This has already been done with divine power source classes (Invoker/controller, Cleric/leader, Avenger/striker, and Paladin/defender), as well as primal classes (Druid/controller, Shaman/leader, Barbarian/striker, and Warden/defender). I know they also have most of these bases covered with arcane classes, with the exception of defender (at least I think that's the case, haven't picked up the FRPG yet to check out Spellblade), but I don't think the concept of a Arcane Defender is too hard to conceive...
However, all that being said, while it seems most of the bases have been covered for martial classes, I find myself wondering exactly what they'll do for a marital controller, assuming, of course, that WoTC continues this trend. Perhaps it's just me, but I really can't think of a concept that would seem plausible and still be somewhat realistic. The closest thing I can even imagine would be some type of battle archer of something similar, but even still, seems a bit far-fetched to me.
Anyone else have any ideas?
However, all that being said, while it seems most of the bases have been covered for martial classes, I find myself wondering exactly what they'll do for a marital controller, assuming, of course, that WoTC continues this trend. Perhaps it's just me, but I really can't think of a concept that would seem plausible and still be somewhat realistic. The closest thing I can even imagine would be some type of battle archer of something similar, but even still, seems a bit far-fetched to me.
You said it right here as to one of the reasons why there is none. The other is that they aren't trying to fill out all the role/power source combos, it just happens that an idea they have fits into that particular combo. If they come up with an awesome and believable martial controller, you'll see it in a playtest as soon as they feel it's ready for public view.
I really can't think of a concept that would seem plausible and still be somewhat realistic [as a martial controller].
Neither could WotC.
I too have thought about the battle-archer (artillerist). I think I would start with taking the wizard and reflavor all of the powers. And steal Hocus-Smokus' artillerist and modify from there.
And steal Hocus-Smokus' artillerist and modify from there.
HEY!
Neither could WotC.
I too have thought about the battle-archer (artillerist). I think I would start with taking the wizard and reflavor all of the powers. And steal Hocus-Smokus' artillerist and modify from there.
Hey! That's what I've suggested.
OP, there are a couple of threads that have started over this. It's extremely unlikely Wizards will make one. If you want, hop over to the Homebrew thread and find/make one.
My thoughts? Focus on things that arn't AOE attacks. I honestly keep thinking they should make it a 'ninja' of sorts....no not the Naruto ninja...the actual type. The people who were just origionally peasents and then trained using whatever they could hide as weapons, or whatever regular tools could easily be used as weapons. Now go to the more interesting interpretations.
They carry around poisons, made from common plants they know (prob give them alchemy as a free feat for flavor reasons). They know the enemies weak spots. And will use their poisons and attacks to hobble, trip, slow, and generally debilitate the enemy. Unlike the other controllers..they wouldn't have an AOE at will normally (I have yet to find a good way to figure out an easy melee AOE), but their encounter and daily powers would basically take their at wills...and spread them to more than one target, a burst of energy, taking great focus..however you want to put it. They would probably have specialized weapons that are designed for the attacks they use...and most of their skills would require these sorts of weapons, which while usable by other people..take the training of the 'martial controller' to use in such an effective way...
I really..really wish they had made the gladiator a class..and not just gave out the weapon abilities..that woulda made a nice starting point.
There are several close Burst powers, and with the proper feats (Polearm Momentum, HBO, Polearm Gamble) you can slide enemies all over the place (4+ squares in some cases) and knock them prone.
Granted, this doesn't really become effective until Paragon level, but it is pretty effective.
Here's the link to my thread:Martial Controller?
Hocus, I really wish you had seen my thread so you could have informed me that you had already done what I was looking for! Do you mind if I use it in my games?
People are complaining about realism in 4e now? I would have thought the six-hour autoheal would have made people realize that 4e doesn't care one whit about realism.
I dont understand. In real life, I ALWAYS seem to regain my abstracted indicator of general physical health with no direct corrilation to specific types of wounding. :D
No system of HP regeneration is "realistic", as HP is inherintly unrealistic. As soon as you add it to a system, you have already made the abstraction that physical health can be measured in points.
I think when they bring the monk back he should be a martial controller.
Monk is going to use the Ki power source, and will probably be a Striker (most likely) or a Defender (least likely).
Monk is going to use the Ki power source, and will probably be a Striker (most likely) or a Defender (least likely).
Yeah, last we heard it was a Ki Striker, but like the Sorcerer, its role could have changed since then (we'll find out next month).
Any further threads with the phrase 'martial controller' in the title need to be like, banned entirely.
Now...moving on...
[rant]
*engages in enraged rant which will not be typed out here for obvious reasons*
[/rant]
What the ruttin' drek is it with this misguided and unfounded preoccupation with archery or alchemy for a martial controller?!
How many times do I have to say it? Warlord is the flipside of a martial controller. Turn its positive effects into negative ones...change its targets from allies to enemies (enemies already targeted by warlord powers REMAIN targeted). That alone will create an effective martial controller. Actually creating some unique new powers and class features in the same vein as the concept I just mentioned will make a completely unique and extremely effective martial controller.
Now...why do ALL of you insist on doin it the hard way? An archer-controller would be workable, yes...but it's obvious from all the monk suggestions that people want a melee controller. And for that, there's only ONE place to go, Warlord. If they can make a Melee Martial Leader...they can make a Melee Martial Controller. Warlord targets mostly only adjacent enemies (though they do have some ranged attacks), but many of it's positive ally effects affect allies at sometimes considerable range and in groups. Many of the positive effects on allies are based on the ally bein adjacent to the warlord, or adjacent to the enemy just attacked by the warlord, or within line of sight to the warlord.
Things like terrain management aren't just about actually physically altering the ground or such. It's about making the enemy have a rougher time of covering such ground quickly. It's just as reasonable to create a condition in the enemy where they pick over even flat ground slowly and carefully out of fear, as it is to jumble the rocks in that area so they have to watch their footing.
I'm so tired of all this nonsense that a martial controller would HAVE to be this or that or something else. Now that you've seen what I was willing to type out...you can imagine how inappropriate the part I DIDN'T type out was.
Seriously though...enough of these threads...there are too many as it is, and so far no one else yet has contributed anything reasonable. It's all just archers, alchemists, and monks...over and over and over... If you feel a need to comment on martial controllers, find one of the pre-existing threads and post there. Honestly, if everyone who started their own thread simply instead posted on one thread together, it would see huge amounts of activity.
I'm sorry for my irate attitude, but this has just got to stop. Nobody's getting anywhere...and nothing so far thought up is any good. Now, people tell me to put-up-or-shut-up on making the warlord into a melee martial controller, but since I don't realy care, I'm not going to waste my time untill I ACTUALLY need one...and maybe not even then...I'm lazy, and it's just a stupid game after all. Honestly, I'm still kind of hoping WotC finds some way to slip a martial controller class in somewhere, either in an article perhaps or through a campaign setting. The desire to avoid symmetry for its own sake is admirable enough, but I think it's mostly that they had the same problem you're all having...a problem I'm blissfully free of, and have gone beyond.
Either way, time will tell. Maybe I'll get un-lazy someday and just do it myself...and if I'm in a really good mood, I'll even share it.
Psst... look out everyone! It's the thread police!
*cuffs Dragon9, drags him off to the dungeons.*
The archer guy is one way to do it but I would avoid just because it would step on the archer rangers toes and be a little hard to separate out flavor wise. I would also avoid the alchemist route as that would bring a little bit more steam punk flavor into D&D 4E then I would personally like to see if you did it right or it would have to infringe on the arcane power source.
The two biggest candidates which I would label builds at this point are the Pole arm artist who would be a close burst status effect monster combined with alot of melee reach effect so he can safely hide behind the defenders and melee strikers, but be close enough to move into melee range to unleash their pole arm sweep maneuvers(Close Burst attacks) that push/slide/slow/immobilize/knock prone ect. the enemies they hit. Daily's would be alot of stances like the fighter has to produce zones of badness around them.
The 2nd would be a chain fighter who I would build as a single target lock down specialist. Again lost of melee reach attacks that would focus on entangling their target to push/slide/slow/immobilize/knock prone or dubuff the target. Daily's would focus on chain lockdown/disarm type stuff.
The non specific type powers would be their trap smith/siege engineer type stuff like throwing caltrops and quickly assembling mantlets ect.
Just think about it guys its not really that hard to do. And last time I checked WOTC has said they plan to have at least one of every role for each power source.
I would also avoid the alchemist route as that would bring a little bit more steam punk flavor into D&D 4E then I would personally like to see if you did it right or it would have to infringe on the arcane power source.
Not sure why you would think it would infringe on the Arcane power source. I'm curious. As for steam punk... Alchemy is already in 4e.
And last time I checked WOTC has said they plan to have at least one of every role for each power source.
Actually, what they said was they didn't feel the need to have each role filled for every power source. So, chances are, we are unlikely to see a Martial Controller from an official source. Basically I think it's an out for them if they can't seem to make it work thematically.
Anyone have a copy of the Martial Controller problem checklist? Good times.
Yeah.
Especially when you have an answer to every "problem."
:D
We have a Martial Controller! It's called the Flame-baiter. It controls people from across the interwebs by making threads about Martial Controllers. Cunning little devil, he is.
:D
Do I get a saving throw against flames?
We have a Martial Controller! It's called the Flame-baiter. It controls people from across the interwebs by making threads about Martial Controllers. Cunning little devil, he is.
:D
Shhh! No one's 'sposed to know...
For what it's worth, I have a martial controller on the Implement Games site in my sig called an Artillerist.
Quick question for ya.
I'm in progress of making a Martial Controller of my own (don't worry, it's quite different from yours), but I looked at your template for the class and it's beautiful. It looks really similar to WotC book templates. If you got that format from somewhere, could you enlighten me? My concepts and powers are great, but the presentation is missing that 4E touch.
Thanks, friend.
Yours,
Lord Dreadman
I give up...knock yourselves out with the archers and alchemists and junk.
I'm not going to waste either all of your or my time by trying to point out that archery and bombs aren't even slightly necessary anymore.
I'm out.
Peace...
For christ' sake, do we SERIOUSLY need another one of these threads?
Quoted for effing truth.
Quoted for effing truth.
Yeaaah, I'm gonna go ahead and second that as well...
Monk, nuff' said.
