me that I'm in the wrong forum while arguing against my off-forum statements is a bit tricksy. If my statements being in the wrong forum are offending you or hurting my argument, simply state that. If you reply to me with arguments that I can find fault with then I will respond.
Is there another thread that would suit this conversation better? I would gladly go there to discuss it.
Besides you quoted me out of context and ignored my argument. It isn't an invalid exercise, this isn't the right forum for it, but that doesn't invalidate anything, that just means it needs to be moved elsewhere. The original point still stands on its own. Nice strawman.
How many mindless, blind and deaf creatures are in the MM?
Would it still work on any hypothetical mindless, blind, deaf creature?
Answer: Yes.
I'm not saying that Come and Get It is a bad power, I'm saying it allows for hypothetically strange things to happen within the martial power source.
In other words, there is precedence for forced movement in a burst within martial power source, so any martial controller that had, for example, an ability that caused a chunk of monsters to move against their will without physically touching them (not as a charm/magic effect), it would be within the realm of existent abilities.
Martial characters DO have abilities that occasionally strain credulity. Usually at high levels. Or as dailies. A controller needs to be able to affect multiple targets and inflict status effects consistently.
And I would think a good homebrew would do just that, preferably with an at-will that had the ability to target two people and encounters that allowed them to target areas and dailies that created zones. Also none of the abilities I mentioned were above Heroic Tier.
They would also preferably have some sort of unique class mechanic. I mean warlords have the action point bonus, rogues and rangers have extra damage, and fighters get the marks. So there would need to be something equivalent that grants controllery abilities.
Ever watch boxing?
No. But even so last time I checked, they didn't have people on fire or covered in acid while boxing. Being able to summon reserves of energy after a bludgeoning is entirely different from the ongoing effects of being on fire or covered acid.
And again I'm not arguing that the powers in question are bad, just allowing for fantastic things to happen within the power source.
What I was calling overly contrived was the "trapmaker" and similar concepts. Those are contrived because suddenly claiming that you had set up a trap in a room you're just now seeing for the first time ever is contrived. Like it or not.
Honestly, I think they're contrived too. I don't like alchemist or assumed-pre-combat-trap-making classes. I like the concept of martial characters that use wit, guile, and/or skill with a weapon/martial arts to control the battlefield.
But I'm not really here to call other people's work contrived. Its a game of fantasy make-believe and I'm less concerned with contrived fluff than I am with balance and fun. If someone designs a trap-maker and posts it for critique I'll critique the balance and mechanics. I don't care about their campaign world and unless they state that they want help with the fluff I assume that the fluff is not up for critique. Even then I would just try to help with the fluff or not mention it. Its called manners.
I mean, who cares if it is contrived, especially with homebrew? You guys I guess.
Read again. I was advocating that my fellow "naysayers" back off and let you guys have your fun. The other people who agree with me have a likewise condescending view on the homebrew classes. I was talking to them.
I knew who you were talking to.
Just because you are in some secret condescending club doesn't mean that you aren't condescending when you condescend.
Calling them "little" is belittling and unnecessary vitriol. You didn't say it just to them, you said it to the entire thread. Everyone can read it. At its best it's rude, at its worst it's baiting.
. . .
And yes, sometimes I do think I can do a better job of creating things than the designers of the game ... actually, I know I can, because it is a subjective hobby and I can create things tailored to my group and myself. I also sometimes think I can do a better job of making sandwiches than the guy at Subway, but I still eat there regularly. I didn't insult the creators of the game and I don't tell the guy at subway how to make sandwiches (well, sometimes I do, but still).
You speak as if the creators of the game are without fault, which is silly. Get over your fanatical devotion to them. They're just some guys who made some games. You could probably design something better than them as well. Ever made a homebrew campaign world, race, or class? Does that mean you think you're better than a game designer? Silly logic, really.
It still has the problem of the character having to know way too much information for the character to be able to be effective. The warlord gets around this problem because there are a large number of assumptions about the party that you can make that you can't make about groups of monsters. Some of these assumptions include ability to communicate, humanoid body type, not hailing from the far realm, and primary senses of either sight or sound. Those assumptions don't hold up for every single monster from the MM, and as such their reactions to martial jeering or taunting would not be universal and therefore the class would not work as a martial character. However as I said earlier, the concept does work(and quite well I should add) as a psionic controller.