Is it "nuff said" because the monk was confirmed as a ki class? Or because it was announced (but not since confirmed) that it'd be a ki striker? Are you saying, "nuff said" because we don't need to talk about monks as martial strikers anymore? Because I agree with that. Or were you even more inclusive and saying, "nuff said" because we don't need to talk in multiple threads (I mean, come on, there's two on the front page alone) (or at all) about martial controllers because they're not going to happen and I've never seen a homebrew class...not one...thats actually well balanced and appropriate. I've seen some individual alternate features, but never a whole class.
Bel
We have a Martial Controller! It's called the Flame-baiter. It controls people from across the interwebs by making threads about Martial Controllers. Cunning little devil, he is.
:D
Semi-Serious follow up to this.
what about a Martial controller who uses Taunts, Insults and Zoro Like "cut their belt so their pants fall down around their ankles" kind of character.
IE: Control through being an annoying prick
Semi-Serious follow up to this.
what about a Martial controller who uses Taunts, Insults and Zoro Like "cut their belt so their pants fall down around their ankles" kind of character.
IE: Control through being an annoying prick
"Mindless zombie horde, meet Zorro." "Your mother is so fat..." "Braaaiiins!"
This idea is on the "checklist." The fact is, there are too many monsters who would not understand or care about the taunts or insults, and beyond that, too many whose mindset is so alien that there's no way to cause a predictable reaction.
Having a couple powers like this (Come and Get It and several Artful Dodger powers, I'm looking at you), but to base the entire class around such an idea? No, that pushes too far.
"Mindless zombie horde, meet Zorro." "Your mother is so fat..." "Braaaiiins!"
This idea is on the "checklist." The fact is, there are too many monsters who would not understand or care about the taunts or insults, and beyond that, too many whose mindset is so alien that there's no way to cause a predictable reaction.
Having a couple powers like this (Come and Get It and several Artful Dodger powers, I'm looking at you), but to base the entire class around such an idea? No, that pushes too far.
Yet things like the Bard's Vicious Mockery power work on the Zombie horde just fine. By your logic anything with the Psychic Key Word should fail against Mindless creatures.
Zombies are immune to Poison and Disease but are completely vulnerable to mind affecting effects like Holds. No reason why Taunting shouldn't work as well
Yet things like the Bard's Vicious Mockery power work on the Zombie horde just fine. By your logic anything with the Psychic Key Word should fail against Mindless creatures
No, Bard's Vicious Mockery is allowed to work because its a spell. It magically causes a penalty. Magic.
Yes, that is holding martial to a different standard than other power sources. That's because its the only source that has any limitations.
No, Bard's Vicious Mockery is allowed to work because its a spell. It magically causes a penalty. Magic.
Yes, that is holding martial to a different standard than other power sources. That's because its the only source that has any limitations.
but it doesn't change the fact that mechanically Zombies are not immune to mind affecting powers. They can be charmed, held, dominated. Sleep is about the only one they have immunity simply because they do not physically need to sleep.
Just because Martial means no Magic, dose not prevent them from having such effects.
True the Martial Power source isn't going to let you create a hypnotic pattern of dazzelling lights to hypnotize your foes. But nothing prevets it from creating an impressive and almost hypnotic display of weapon prowness that confuses and astonishes foes.
Any Limitations placed on the Martial Power source are of your own devising
Really, martial controllers are an unobtainable goal because the problems to overcome are beyond the scope of the power source.
Some of the other power sources have problem roles, arcane defender, for one, but the problem can be overcome with magic, within the scope of the power source.
Shadow leader looks to be another problem role, since healing is the antithesis of shadow's necrotic base. But it can be overcome with vampiric spells and such.
Bel
They haven't merged these threads yet?
Really, martial controllers are an unobtainable goal because the problems to overcome are beyond the scope of the power source.
Some of the other power sources have problem roles, arcane defender, for one, but the problem can be overcome with magic, within the scope of the power source.
Shadow leader looks to be another problem role, since healing is the antithesis of shadow's necrotic base. But it can be overcome with vampiric spells and such.
Bel
I lied...I have to say it just one last time...just one...
But first, I agree that all the martial controller threads just need to be merged, and perhaps stickied just to keep people from overlooking it. There are half a dozen or more of them already with dozens or more posts in each. It's just ridiculous.
Anyway...
How is it that people are having so many problems with a martial controller. How many times do I have to point out that a warlord does exactly that. A leader is just the role that controls one's allies instead. Leaders positively affect allies both adjacent and at range, and both singly and in groups. Controllers negatively affect enemies both adjacent and at range, and both singly and in groups.
The warlord attacks enemies at melee (and to a lesser extent, at range), and as a result, additionally grants a wide variety of bonuses and beneficial conditions to allies both singly and in groups that are adjacent to the warlord, adjacent to the enemy targeted by the warlord, or simply within line of sight of the warlord.
I am utterly confounded by how people totally miss the fact that the warlord is the perfect class to retool, subtract and add a few powers and features that are similarly themed to its original base to make it unique and purposeful while staying true to the underlying premise of non-magical control.
On a final note...a martial controller is niether improbable nor unreasonable at all. A shadow leader though might very well be somewhat problematic, but someone's already mentioned life-draining properties...and there potentially are a variety of illusory effects that could likely be shadow-based that would benefit allies. So frankly, I haven't seen a role/source combination yet that was as completely difficult and unworkable as so many have vehemently implied.
How is it that people are having so many problems with a martial controller. How many times do I have to point out that a warlord does exactly that.
Well, I'd say you have to do it until you actually convince people that you're correct. I mean, really, this is a bit arrogant, no?
"How many times do I have to say that a reversed Warlord is the best idea for a martial controller?"
...in response to things like:
"How many times do I have to say that an archer/polearm wielder/alchemist/whatever else other than reverse Warlord is the best idea for a martial controller?"
No, sorry, it doesn't work. The Warlord works because the party presumably wants to be led. If the leader says, "move over there" its reasonable to expect the party member to listen and move over there. If he says, "Hey, there's an opening, the party is going to believe him and take it." If he says, "Hey, buck up, we can win this" they want to be inspired and thus will be.
Now, if the Warlord turns to an enemy and says, "Hey, move over there" they're not going to listen. Period. Even if he throws insults or using weird body language to trick the enemy, they will not react in a way predictable enough to create a power, never mind a class, around it.
I am utterly confounded by how people totally miss the fact that the warlord is the perfect class to retool, subtract and add a few powers and features that are similarly themed to its original base to make it unique and purposeful while staying true to the underlying premise of non-magical control.
And I am utterly confused as to how you can be so full of your idea that you haven't considered the reason you have to keep repeating yourself is that people disagree.
On a final note...a martial controller is niether improbable nor unreasonable at all.
The believable ideas, (polearm user or archer, for example) suffer from balance issues. The balanceable ideas suffer from believability issues. It won't happen.
A shadow leader though might very well be somewhat problematic, but someone's already mentioned life-draining properties
A life drain as a twice per encounter heal effect seems off. I will admit I'm hesitant about a Shadow Leader, but I'm really just expecting them to handwave it, which is ok because its magic and they get to define the boundaries.
What I don't get is we already have a melee controller in the form of a kitty druid, why would a martial one be so badwrong? Make a Gladiator or something, instead of kitty roars, it's intimidating challenges or something.
Because:
1) A druid in wild shape uses implement attacks, so the powers can carefully regulate the damage. With [W] powers, they have to balance against the most powerful option, which is too much damage for controllers.
2) A Druid roar is not intimidating because its a roar, its intimidating because a bunch of spirits (or whatever gives Primal is power) makes the enemy act intimidated using the roar as a trigger or focus or whatever.
[indent]
I dont understand. In real life, I ALWAYS seem to regain my abstracted indicator of general physical health with no direct corrilation to specific types of wounding.
No system of HP regeneration is "realistic", as HP is inherintly unrealistic. As soon as you add it to a system, you have already made the abstraction that physical health can be measured in points.
Hit points aren't defined as a direct indicator of physical health. They represent physical endurance, skill, luck and resolve (PHB pg. 293). Hit points simply measure defeat.[/indent]
LuciferNeitzche:
[indent]
The warlord attacks enemies at melee (and to a lesser extent, at range), and as a result, additionally grants a wide variety of bonuses and beneficial conditions to allies both singly and in groups that are adjacent to the warlord, adjacent to the enemy targeted by the warlord, or simply within line of sight of the warlord.
I am utterly confounded by how people totally miss the fact that the warlord is the perfect class to retool, subtract and add a few powers and features that are similarly themed to its original base to make it unique and purposeful while staying true to the underlying premise of non-magical control.
I'm actually diggin' the idea of a Warlord in reverse as a Martial Controller. Lot's of intimidation, forced movement, dazes and demoralizing.
Actually, it would have been better to have named the current Warlord "Marshal" and named the intimidating, movement forcing, dazing and demoralizing Martial Controller "Warlord".[/indent]
Enemyis charge the party
Reverse Warlord: "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, RED LIGHT!"
Enemies become immobilized.
One Enemy in the group: "Ok, fine... Mother may I charge your party member?"
Reverse Warlod: "No, you may not. However, you may move 5 squares to the right and off the cliff."
Enemy: "Sigh... fine..."
the wide number of feasible ideas out there
Is this a joke? I hope so.
If not, name 3.
I'm mostly just surprised that given the constant, since release, demand for a Martial Controller, and the wide number of feasible ideas out there, and the lack of insistence in 4e on every single ability being perfectly describable ("come and get it" vs. archers, anyone?), WotC still hasn't stepped up to bat. There are plenty of ways to make a good martial controller. There is clearly demand. I have no idea why there isn't one out yet. It'd stop the spamming of threads like this at the very least.
Is this a joke? I hope so.
If not, name 3.
That are not striker based, don't need prior preparation or don't rely on technological equipment.
Bel
I can see it now:
Enemyis charge the party
Reverse Warlord: "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, RED LIGHT!"
Enemies become immobilized.
One Enemy in the group: "Ok, fine... Mother may I charge your party member?"
Reverse Warlod: "No, you may not. However, you may move 5 squares to the right and off the cliff."
Enemy: "Sigh... fine..."
That's actually really funny...I like it.
These "flipped warlords" though wouldn't give orders. It's more like, "I just gutted your friend like a pig, what're you gonna do?" (gross oversimplification, but it gives a basic notion) Intimidation and deception go a very VERY long way...as does simply predicting the enemies reactions to any of the circumstances of combat.
It's much like the abstraction of daily powers. You can always do it, but only so often are the conditions correct for it to actually succeed. Well, the specific psychological conditions between martial controller and enemies is irrelevant. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the PCs want leadership and support. But, so do the enemies. The point of such a "flipped warlord" would be to disrupt that enemy leadership, or to otherwise confuse and impede those who are unled.
Mechanically, it's justifiable and workable. As for the fluff, it's hardly unreasonable to say that such a class would use it's innate understanding of fear-based, and anger-based reactions to manipulate the enemy, as well as deception of varying types and degrees. They wouldn't shout counterproductive orders convincingly or anything silly like that...they don't have to. It's not about any ONE technique they have at their disposal to accomplish their ends, but rather how they employ a range of knowledges and skills in combination to do so (and therefore each given combination of such techniques is represented by a single class feature or power). It justifies an entire class by the fact that such knowledge and skill would take complete focus to perform effectively.
It can be fluffed up however everyone (or most people anyway) likes. Personally, I find that less relevant than whether or not it mechanically works.
I dislike the polearm or chainfighter controllers because they're severely restricted to a single weapon type to perform their role. Also, under no circumstances (except where heavily influenced by the warlord's existing capabilities) could they affect enemies at significant range, which is at least an option as a build for other controllers. Most classes have a fairly wide variety of weapons or tools to perform their tasks. Frankly, polearm or chainfighter might be viable as minor aspects of a build for a martial controller class...but as classes in and of themselves aren't even remotely viable simply because they're strictly a one trick pony.
As for the archer controller, it might almost be best, except that no one seems interested in an archer controller. The artillerist to me seems like a striker with a slightly heavier controller sub...if you take the controller build, anyway. If you go with the sniper build you're barely more of a controller than the archer ranger. Maybe I'll try tackling it (but probably not), but I think a melee martial controller would be more...entertaining. And we all have already heard my opinion of how to do it. Perhaps a more controller-oriented archery style than currently envisioned, in combination with the "flipped warlords" might be the best result of all then?
Alchemy might suit the notion of not using magic, but it hardly fits the martial power source which is about physical prowess and to a lesser degree mental capabilities (depending on one's build). But, I suppose there's nothing really mechanically wrong with it other than always having to mix up those stupid concoctions (something I've disliked about the artificer thusfar).
Now that I've perhaps explained my views a little more fully, I'm hoping maybe everyone can see what I mean finally.
On a last note...not one of us knows with even the slightest certainty what other campaign settings will come after Eberron. So while it's certainly extremely unlikely (truly almost conclusive) there will ever be a martial controller officially, no one can say there will not be one as a statement of undeniable fact. There may or may not be other means of publishing such a class also...I don't really keep up.
That's actually really funny...I like it.
These "flipped warlords" though wouldn't give orders. It's more like, "I just gutted your friend like a pig, what're you gonna do?" (gross oversimplification, but it gives a basic notion) Intimidation and deception go a very VERY long way...as does simply predicting the enemies reactions to any of the circumstances of combat.
It's much like the abstraction of daily powers. You can always do it, but only so often are the conditions correct for it to actually succeed. Well, the specific psychological conditions between martial controller and enemies is irrelevant. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that the PCs want leadership and support. But, so do the enemies. The point of such a "flipped warlord" would be to disrupt that enemy leadership, or to otherwise confuse and impede those who are unled.
Mechanically, it's justifiable and workable. As for the fluff, it's hardly unreasonable to say that such a class would use it's innate understanding of fear-based, and anger-based reactions to manipulate the enemy, as well as deception of varying types and degrees. They wouldn't shout counterproductive orders convincingly or anything silly like that...they don't have to. It's not about any ONE technique they have at their disposal to accomplish their ends, but rather how they employ a range of knowledges and skills in combination to do so (and therefore each given combination of such techniques is represented by a single class feature or power). It justifies an entire class by the fact that such knowledge and skill would take complete focus to perform effectively.
It can be fluffed up however everyone (or most people anyway) likes. Personally, I find that less relevant than whether or not it mechanically works.
So you are going to inflict terror into the hearts of....slimes, swarms of scarabs, dragons that have poop larger than you, golems, animilistic undead, creatures born from the far realm, and immortal beings that have existed longer than your entire species just because you have a degree is psychology?
You'll have to excuse me if I find that to be more than a tiny bit of a stretch.
So you are going to inflict terror into the hearts of....slimes, swarms of scarabs, dragons that have poop larger than you, golems, animilistic undead, creatures born from the far realm, and immortal beings that have existed longer than your entire species just because you have a degree is psychology?
You'll have to excuse me if I find that to be more than a tiny bit of a stretch.
A creature doesn't need a mind to be deceived. I'd say it doesn't need a mind to "fear" even, techincally. All living (or I suppose also unliving or simply animate) things have a need for self-preservation. Whether that applies to all creatures in D&D is really up to each group's individual DMs, and no one else. But I think as far as class and monster design, it's the best assumption to start from. Survive, consume, propegate (if applicable). That doesn't take a mind to do. Minds do it much better, but they're hardly necessary.
While there would be a certain pseudo-scientific approach to the class's techniques, the real point would be a much deeper philosophical understanding of such things. A metaphysical reasoning that is no more magical than the rest of the martial power source.
It's all about the abstractions. That's how the warlord works. He inspires allies...but mechanically it directly translates into tangible effects, which is not physically possible. At best, if he's inciting an adrenaline rush then an ally might get a physical boost of some sort. But other than that, there's no quantifiable benefit to inspiration. Yes, inspiring people to action can give the impression of direct benefits of a sort, but they don't get better at anything, they don't suddenly become more skilled or stronger. In the game it's all just an abstraction of a huge variety of factors that all come together in just the right way...often in nearly impossible ways...to turn out just a certain way.
Rallying the troops in real life is nowhere near what it is in the movies. And that's frankly what D&D is all about. Heroic, and at least marginally cinematic, fantasy. Martial classes already do things that either can't be done well, or at all, in real life. These people in the game world are effectively superheroes compared to any type of star athelete or elite soldier in our world.
Ultimately, I think the real clincher is to make up whatever martial controllers we can...and see which is most fun to play, not which one makes the most sense. If we played things for making sense there would ONLY be the martial power source...if that.
A creature doesn't need a mind to be deceived. I'd say it doesn't need a mind to "fear" even, techincally. All living (or I suppose also unliving or simply animate) things have a need for self-preservation.
Except for most undead, golems, everything made specifically to be a shock troop, oozes, and alien beings from the far realm that are beyond your scope to understand.
You cannot deceive something that doesn't think.
I was going to continue and talk about why the Warlord is perfectly reasonable and believable, but there's no point. Its just going to be the same thing ad nauseum, isn't it?
Everyone go and be obstinate and make ridiculous or unbalanced classes. Go and waste your time. There is clearly no point to warning you since you're going to insist on doing it anyway. That's obviously the best attitude to take on everything. Legalize murder, since killers will do it anyway.
Except for most undead, golems, everything made specifically to be a shock troop, oozes, and alien beings from the far realm that are beyond your scope to understand.
You cannot deceive something that doesn't think.
I was going to continue and talk about why the Warlord is perfectly reasonable and believable, but there's no point. Its just going to be the same thing ad nauseum, isn't it?
Everyone go and be obstinate and make ridiculous or unbalanced classes. Go and waste your time. There is clearly no point to warning you since you're going to insist on doing it anyway. That's obviously the best attitude to take on everything. Legalize murder, since killers will do it anyway.
First off, there is a way to deceive something that doesn't think. The same way you deceive anything, provide false input. By some means or another, they sense their surroundings. Their reactions may be preprogrammed, but they're still based on available input from their environment. Create false inputs, and your opponent takes inappropriate action to what you're really about to do.
Mindless creatures don't so much actively choose a response to a situation, and they don't anticipate changes in circumstance of any sort. The have a limited selection of responses to a small few very broad categories of circumstances.
-
Since I got upset over it all earlier, I can't rightly blame you for the same. I was having a bad day and we all do, so I'm not gonna jump on that.
-
More people want a martial controller class than not. It's almost...but not completely...certain that there will never be an official martial controller class. I think the discussion as to whether or not there can or should be one should probably be closed, from now on. It's pretty obvious which way the masses lean. Now, the real task is to find a viable means of doing so.
As of now, I propose something mixed between archer and "flipped warlord" Perhaps each being a build of a single class. Personally, I'd prefer a strictly melee martial controller, but I don't think the rest of the gaming community is going to let me get away with it. So we'll see how things go.
First off, there is a way to deceive something that doesn't think. The same way you deceive anything, provide false input. By some means or another, they sense their surroundings. Their reactions may be preprogrammed, but they're still based on available input from their environment. Create false inputs, and your opponent takes inappropriate action to what you're really about to do.
But how do you know what the false inputs will result in or even what false inputs to use? The same action that results in human bandit thinking that you are about to die and therefore causing him to go recklessly in for the kill, could cause a giant to think that you just told a funny joke that he doesn't get. Body language between cultures isn't universal. Language certainly isn't universal. And what about creatures that either primarily or are only able to detect the world through smell. Is your martial controller going to effective against them?
So then in order for this martial controller idea to work, he has to be intimitly familiar with every culture in existence(even ones that no one knows about). He has to know every single language. He has to know the primary sensing method of every creature in existence(so he knows what kind of false input to create). And then he has to use his omniscence to to generate false inputs that can range from sight, touch, sound, smell, or even taste(I don't know if there are any creatures that primarily use taste, but I'm sure it is possible). And this is supposed to be balanced and martial?
More people want a martial controller class than not.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Because I can't recall ever seeing anything to indicate that.
But how do you know what the false inputs will result in or even what false inputs to use? The same action that results in human bandit thinking that you are about to die and therefore causing him to go recklessly in for the kill, could cause a giant to think that you just told a funny joke that he doesn't get. Body language between cultures isn't universal. Language certainly isn't universal. And what about creatures that either primarily or are only able to detect the world through smell. Is your martial controller going to effective against them?
So then in order for this martial controller idea to work, he has to be intimitly familiar with every culture in existence(even ones that no one knows about). He has to know every single language. He has to know the primary sensing method of every creature in existence(so he knows what kind of false input to create). And then he has to use his omniscence to to generate false inputs that can range from sight, touch, sound, smell, or even taste(I don't know if there are any creatures that primarily use taste, but I'm sure it is possible). And this is supposed to be balanced and martial?