Please reference "Come and Get It", fighter encounter 7. It works fine on all of those creatures you mentioned regardless of body type, origin, shared communication, sensory input, comprehension, or willpower. It is fluff-depicted as a taunting call.
To make it less contrived, I would suggest having a martial controller of this nature rely entirely on bluff/insight or knowledges to learn exactly what things would cause creatures to behave differently.
This would make the necessary unique class feature that every standalone class needs to warrant creation.
A scoundrel that uses bluff/insight as a free action or an ubergeek that knows everything about everything would be more than able to compensate for the problems you posed.
Please reference "Come and Get It", fighter encounter 7. It works fine on all of those creatures you mentioned regardless of body type, origin, shared communication, sensory input, comprehension, or willpower. It is fluff-depicted as a taunting call.
To make it less contrived, I would suggest having a martial controller of this nature rely entirely on bluff/insight or knowledges to learn exactly what things would cause creatures to behave differently.
This would make the necessary unique class feature that every standalone class needs to warrant creation.
A scoundrel that uses bluff/insight as a free action or an ubergeek that knows everything about everything would be more than able to compensate for the problems you posed.
I'm not going to defend "Come and Get It" because it is a power with poorly thought out fluff. However it is only a single power, and I am willing to grudgingly accept a single power which stretches believability that way. However a class is a bit too much.
I'm not sure on how I feel about the scoundrel. But the uber-geek does sound in theory like it could work, although the mechanics sound like they would much more "wonky"(for lack of a better term) then I would be willing to put up in any character I play. Also I'm not sure if it covers any fantasy archetypes that really need to be covered, but since it would be homebrew I guess that wouldn't really be neccesary.*shrugs*
I'm not going to defend "Come and Get It" because it is a power with poorly thought out fluff. However it is only a single power, and I am willing to grudgingly accept a single power which stretches believability that way. However a class is a bit too much.
I see no reason for every ability to be as absurd as Come and Get It, but it could have a few.
Classes in 4e have very few abilities (relatively speaking). A 7th level ability on par with a ranged come and get it (Go and Get It?) and another one at higher level (like the higher level version of come and get it) would suffice for AoE forced movement abilities (maybe 2 others).
I'm just throwing these out off the top of my head, but the rest would be confusing tactics (making one enemy attack another), strikes that hit multiple people (possibly at range), tricks that confuse enemies into avoiding certain areas or moving slowly (HEY TEAM DONT WALK THERE ITS TRAPPED!).
These ideas are mostly for the "smart" hero types that don't use magic, I think another martial control alternative is still the martial artist.
How many stories have the "toss a rock and start a fight" concept in them?
Intentionally silly example:
Go and Get It, encounter power 7
With a flick of the wrist you trick your enemy into thinking you tossed a stick/ball/toy that they desperately need to get.
Standard
Burst 2 in 10
Target: Each Enemy in Burst
Attack: Wis or Cha vs Will
Hit: Target moves up to 3 squares towards the center of the burst.
Special: If this ability hits more than one target each target takes 2d6 + Wis or Cha as they collide in their effort to get to the center.
Scoundrel: You may cause one target you hit to attack his ally with a melee basic attack as a free action in an effort to get to the center of the burst.
I'm not sure on how I feel about the scoundrel. But the uber-geek does sound in theory like it could work, although the mechanics sound like they would much more "wonky"(for lack of a better term) then I would be willing to put up in any character I play. Also I'm not sure if it covers any fantasy archetypes that really need to be covered, but since it would be homebrew I guess that wouldn't really be neccesary.*shrugs*
The fantasy archetype it covers it typically reserved for "wizards". But really, what did Gandalf do other than know a bunch of stuff and use a flashlight? (kidding).
Scoundrel would be the trickster that uses his insane bluff skills to trick the enemy into doing what he wants and uses insight to learn how to use his bluff effectively (but doesn't necessarily sneak attack or sneak at all). Sage would be the "ubergeek" that uses his knowledge and insight. They would be two halves of the same class, one using Int/Wisdom (?), the other using Charisma/Wisdom (?).