Ranadiel, I respect your opinion throughout the boards more than most others. You're reasonable, insightful, and you don't flame (excessively often, anyway...nobody's perfect, especially not me). So...apologies in advance if I get touchy, it's not personal...others have just worn out my patience on the topic.
Ok...guess we really have to go this far. Dunno why. But anyway, here goes. The simpler and fewer the possible reactions (which mindless creatures have very very few), the more universal they are. And the sensory inputs of mindless creatures are irrelevant anyway. So what if it's sight, sound, touch or anything else? Perception is a single skill...Bluff is also. Granted...maybe it doesn't make complete realistic sense, but it's no less unworkable than the very existence of magic in the first place in a game based entirely on fantasy anyway.
I don't personally believe the cultural (or lack of any culture) differences really matter in this context. There are controlling martial powers (limited in scope and number though they might be) that function regardless of such considerations. Also, martial leader powers should be as detrimentally affected and thus rendered marginally useful at best, as martial controller powers apparently would be.
After all, if what deceives or frightens one opponent might not another...then what inspires and invigorates one ally may not do so for another for the same reasons. Oddly, this doesn't seem to be an issue anywhere in either the few controlling martial powers, nor any of the warlord's leader powers.
So again, I'm really wondering what the REAL problem with this idea is for other people?
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Because I can't recall ever seeing anything to indicate that.
True enough, there's not one shred of hard proof. But how many threads are there of this topic now? What I do know for a fact is that there are a minimum of 6 such threads recently. Two here, one in General Discussion (which got moved), two on the Controller board, and one in the Hombrew board (where the one from General Discussion got moved to also). All but one or two of which (no, I can't remember exactly, but it's either 1 or 2, period) were started with the intent to support and possibly develop a martial controller of some type. Some of those threads have gone into 4 or 5 pages. Hardly a record, but it's not just a passing fad.
If it were always the same people posting on ALL such threads, I'd be inclined to dismiss it, but no one has posted on all of them, and most posters only ever post on only one of the threads. Very few, like myself, have posted even once on more than one of those threads.
It's not fact, but I feel confident saying that more people than not want some kind of martial controller. It's more likely that those who are completely indifferent to the proposition one way or the other outnumber both sides combined...but that's ok. They're mostly the type of people who'll play anything that works, and is fun. To them...if there's a martial controller, nifty, let's play...if there isn't, nifty, let's play.
-
I still don't get why there are people who oppose a martial controller. Not those who simply don't want one...but those who don't want ANYBODY to have one. I'm completely lost on that one. Some people bring up valid issues with the concept of a martial controller, but some so far seem intent on nothing less but completely ruining the idea just for the sake of ruining it.
Why? Is a homebrewed martial controller that a DM doesn't even have to allow because it's homebrew that much of a threat to other people's games? Is there some leftover unreasoning fear from 3.x that if people can build a fully effective and completely martial party, no one will ever play a supernatural class again? People keep asking why anyone should build a martial class. Because people want one...why else? That's always the reason for anything. Some say because they think it'd be a fun addition to the game...which boils down to, "I want one," anyway.
People who want a martial controller are GOING to find a way to do it. You can't tell them not to. Everyone already knows that there are those who simply disagree with the idea...and then there are also those who utterly oppose it with fervor to the point of personal attacks.
So...from now on, how about those who don't want it...ignore us and move on, and those that do want it, or are at least willing to offer usable advice, work on getting it going? That's the best way...the only way, really.
Beyond the simple net and trident, we have the double ended padded stick, used for prodding people off high, narrow, towers.
Granted...maybe it doesn't make complete realistic sense, but it's no less unworkable than the very existence of magic in the first place in a game based entirely on fantasy anyway.
The problem is, magic can break rules of reality and believability like that, because its magic, but martial can't.
I don't personally believe the cultural (or lack of any culture) differences really matter in this context. There are controlling martial powers (limited in scope and number though they might be) that function regardless of such considerations.
There is a big difference between a class getting one or two "stretching it" powers and a class being built on such powers and using them at-will.
I can sort of accept "Hey, look over there!" or whatever you want to say it is, once per encounter. But when you say, "Hey, look over there!" a dozen times in a row and they look every time?
Also, martial leader powers should be as detrimentally affected and thus rendered marginally useful at best, as martial controller powers apparently would be.
After all, if what deceives or frightens one opponent might not another...then what inspires and invigorates one ally may not do so for another for the same reasons. Oddly, this doesn't seem to be an issue anywhere in either the few controlling martial powers, nor any of the warlord's leader powers.
The difference, as I thought had been said many times before, is that the warlord's party wants to listen and be inspired. If I'm waiting for and expecting directions on who to attack, and I get them, I'm going to follow those directions. And if you have a problem with people actually listening to their leader, then surely you could see how the Warlord could spend time outside of combat giving directions on what and why he'd call certain things, teaching his team his battle language, etc. This all works pretty believably. If my Warlord says, "I'm watching for openings, if I call one, follow my directions and you'll land a good blow," I'm going to do what he says.
The other direction gets no such consideration. The enemies do not want to be inspired to action (or inaction as the case may be). They actively oppose the warlord. Some of them actually can't listen to him, or even see him. Some of them couldn't understand anything he says or even does if their life (or lack thereof) depended on. Monsters are too variant to have reliable reactions on at-will powers.
So again, I'm really wondering what the REAL problem with this idea is for other people?
The REAL problem is that most people who promote the reverse Warlord idea use the basic argument: "Well, the Warlord is already unbelievable, so a martial controller that's unbelievable in reverse is perfectly fine." And the fact is, the Warlord is not unbelievable. He's perfectly in the scope of Martial. He does not do anything supernatural. He does not cause enemies to react predictably to his actions at-will. He leads his team. There's nothing crazy about it.
True enough, there's not one shred of hard proof. But how many threads are there of this topic now?
What I do know for a fact is that there are a minimum of 6 such threads recently. Two here, one in General Discussion (which got moved), two on the Controller board, and one in the Hombrew board (where the one from General Discussion got moved to also). All but one or two of which (no, I can't remember exactly, but it's either 1 or 2, period) were started with the intent to support and possibly develop a martial controller of some type. Some of those threads have gone into 4 or 5 pages. Hardly a record, but it's not just a passing fad.
So, in order to support the idea that there are more people who think the idea is silly, unnecessary, broken, and/or impossible, you're saying we'd have to show you threads posted where the primary intent is to say, "By the way, Martial Controllers are a bad idea?" Of course all the threads on the topic were started that way. And I'd wager several people have argued against the idea in every one of those threads.
I still don't get why there are people who oppose a martial controller. Not those who simply don't want one...but those who don't want ANYBODY to have one. I'm completely lost on that one. Some people bring up valid issues with the concept of a martial controller, but some so far seem intent on nothing less but completely ruining the idea just for the sake of ruining it.
Why? Is a homebrewed martial controller that a DM doesn't even have to allow because it's homebrew that much of a threat to other people's games?
No, its not a threat. Countering ideas for a martial controller is a kindness. Many people are stupid. This is fact. Stupid people don't understand balance and will think any class on the internet that gets at least some positive response is good and balanced. This is a public service to dumb people so that they realize martial controller homebrews generally suck and they should be extremely leery of them. Secondarily, its a public service to all the wannabe homebrewers to not waste their time with martial controllers. They should save their effort for something actually doable.
Side note: The Artillerist posted...uh, somewhere on the boards, is a mostly ok class, but it is not a martial controller. It is a striker with a controller secondary. Mostly its just a striker in the same vein as Sorcerer (i.e. AoE striker). It even has a striker extra damage feature.
Is there some leftover unreasoning fear from 3.x that if people can build a fully effective and completely martial party, no one will ever play a supernatural class again?
That is a bizarre direction to turn. You already can build a fully effective and completely martial party because you don't need a controller to be a fully effective party. The controller is icing on the Defender/Leader cake. Strikers are like sprinkles. You don't need them, but having more is always good.
People keep asking why anyone should build a martial class. Because people want one...why else? That's always the reason for anything. Some say because they think it'd be a fun addition to the game...which boils down to, "I want one," anyway.
And the opposition does not deny that they want one, or that they should homebrew at all. They just should not bother homebrewing a martial controller because the only way to balance controller damage is with non-[W] powers, and the martial power source cannot accommodate a class whose focus is non-[W] powers.
People who want a martial controller are GOING to find a way to do it. You can't tell them not to.
But I can show them reasonable and logical explanations as to why its a bad idea destined to fail.
So...from now on, how about those who don't want it...ignore us and move on, and those that do want it, or are at least willing to offer usable advice, work on getting it going? That's the best way...the only way, really.
Or how about the ones who want it accept the criticisms as just maybe, possibly justified and based on actual evidence and analysis of the issue rather than some knee-jerk fervor?
I'm not going to quote your whole thread...too much space, not really worth splitting into pieces.
Any reality in which magic functions is inherently already wholly violated. Again, martial characters do things that are not reasonably possible (albeit not so much til really paragon and epic levels) for real people, even star athletes and elite soldiers to do.
So what if the party WANTS to be led? It's somehow miraculously certain that all of the warlords powers don't violate some as-yet undefined cultural taboo of another race? Most forms of greeting might seem harmless, but handshakes are actually considered insulting in some parts of the world.
"Hey, look over there," would certainly be lousy for an at-will power. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise. I'm not suggesting that it should be. Something that bad really shouldn't be a daily power, but something similarly obvious probably would be.
I think I know what the real problem is now though. This is going to continue UNTIL someone actually puts forth a viable class to prove otherwise. One side will always say nay...one side will always say yay...until either the idea truly sinks or swims.
I might make some contributions to that end. I am interested in seeing it work, after all, but even the supporters don't like my ideas, so that may not work out. Oh well I guess.
I've never implied that what the warlord does is already unbelievable, so flipping it around is ok. The fluff of supposedly why it all works just doesn't matter to me much...if at all. Mechanically...it's perfectly sound. We can make any fluff fit anything, and I personally feel that's what most issues raised so far have been based on...fluff concerns.
The mechanics are sound. The warlord, after all, doesn't inspire the party...he uses powers that have specific mechanical effects that abstractly represent the result of the various minor effects of the implied inspiration. The inspiration is fluff...an explanation...the reasoning of the mechanic...it is not the actual mechanic itself.
I work by coming up with mechanics first...and fluff second (sometimes never...other people can worry about fluff). As long as the mechanics work, any story can be concocted to justify them. The other people on these boards do it all the time...couching it in the lame trappings of a supposed education.
I'm all for arguing points against one another...at least until people latch onto one or more completely irrelevant aspects demanding they be proven or all is flawed. I'd point out how often people on these boards use the tactic, "If you can't prove me wrong, then that makes me right," but if I do that, someone will simply accuse me of it. Which has certainly been true now and then. Even I do it sometimes. But that's not even a drop in the bucket compared to most of the boards. I make my best effort to point out that it's best to take such arguments and call it a draw and move on...since there's no REAL way for either side to conclusively prove anything. Almost no one goes for it though. They usually want to be right, or to win...often both, but not always.
Also...there are certainly many stupid people in the world. I am not one of them. Please don't imply that I am, ever again, no matter how indirectly you may think you're doing it. I happen to think it's ok to build a martial controller, and I happen to think my way is best. I could be wrong...but that's really my own problem, hmm?
I understand balance just fine. I know full well how to avoid Blade Cascade, CoDzilla and all the other assorted nonsense. Actually, I tend to underpower things...which can usually be fixed more easily than nerfing things. There is no issue with balance regarding my concept. The problem is in what manner is the class accomplishing it. But then, everyone knows that. No one's raised any single balance issue. It was always fluff issues. "Enemies aren't going to take orders from a martial controller" That's entirely a fluff issue (and it's not even what I ever suggested anyway, not that I'm going to mention it yet again). In the mechanics, there are no orders or anything else for that matter.
I don't want to worry about that right now. I'd rather work it all out and worry about that part later. Maybe it won't be a martial controller in the end after all the fluffy skin gets put on? That would suck since my goal is to create a martial controller...but oh well, I'll worry about that later.
Now...the topic continues, but for me the conversation is over. Do NOT reply to this post. I have finished, there will be no further discussion on my part. I refuse to concede any presented points, but likewise accept that others will also not do so regarding mine. If people want to discuss the specific merits or flaws of my suggestion, excellent. There will be no discussion of my personal opinions or views or statements not directly regarding the melee martial controller concept I suggested. If someone feels a need to shout to the boards how wrong I supposedly am, "It's obvious that you're wrong, anyone can see that," it will serve only as a message of petty bitterness on their part.
People want to make a martial controller, go for it. People want to complain and whine about people wanting to make a martial controller, go for that too. Don't care anymore. If I have anything to contribute to martial controller projects, I will, if not, I'm out.
True enough, there's not one shred of hard proof. But how many threads are there of this topic now?
There have been 28 threads in the past 6 or so months with the words martial controller in their title by 21 different people on these forums. Considering the sheer number of threads here, I wouldn't consider that to be a majority.
Any reality in which magic functions is inherently already wholly violated. Again, martial characters do things that are not reasonably possible (albeit not so much til really paragon and epic levels) for real people, even star athletes and elite soldiers to do.
I think that the easiest way to look at this is to look at superhero comics. In superhero comics every single character gains their abilities from somewhere. Superman gets his powers from his alien biology. Green Lantern gets his from his power ring. Batman gets his from massive amounts of training and owning the best toys. Batman does things that are simply physically impossible for a real human to do. Were a real human to try to do what Batman does on a daily basis, they would completely and utterly destroy their body in short order. However even though he does things that are impossible, he is still considered to be a non-powered character because the rules of the universe are set up as such. However even though he does things that are simply impossible for a human, you will never see him fly on his own power, breath in space(not including camp), or punch through a solid steel beam. Why? Beacause he is a non-powered hero and there are limits on what kinds of impossible he is allowed to do.
The martial power source is identical. It might be impossible to do anything from the martial power source, but there are still some inate limits to what you can do with it.
I work by coming up with mechanics first...and fluff second (sometimes never...other people can worry about fluff). As long as the mechanics work, any story can be concocted to justify them.
Then what you are doing is making a controller and then trying to force it to be martial with fluff that is a bit beyond the limits of generic martial. Really you could get a martial controller by just refluffing any of the existing controllers to be martial if your goal is simply a martial controller. I have to say that while what you were describing earlier stretches believability as martial, it sounds perfect as a psionic controller(you ignore the problems of knowing everything about every culture by simply taking the info from the enemy's brain and then feeding it straight back into their brain).
Do NOT reply to this post. I have finished, there will be no further discussion on my part.
......Well I just wasted time by typing this up. I guess this is what I get for replying while still reading.:embarrass Oh well, I might as well post what I typed anyways.
Any reality in which magic functions is inherently already wholly violated. Again, martial characters do things that are not reasonably possible (albeit not so much til really paragon and epic levels) for real people, even star athletes and elite soldiers to do.
Realistic is not the issue. Believable is.
So what if the party WANTS to be led? It's somehow miraculously certain that all of the warlords powers don't violate some as-yet undefined cultural taboo of another race? Most forms of greeting might seem harmless, but handshakes are actually considered insulting in some parts of the world.
If the party meets for the first time at a bar and gets into an immediate fight, yes, it may push it a little. If the party has been together for any real length of time and had any out of combat downtime to talk, this should no longer be an issue.
"Hey, look over there," would certainly be lousy for an at-will power. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise. I'm not suggesting that it should be. Something that bad really shouldn't be a daily power, but something similarly obvious probably would be.
Ok, so even though that was a silly example, perhaps someone would like to propose an actual at-will for this reverse Warlord. I can promise you I'd have the same reaction.The fluff of supposedly why it all works just doesn't matter to me much...if at all.
The fluff is literally the only thing that makes something Martial. A Rogue with magic fluff would be arcane. A Fighter with spirit fluff would be Primal. What defines the power sources is fluff.
Mechanically...it's perfectly sound.
Yes, it is. It really is. But its not fluffable as martial.
We can make any fluff fit anything, and I personally feel that's what most issues raised so far have been based on...fluff concerns.
Most martial controller ideas fail on balance issues. Specifically the archer and polearm wielder. The reverse warlord fails on fluff concerns.
The inspiration is fluff...
...which makes it Martial.
I work by coming up with mechanics first...and fluff second
Then you can't make a martial controller. You can make a controller and then try and fit it into a power source, but I'm pretty sure the one you'll end up won't be martial.
Also...there are certainly many stupid people in the world. I am not one of them. Please don't imply that I am, ever again, no matter how indirectly you may think you're doing it.
I did not call you stupid in any way, indirectly, directly, or whatever. I said many people were stupid and my goal was protecting them. If I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't even respond to you. And frankly, I would say so.
Maybe it won't be a martial controller in the end after all the fluffy skin gets put on?
Then don't get so touchy when people say its not a good martial controller idea. Note that nobody said it would be a bad controller idea.
Now...the topic continues, but for me the conversation is over. Do NOT reply to this post.
Oops. Well, guess I'll just have the last word then. ;)
Is this a joke? I hope so.
If not, name 3.
A psychological warfare expert that utilises his surroundings and allies in order to disable the enemy and convince the enemy that the allies are doing something they are not.
A reach warrior that does low damage but affects wide areas.
A thrown weapons specialist dealing area effects with flurries of daggers, axes, javelins, or whatever he likes.
My design is a Guerilla class that combines several of the ideas from these to form a resourceful warrior that doesn't attack his enemies directly, but... well, controls them. Instead of rituals, he gets traps that work in the same manner as rituals. Many of his attacks are fear, charm, and maybe at very high levels dominate effects; the remainder focus on slowing, proning, sliding, immobilising, dazing, stunning, restraining, blinding, possibly deafening, causing attack or defense penalties, creating zones of difficult terrain or zones where enemies who pass through take OAs or similar damage, and altering existing terrain. He throws things for area attacks and/or swings a chain or spear for close burst [still debating this one]. His damage is low, but he tries to avoid going toe-to-toe anyway. His goal is to turn the environment and the enemies against each other, rather than letting them attack him and his friends.
You might disagree, but at that stage it just becomes a matter of you not liking the idea. It's perfectly feasible. There's nothing inherently imbalanced or even unlikely about it: such tactics exist in real life, with low-tech weapons - I'll admit, without the fanciful chain swinging and throwing clouds of daggers, but this isn't real life. In real life, a commander yelling at you to hang in there doesn't stop you from bleeding, either.
As a final PS, MPL, your own comment: power source is purely fluff. Fine, as a thought exercise, then, build a Predator druid. Take only beast powers. For the one non-beast at-will, take Thorn Whip and have it use a literal whip or something else. Chain, whatever. It really doesn't matter, you could leave that at-will out entirely. Now, remove the Beast Form requirement and change all beast powers' dice of damage to [w] (you'll have to leave the implement keyword and call the weapon an implement for balance reasons, whatever. We're not building a class here, just refluffing for the purposes of argument).
Explain to me how this character couldn't be martial, what makes running around and slashing things so inherently magical. Or are you going to deny that a druid is a controller?
A psychological warfare expert that utilises his surroundings and allies in order to disable the enemy and convince the enemy that the allies are doing something they are not.
And what about enemies with no psychology?
A reach warrior that does low damage but affects wide areas.
1[W] is already more damage than controllers should deal because there are d10 reach weapons.
A thrown weapons specialist dealing area effects with flurries of daggers, axes, javelins, or whatever he likes.
You mean like a Rogue or a Ranger? You mean exactly like those classes, except with different at-wills? Or, actually, they'd probably have Twin Strike...yeah, this is already done and its a striker.
Instead of rituals, he gets traps that work in the same manner as rituals.
That is interesting, but by all rights, anyone can do rituals so anyone should be able to make traps. Likewise, they'd be virtually useless shy of defending a particular piece of territory, which is not a common occurrence in D&D.
It's perfectly feasible. There's nothing inherently imbalanced or even unlikely about it
Except the fact that [W] damage is inherently too high for controllers to deal.
In real life, a commander yelling at you to hang in there doesn't stop you from bleeding, either.
And in D&D, it doesn't either, because HP are abstractions.
As a final PS, MPL, your own comment: power source is purely fluff. Fine, as a thought exercise, then, build a Predator druid. Take only beast powers. For the one non-beast at-will, take Thorn Whip and have it use a literal whip or something else. Chain, whatever. It really doesn't matter, you could leave that at-will out entirely. Now, remove the Beast Form requirement and change all beast powers' dice of damage to [w] (you'll have to leave the implement keyword and call the weapon an implement for balance reasons, whatever. We're not building a class here, just refluffing for the purposes of argument).
Explain to me how this character couldn't be martial, what makes running around and slashing things so inherently magical. Or are you going to deny that a druid is a controller?