The fantasy archetype it covers it typically reserved for "wizards". But really, what did Gandalf do other than know a bunch of stuff and use a flashlight? (kidding).
Considering I hated the LotR books AND movies, he didn't even do that as far as I'm concerned. But that's irrelevant to the discussion, so I'll leave it.
So...how many of these threads do we really need? I think they should worry less about the flaming for the moment and more about getting all these things put into ONE thread instead of cluttering up the boards with however many of them. Seriously people...get on it already.
TheScalesOfFate: How the ORC missed your post is utterly beyond me. That was a blatantly personal, and totally uncalled for, attack. You'd be wise not to call anyone on these boards delusional, even if they are, considering the nature of that single post. I don't particularly like the poster you quoted, and I don't really agree with him, but right or wrong, he said nothing that derserved your self-righteous diatribe.
You are no more right than he is wrong. In fact, you do the very same thing to anyone who disagrees with you. You and many many others, on both sides of all arguments. You THINK your're right, they THINK they're right. Niether side knows jack at all. The ego and arrogance of it all is appalling. Oh...and leave me out of it. I'm not taking sides. It's just the lesser of two evils and I'm not picking either one.
So...
Fluff that makes at least some sense is probably moderately important, I'd suppose. It's hardly the fulcrum on which all games turn, though. Fluff doesn't have to believably account for every single aspect or effect of a power or ability. Maybe it's ok to want a little extra, but it shouldn't dominate one's thoughts the way it does for some. It should definitely get the important ones fairly well-covered, and at least marginally believable. But, the overriding obsession with excessive detail that a few have, among other negative qualities, is what's truly delusional throughout the boards.
I still personally believe that most martial powers, even at lower levels, strain credibility. They have to. There's just no reasonable, rational way that any sort of merely physical and tactical prowess can match the power to violate the very most basic foundations of reality. The people that made the game may say martial isn't inherently supernatural, and within the game itself...it really isn't. But if anyone were to attempt to perform any of those feats, they'd fail miserably. If they did succeed, it would vioate every basic thing we know about the world so far.
There are a variety of monsters that are not inherently supernatural, yet are utterly fantastic and/or impossible...but they function as if they were natural creatures in the game world because that's just how the game world is. Your basic Roc, for instance...any dire animal at all, really...anything with a burrowing speed at all (which, while often part of certain supernatural creatures, is rarely defined by itself as a supernatural effect)...chokers...ettercaps...even the most mundane giants...gnolls...griffons...anything with blindsight...hook horrors...the list goes on, but I got sick of flipping through by the time I got to "L". Not one of those creatures or abilities is described within the game world as even remotely innately supernatural. Sometimes, for some creatures, they ARE supernatural, but it often says so in each specific case. They're obviously unnatural and supernatural to us...but inside the game, they're as normal as your family dog (maybe not as common, but certainly as natural). That's just the way the game world is.
Think of it like this...supernatural there, is also supernatural here...extraordinary there, is also perfectly reasonable and normal there, but is instead supernatural here. What they call extraordinary abilities in the game world are, to us anyway, equally as impossible as spellcasting in the real world. Granted, I don't believe they have either supernatural or extraordinary anymore as game terms...but the concepts still obviously exist within the game's premise.
Like I said...a certain degree of at least semi-reasonable fluff is good...but I don't feel it's necessary to enjoy the game. You scratch the game anywhere too deeply and the whole story will fall apart. It's a fantasy, realism can't support it at all...not even one little piece of it. What realism we get is just a minor nod to those who don't have the capacity to move beyond it. Nobody gets to use "well it's magic, so it works" unless they can define why magic works in the first place, and "because the designers say so" is not a valid argument for that. Otherwise, saying that a fighter...or martial controller rather, I guess...can somehow read and influence even the movements of aberrant or mindless creatures is nowhere near the kind of stretch it's being made out to be.
Honestly, I'm now in the, "no martial controllers" camp to a certain extent...just because I'm tired of both sides pointlessly arguing about it to no end.
The fantasy archetype it covers it typically reserved for "wizards". But really, what did Gandalf do other than know a bunch of stuff and use a flashlight? (kidding).
I lol'd