This character would be vastly more powerful dealing [W]s because he could use a Fullblade or Mordenkrad or something like that. Hence, a balance problem.
I can see it now:
Enemyis charge the party
Reverse Warlord: "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, RED LIGHT!"
Enemies become immobilized.
One Enemy in the group: "Ok, fine... Mother may I charge your party member?"
Reverse Warlod: "No, you may not. However, you may move 5 squares to the right and off the cliff."
Enemy: "Sigh... fine..."
i lol'd
*facepalm* Can we have a frik'n sticky master thread for this please? And mod pruning?
This, plz.
*snip*
*snip*
I srsly freaking love you guys. You always manage to cut straight through the BS.
This character would be vastly more powerful dealing [W]s because he could use a Fullblade or Mordenkrad or something like that. Hence, a balance problem.
If this is your most serious objection, I'm going to have to take that as a grudging admission that it works. There are plenty of ways to restrict weapon damage. For example, build the class to require thrown weapons, limiting dice to d6's, d8's at most after feat expenditure. Or, for our martial druid, require light weapons and call it a Swashbuckler. There are many more ways to deal with this.
As for:
You mean like a Rogue or a Ranger? You mean exactly like those classes, except with different at-wills? Or, actually, they'd probably have Twin Strike...yeah, this is already done and its a striker.
You must be aware that that's absurd. Rogues and rangers do not have a monopoly on ranged attacks with weapons. The status and effects of an attack in 4e really have little to do with how the attack is delivered anyway; you could take a huge number of existing controller powers and change them to thrown weapon powers with only minimal editing.
Regarding psychological warfare, you're still flogging the entirely wrong dead horse. Deception works against nonpsychological creatures. Undead and golems can be fooled just like a digital system can in reality. They can't magically identify when something is a feint, trick, trap, etc and when it's not just because they have no emotions.
If this is your most serious objection, I'm going to have to take that as a grudging admission that it works.
There was no grudging admission of any sort. Just saying things doesn't make it so.
Your words are not magic.
I mean, seriously, there's some borderline flaming going on. While that's coming mostly from the pro-martial controller camp (for which they should be sadly ashamed of stooping to anywhere near that), I fully blame the martial controller's opponents.
Honestly, I haven't really seen either side present so much a single reasonably probable argument yet as for why there should or shouldn't be a martial controller at all.
Functional mechanics alone is NOT a valid reason to build such a class. Difficulties with creating acceptable fluff alone is NOT a valid reason to deny such a class. Sounds like a lot of self-absorbed posturing on both sides to me.
Psychological warfare isn't a particularly good premise for a martial controller, but then, niether is archery. But claiming that mindless creatures can't be influenced by their surroundings is probably one of the most asinine and untrue things ever posted. It's been pointed out by a few others that mindless doesn't mean inert.
If it moves, if it has needs, it has to be able to somehow sense its surroundings. How it does so is completely irrelevant within the game. If it moves, and has needs, and senses things...then odds are it has a tiny handful of extremely simple instinctive responses that it doesn't pick from, but reflexively responds with. No thought, no choice, no direct will...just instinct. If it senses its surroundings thusly, other creatures can create means of altering what the mindless creature senses, thereby causing it to react in a manner inconsistent with the ACTUAL situation. That is the very core of deception.
Now...nobody should take that as my advocacy that a martial controller should be made. I'm merely pointing out how silly and irrelevant that "reason" is regarding why a martial controller shouldn't be made.
So, on to silly reasons people have given to MAKE such a class. The mechanics work. So what? What good is a mechanically sound class if there's no purpose for it?
There are two types of fluff. Narrative fluff, which is all about feel and mood and theme and assorted other garbage. And then there's explanatory fluff, which provides reasoning to the characters as to why a thing works the way it does. When we read a power, we see the mathematical and mechanical function of it. But the characters don't know that, and they need an explanation of the metaphysics involved within the game reality that allow such things to occur the way they do. Now, sometimes the two are intertwined because it just fits well, sometimes to save space, and sometimes just inadvertently. But they are never under any circumstances required to be tied together in such a way.
But you can't just go and come up with a bunch of new or refurbished mechanics...a whole new class, in this case...without finding at least a semi-plausible explanation for it all. That's just as asinine as those who say you can't make the class BECAUSE there's a problem with the fluff. A class with no fluff at all isn't a class, it's just a collection of values and statistics, and can never be anything else...and that's not worth the trouble.
Since I've gone to all that trouble debunking both sides, it's time to tie things off.
The explanatory fluff does NOT have to match the function of the mechanics. Just because the mechanics say a bunch of enemies are affected in a certain way, it does not automatically follow that the explanatory fluff account for that effect. Especially if the Hit of the power is fairly flashy and the Effect is very subdued and not the sort of thing one directly notices. If that's the case, why waste time and creative effort on explaining why the effect occurs as it does, if it's not even part of the descriptive fluff?
Is that sort of separation particularly common in 4e? Maybe not, I haven't looked at EVERY single power, nor memorized those I have. And I'm not going to dig through a book to find examples just to satisfy someone else's nearly sociopathic need to "prove" everything. It's just a game. There is nothing to prove, and demanding every person who comments in any way back up every claim with quoted rules or some other silly thing strikes me as a potentially serious pathology.
Sometimes it's worthwhile to quote rules when it's really needed. But for a lousy game, people should NOT have to back up every single little idea with some kind of incontrivertible facts. It's not worth it at all, either way.
Those who would prefer there be no martial controller should really give up, since it's obvious those who want it aren't planning on listening to you...ever. Those who are attempting to make such a controller, be more open to constructive criticism, because you've got a nigh impossible task and you're gonna need people to point out where you go wrong...because you WILL go wrong, often.
Like I said before, I don't care either way, but I really don't see the need for any form of the class. But quit fighting over whether there should or shouldn't be one...that is strictly and solely a matter of each individual's opinion, and NOTHING else. It's childish and self-absorbed to think otherwise. Now stop playing all butt-hurt about your puny egos and find something better to do.
If this is your most serious objection, I'm going to have to take that as a grudging admission that it works. There are plenty of ways to restrict weapon damage. For example, build the class to require thrown weapons, limiting dice to d6's, d8's at most after feat expenditure. Or, for our martial druid, require light weapons and call it a Swashbuckler. There are many more ways to deal with this.
Restricting weapon type is fairly arbitrary. Even rogues can use a 1d10 superior crossbow. Its going to be gimmicky if you do it that way...
Oh, and I've never "grudgingly admitted" anything. I never "grudgingly denied" either. I've openly said that the fluff on an archer controller is pretty believable, but the balance is a problem. The fluff on a polearm guy is also fine, but once again, balance issues plague it.
You must be aware that that's absurd. Rogues and rangers do not have a monopoly on ranged attacks with weapons.
A pretty standard controller at will is a ranged attack against two or more enemies, correct? What is Twin Strike if not that (and more)?
Meanwhile, Rogues have several dailies that are clouds of daggers/crossbow bolts that cause various status effects.
It is not absurd to say, "This already exists" when it does in fact, already exist.
The status and effects of an attack in 4e really have little to do with how the attack is delivered anyway; you could take a huge number of existing controller powers and change them to thrown weapon powers with only minimal editing.
I think I'm fairly lenient on the idea of a character that can carry effectively limitless arrows. I'm even pretty ok with a character carrying effectively limitless daggers or shurikens. But effectively limitless trantyrs? I'm not buying that anymore, and someone who can do standard controller things (like an at-will area burst 1) means they are throwing up to 9 trantyrs every turn (27 if you treat bursts in three dimensions). The speed of throwing that many is weird enough, but the supply is whats truly crazy.
And yes, once you have a magic throwing weapon supply is irrelevant, but you can't build a class that requires a magic item to be believable.
Regarding psychological warfare, you're still flogging the entirely wrong dead horse. Deception works against nonpsychological creatures. Undead and golems can be fooled just like a digital system can in reality. They can't magically identify when something is a feint, trick, trap, etc and when it's not just because they have no emotions.
Its the predictable reaction that's the problem. I fully understand the idea of mindless creatures being "trickable" but I do not fully understand the idea of tricking a dwarf, a golem, a zombie, an earthsoul genasi, an illithid, and Vecna, and having them all react in an identical and predictable way.
Edit: It saddens, but amuses me that I was 3 minutes too late to prevent Erk from quitting the thread.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Suggestion
Ya know what. I may go to the pro-martial controller camp for that. Nice job there Johnathan. Top shelf work (aside from the tinkering that all homebrew naturally requires over time). Kudos.
Suggestion
In Depth Critique
Great Throw: Improvised Weapons don't have a penalty, they just don't have a proficiency bonus. You need to give them one to make this part of the feature do anything.
Cull the Weak deals [W] to up to 3 enemies. That's stronger than Twin Strike. Its also an amazing power for a Fighter to PMC or half-elven dilettante for.
Brutalize is pointless. -1 Will is virtually never going to matter. Also, penalties don't get names, so "Power penalty" doesn't work.
How does Howling Hammer interact with Great Throw? Does it become a Strength roll? Why even bother making it Charisma based then? Also, this makes it a class with 3 primaries. That's a bit strange.
Inexorable Advance is better than Tide of Iron in every way. See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about with balance issues. Not only does it push farther and have no size limitation, it can do more damage since you don't need a shield.
Carnage, the way to notate that is by making the power a Close burst 1 and targeting one creature in the burst. That way you don't get the clunkiness in the wording of the Effect.
Many of your powers cannot scale. By not using an Implement or a Weapon, you have no way to keep this power functional at later levels without some kind of a scaling bonus included in the power itself.
Ok, I lied. I can't do in depth, because I'm tired of reading it all.
Cull the Weak deals [W] to up to 3 enemies. That's stronger than Twin Strike. Its also an amazing power for a Fighter to PMC or half-elven dilettante for.
Brutalize is pointless. -1 Will is virtually never going to matter. Also, penalties don't get names, so "Power penalty" doesn't work.
How does Howling Hammer interact with Great Throw? Does it become a Strength roll? Why even bother making it Charisma based then? Also, this makes it a class with 3 primaries. That's a bit strange.
Inexorable Advance is better than Tide of Iron in every way. See, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about with balance issues. Not only does it push farther and have no size limitation, it can do more damage since you don't need a shield.
Carnage, the way to notate that is by making the power a Close burst 1 and targeting one creature in the burst. That way you don't get the clunkiness in the wording of the Effect.
Many of your powers cannot scale. By not using an Implement or a Weapon, you have no way to keep this power functional at later levels without some kind of a scaling bonus included in the power itself.
Ok, I lied. I can't do in depth, because I'm tired of reading it all.
In Depth CritiqueGreat Throw: Improvised Weapons don't have a penalty, they just don't have a proficiency bonus. You need to give them one to make this part of the feature do anything.
Cull the Weak deals [W] to up to 3 enemies. That's stronger than Twin Strike. Its also an amazing power for a Fighter to PMC or half-elven dilettante for.
Dreadnought's Scar: Creatures damaged by a dreadnought's attack become scarred until the end of the Dreadnought's next turn. Scarred creatures take a -2 to hit against the dreadnought and many dreadnought powers key off the Scarred condition. Enemies cannot be scarred by more than one dreadnought at the same time and your Scarred creature effects only work on creatures currently scarred by you.
At Will
Lingering Blow
You give your enemy a wound that they won't soon forget.
At-Will - Martial ✦ Weapon, Scar
Standard Action
Attack Type: Melee
Target: One creature
Attack: Str vs. AC
Hit: 1[w] + Str damage and Scarred until the end of the encounter.
Details of the Deed
You remind a foe why he fears you.
At-Will - Martial ✦ Melee
Standard Action
Attack Type: Ranged 20
Target: One scarred enemy.
Attack: Cha vs. Will
Hit: Cha damage and shift 1
Encounter
E1
Primal Howl
A frightful scream reaches into your foes souls and scatters them.
Encounter - Martial ✦ Scarred, Battlecry
Standard Action
Area: Close Burst 3
Target: All enemies within burst
Attack: Cha vs. Will
Hit: Slide 1.
Scarred: Cha damage.
Threat of Retribution
Pointing you warn off any who would dare defy you.
Encounter - Martial ✦ Scarred
Standard Action
Attack Type Ranged
Area: Blast 2 within 10
Effect: Scarred creatures consider the area impassible terrain. Such creatures forced into or through the area take Cha damage and fall prone.
Daily
D1
I'm Coming For You!
Your words terrify an opponent, knocking off their aim.
Daily - Martial ✦ Scarred
Immediate Interrupt
Attack Type Ranged 20
Target: One creature within Range.
Trigger: Target makes an attack.
Attack: Cha vs. Will
Hit: -4 morale penalty to the attack.
Scarred: Dazed.
It saddens, but amuses me that I was 3 minutes too late to prevent Erk from quitting the thread.
If it makes you feel any better, I am still reading it. I just don't see any point in posting more. I could point out a lot of things, like that by your arguments feinting with Bluff should be impossible, but it's really not worth it.
Johnathan: Your Dreadnought is a pretty decent class, I've seen it around. I've never liked the whole gore thing, but the rest is pretty cool and seems reasonably balanced. I may throw it in as a game option some time.
It's on par with Thunderwave though, which has a great chance to get multiple enemies for less damage (sometimes).
Also, it deals only 1[w] damage (with the normal progression of 2[w] at 21). This is math I have gone over often. Thunderwave rocks the 1d6 + Int, dealing 3.5+Int on average, between 5.5 (low in wizard) and 8.5 per target. Cull the weak is based entirely on weapon damage. The highest damage weapon I am aware of is 2d6 (perhaps a 2d10 exists, I'll cover that). 2d6 deals an average of 7 (2d10 deals 11). So, when facing a wizard who has chosen an extraordinally low int, it averages a point and a half more. A wizard with a moderate (16-18) int is in roughly the same boat, while the high Int wizard outdamages the highest damage weapon I know of. The clause to surround this statement is that the Dreadnought was written long before Martial Power, and I do not own Martial Power, disabling me from the appropriate upmarking. This applies also to your comment about repetition compared to the Martial Power book.
Seems like fairly sound reasoning to me. The overlap issues can be addressed by those with the book, or by you whenever you get the book. It's homebrew, so it's not like there's a deadline for it. Take your time.
Anything more than a -1 on Brutalize would likely be too strong. It also affects a group, rather than an individual.
I think mplindustries meant less that the size of the penalty was the problem, and more that the defense so penalized instead was. I can see why to a certain degree. Will is already the crap defense of most melee PCs and NPCs both. Penalizing it further doesn't really matter much. Perhaps a brief and small penalty to attack rolls instead? They see what happens to their comrade and hesitate, reducing their ability to fight effectively, perhaps? Not sure, perhaps that's too much, or still not enough.
Great Throw, as stated, uses Strength instead of Dexterity. When the attack does not all for dexterity, it would instead use the normal attack modifier. I chose not to repeat "Str (melee) or Dex (ranged)" for all the other powers, because it would be meaningless.
I'm not sure I'm following this response correctly...or even the comment to which you're responding...but I would personally suggest swapping out the ignoring of range penalties for a flat +2 proficiency bonus on all thrown improvised weapons.
Perhaps Inexorable Advance ought to have a size requirement, however it does not allow you to follow the target, which a fighter needs to do to keep sticky. Not as useful to a fighter as it initially seems.
It should definitely have a size requirement, but that's ok. Make the necessary adjustment. No big deal.
I'm fairly sure carnage does what I mean it to. High damage to all adjacent enemies and bloodying the field. The threat of such terrible damage prevents your foes from bunching up around you.
You'll need to alter the wording of the power. Close burst 1 is the range/area...but the target would be Each creatue in burst. Aside from that, the idea of slashing up a bunch of enemies adjacent to you and leaving the ground slick and unsure is common in gore-fest movies. I don't see a problem. You might want to include some sort of contingency of requiring there be more than one target within the burst or the power can't be used...something like that. Gotta throw a bone to the fluffy realism nitpickers.
I struggled with scaling constantly.
And you always will. Anyone who says they have an easy time of it is lying, or often produces nothing but seriously under/over-powered homebrew without ever bothering to make the little improvements over time that all homebrew constantly needs. So...don't worry about the hiccups in powers or anything else. When they pop up, fix em...that's all anyone can ever do.
That is the point of the attack roll. If you 'miss' with your charisma effect then you haven't manipulated the enemy as you desire. If you succeed, you manage what you intended. There are approximately two fear effects per 'power level'.
You're going to encounter a lot of obsession with the notion that creatures in D&D all think differently even though they don't, as far as the game is concerned. Get used to it. Dunno where that hang-up came from, but it's entrenched and immutable. As long as you've got non-fear options (regarding those creatures MECHANICALLY immune to fear, rather than those who might or might not be unaffected by specific notions of fear according to nearly nonexistent fluff), I'd say you don't have to worry much.
Created before Martial Power's release. Don't own martial power, can't adjust appropriately. I did notice that the name was used for a PP, which distressed me.
Like I said, homebrewing is an endless process, so don't be in a hurry. You'll find mistakes...fix em as needed. Don't worry about the PP of the same name, because your class is homebrew, it's not like there's a genuine conflict there.
Most of the time, however, the [w] based damage is without a stat modifier, allowing it to fall back within the norms. I removed the damage boost for heavy thrown weapons while cleaning the class up after posting the suggestion.
Probably good enough. Be open to this idea though... Take a page from the Fighter, make many powers that have certain effects based on the type of weapon used. For those powers, take out the [w] damage and put in a flat die, much like spells and similar powers do. In such instances, the point of the weapon is to create a specific effect, and so the weapon's raw damage potential is neglected within the form of the technique itself, which is where the damage is now coming from. That inherently limits weapon selection though, since you might be penalized for using such a power without the right weapon if the weapon you ARE using does more damage than the power. It's an option worth considering though, if it can be worked out well. Such a notion for powers would be a prime way to balance the mechanical issue of different weapons doing different damages in AoEs.
I don't know what the whip's stats are, I can't adjust for it. And I certainly will not purchase every single released book just so that my homebrew creations fall perfectly within that book's balance.
You can make a guess, and that would be fine for now. With guesses though, it's always better to lowball. Always underpower if you're not sure. You can always easily improve something later little by little til it's just right...but making things weaker can get hinky very quickly.
Also, I'm sure no one really reasonably expects you to buy every piece of material before attempting homebrews of any sort. That's a horribly stupid thing for anyone to think. But if someone does openly entertain that notion, I suggest you tell them exactly what you think of that silliness.
Most creatures instinctually ignore blood and gore when not feeding. Since creatures in combat rarely find the time to feed, they generally avoid the area. The difficult terrain involves blood, body bits, churned earth, scraps of damaged whatever, and so forth.
Dangerous ground with most of this crowd. Few of them are remotely willing to accept the idea that in a fantasy setting, all creatures behave according to the same outlook. In the majority of fiction, such creatures are anthropromorphized so as to be understandable to the reader and be capable of garnering the reader's sympathy. D&D is no different, but apparently it's an inapplicable principle for some reason I haven't heard yet.
Whatever you do, never use the justification, "most creatures." While I understand your position and reasoning, it'll just get you in trouble around here.
I do my best balance it appropriately, but I need other people for that. After all, if I wrote it it naturally seems balanced to me. I wouldn't write any intentionally unbalanced powers would I.
Intentionally...I personally feel that you wouldn't, no. But, you're right, you do your best, and need other perspectives to be objective about your own work. Unfortunately, most of the criticism you're likely to find on this project will state that even your tiniest mistake...even simple typos...are blatant proof of the unworkability of the concept, and often will cite the mistake itself (again, even the typos) as some horribly broken thing purely by your own willfull intent.
Would a martial character be able to deal psychic damage? What is psychic damage? It seems ill defined enough to lend itself to psychological attacks, in addition to despair and effects. With the hp system as abstract as it is, demoralizing someone could bring them that much closer to death.
I and others have made that argument that the inherent abstraction of HP means that not all things that reduce HP need be physical or magical. But, that particular notion has not met with widespread approval. But, people seem to need to equate it to some sort of actual injury or physical harm. Dunno why, really, haven't heard a good reason. As far as I'm concerned, an abstraction of HP is an abstraction of HP.
I'd avoid including psychic damage as a potential for a martial class...but that's more out of a bias in favor of the coming Psionic power source than anything. It is probably stretching just a tad too far though. Things with the psychic keyword are pretty blatantly supernatural.
Also, when it comes to the wide-ranging differences of power in your powers that was mentioned elsewhere...remember what I said. When in doubt, underpower it. Always err on the side of caution. Like I said you can always go back and very easily kick it up a notch or two, little by little, til it's at the appropriate power. You can also take powers and swap their levels if you don't want to change them. Don't get bogged down with they idea that you have to get everything perfect, or even close, on your first attempts. Start small, work your way up. Trying to take out just enough to weaken a power appropriately gets more difficult as you do it, because you may lower it in a way that makes a previous reduction unnecessary, and then you should put that back...and so on. It's just a pain and it's pointless. Always lowball your homebrew. Building up is always easier than tearing down when it comes to game design.
Let this post serve as proof that someone who does not necessarily really support the creation of a martial class can still GENUINELY contribute in a positive and helpful fashion.
If it makes you feel any better, I am still reading it. I just don't see any point in posting more. I could point out a lot of things, like that by your arguments feinting with Bluff should be impossible, but it's really not worth it.
Johnathan: Your Dreadnought is a pretty decent class, I've seen it around. I've never liked the whole gore thing, but the rest is pretty cool and seems reasonably balanced. I may throw it in as a game option some time.
I wouldn't throw it in quite yet. Of course, you may do as you please, but as others have noted it remains unbalanced.
The gore can be considered slipping on the nasty bits, as well as churned earth. But it is largely the result of a revulsion rather than physical impediment.
I'm a strong supporter of there being a martial controller option and i'm getting tired of these threads.
Rangers don't cut it, Rogues don't cut it - warlords don't cut it, no current martial class fits the needs of a martial controller and there are voids that should be filled.
The archetype I want to fill is of a martial commando, a master of many weapons and their application. No one cuts that deal, some get close but its just not possible. I can get very close with a Ranger/Rogue with an array of weapons but then I miss out on a mulitutude of necessary options to make it work.
It would be nice if all the Martial Controller desenters just gave up *****ing because they have absolutely no valid reason to object to the creation of a valid Martial Controller.
And by Valid Martial controller I mean one that fits into a RP niche and has consistant mechanical backing to fit as a controller.
having said all that, a Hybrid Rogue / Ranger or Ranger / Rogue might work ;)
I agree, there's no reason that a martial controller shouldn't be created. It's just that there's not been a single one that's come up that has balanced fluff and crunch and made a legit stance in the homebrew posts so far. I like the idea of the Dreadnought, but there are plenty of bugs to figure out. Still, it's quite well along. In fact, Dreadnought is probably the only thing that even approaches usability. However, I would warn that psychological warfare is probably not martial, and probably falls into the category of a Psionic class.
Then again, Psionic has not been seen yet, so that's conjectural based on the nature of the martial power source. To force affect a creature's mind, regardless of it's background and tendencies, looks more like mental will than physical will.
That said, I'd be interested in this Weapon Master class igniz has mentioned. I know of at least one friend/Player who'd play it, should it work out well.
There aren't enough powers to make it consistantly viable. There's no at-wills that dehibilitate sufficiently and the max targets at-will is 2.
Even with a Beast Companion its still not quite enough.
Psychological warfare isn't psionic, its basically wanting the oposite of a Warlord in combat. If I get time I'll write up the "Weapon Master" class, but i've been planning to do so for ages, so could take a while.
Part of the problem is defining martial and controller, we know what both do (roughly) but the limits of what could be considered a controller.
Thing is, building a Martial Controller is mostly down to powers and some supporting class features.
My "weapon master" (and that's a WTO) uses Alchemy in the place of Rituals to add extra Control options, whilst using martial powers that support the control needs. I could do it with a Ranger or a Rogue if they had the suitable powers.
A new build option and suitable powers for Rogues or Ranger would probably cover a martial controller. There's still that gap in martial classes that can be filled though, but I am essentially looking at a master combatant who's a reverse warlord of sorts.
Is that a Hybrid Ranger/Rogue, or a Rogue with Ranger multiclass or a Ranger with Rogue multiclass?
I agree, there's no reason that a martial controller shouldn't be created. It's just that there's not been a single one that's come up that has balanced fluff and crunch and made a legit stance in the homebrew posts so far. I like the idea of the Dreadnought, but there are plenty of bugs to figure out. Still, it's quite well along. In fact, Dreadnought is probably the only thing that even approaches usability. However, I would warn that psychological warfare is probably not martial, and probably falls into the category of a Psionic class.
Then again, Psionic has not been seen yet, so that's conjectural based on the nature of the martial power source. To force affect a creature's mind, regardless of it's background and tendencies, looks more like mental will than physical will.
That said, I'd be interested in this Weapon Master class igniz has mentioned. I know of at least one friend/Player who'd play it, should it work out well.
The Warlord uses psychology to pump up his allies. The dreadnought uses psychology to drag down his enemies.
I really do appreciate your, erm... appreciation of the Dreadnought. Naturally I'm trying to work the kinks out, but it helps a lot if people point out the kinks I've missed.
I don't have the books, but what is the math on enchanting weapons and the consequent damage output of the dreadnought's abilities? Weapons usually have far better enchantments (for damage) than implements, which can once again unbalance the Dreadnought.
Also, since you aren't basing damage on the character's attribute, we're getting into some interesting territory here. Do the attributes really matter? There are feats and enhancements to pump to-hit rolls that the class may end up not even dependent on a single stat.
It's on par with Thunderwave though, which has a great chance to get multiple enemies for less damage (sometimes).
Also, it deals only 1[w] damage (with the normal progression of 2[w] at 21). This is math I have gone over often. Thunderwave rocks the 1d6 + Int, dealing 3.5+Int on average, between 5.5 (low in wizard) and 8.5 per target. Cull the weak is based entirely on weapon damage. The highest damage weapon I am aware of is 2d6 (perhaps a 2d10 exists, I'll cover that). 2d6 deals an average of 7 (2d10 deals 11). So, when facing a wizard who has chosen an extraordinally low int, it averages a point and a half more. A wizard with a moderate (16-18) int is in roughly the same boat, while the high Int wizard outdamages the highest damage weapon I know of.
So, I thought I'd help a bit and give you an analysis of your power so you can see why its not balanced. The main issue is that weapons have quite a bit more items and feats that boost their damage than implements do. I'm just cutting and pasting this, so its going to sound all rude and snarky, but I don't feel like editing it, so just look at the math. and realize I'm posting this to help.
Annoying Math-fuAt level 1, he's close to correct. I'll be assuming both characters have 18 in their primary. The Wizard will deal 1d6+4, which averages 7.5. Someone with a Mordenkrad will deal 8 average. If you give the wizard a feat to boost his damage, the only options give +1, so ok, 8.5 means the wizard does more damage, meaning the martial controller is perfectly well balanced.
Bzzt. Wrong. He is ignoring magic items and feats. Lets try level 12 and see. The Dreadnought is now using a +3 Bloodclaw Mordenkrad. Both have raised their primary at every opportunity, so we've got 21s. He'll do 8 (weapon) + 3 (enhancement) + 9 (Bloodclaw) + 2 (weapon focus) + 2 (Iron Armbands of power) = 24. The implement user will do 3.5 (weapon) + 5 (Intelligence) + 3 (enhancement) + 2 (feat bonus) + 1 (Thunder Wand, their best option) = 14.5 damage. Hmm, see a problem yet? Even without Bloodclaw...if you used Reckless instead, it'd still be 21 damage, which is still a problem. And don't forget Hammer Rhythm, meaning that the controller will still do damage on a miss.
This will get worse in Epic. 2[W] means the Martial Controller is looking at 16 (weapon) + 5 (enhancement) + 15 (Bloodclaw)/+10 (Reckless) + 3 (weapon focus) + 4 (Iron Armbands of Power) = 43/38. The best the wizard can do is 7 (2d6) + 7 (Int) + 5 (enhancement) + 3 (feat bonus) + 3 (Thunder Wand) = 25.
Even with a total lack of psychological effects, a martial option is viable. Let's call him "The Pusher" and make him really good and grappling, bull rushing, disarming and tripping, then give him some powers that allow him to throw people or use them as a shield. Same concept as some of the tactical feats in 3.5's complete warrior splatbook. Granted, you start to run out of options for powers (How many different ways can you describe "You pick the poor sucker up and chuck him at the other guy?") but the core concept is there. It's strictly martial, doesn't rely on psychology and even gives us an incentive for another unarmed class besides the monk, whenever that comes out.
Use Dex as the primary, Str as the secondary, and make people very afraid to come within 8 squares of you.
Examples of possible power options:
Nine-Pins: You pick up the poor jerk who stepped too close and huck him at the nearest group of goblins. Make a melee attack vs reflex against the close dude and a ranged attack vs reflex against the target of the flying dude. If you throw him, the guy takes damage and goes prone. If you hit the ranged target, they both take damage and go prone.
Stompity stomp: You smash down rapidly with your foot or weapon against the nearest group of thugs hazarding you, crushing their feet into the ground. Up to three targets take damage and get slowed and you can shift a square as they all look down to survey the damage.
Hey, look, over here!: You physically embrace and crowd your enemy, intentionally pulling his weapon in towards you to allow your friends to move freely. More of a leader power, but what class doesn't have something outside their specialty?
I believe you have something of mine!: Make a double move, make a free disarm attempt against anyone who misses you with an AoO during your move. Must have one hand empty each time you attempt a disarm.
Go for the eyes!: Attack vs reflex, small damage but blinds the target as you make a melee 2 lunge and poke them in the eye with your finger or weapon.
Just throwing more fuel on the fire. It's not hard to imagine the joker who runs around just tripping and disarming people or pushing them over the nearby ledge. Heck, call him a "Jester" and make him a hybrid leader.
"You pick the poor sucker up and chuck him at the other guy"
The problem with this, and the reason the unarmed fighter will be Ki and not martial, is that sometimes, monsters are made of fire.
The problem with this, and the reason the unarmed fighter will be Ki and not martial, is that sometimes, monsters are made of fire.
I can agree about the unarmed fighter part and that flinging enemies should be part of that, thus part of ki.
But the bold part...unless it directly states somewhere that a given enemy has an aura of damage-dealing fire, or specifically deals fire damage on contact...it doesn't matter if they're a walking bonfire, because they won't burn PCs, ever. This is especially odd when they set things on fire, but never deal fire damage by contact or aura, which I haven't read about, but wouldn't be surprised by at all. Consistency is not the hallmark of most games.
Now that I think of it though...it's distinctly possible that you might well not have been entirely serious about that part. If that's the case...forget all that. If not...well then...yeah.
The problem with this, and the reason the unarmed fighter will be Ki and not martial, is that sometimes, monsters are made of fire.
Yes, and sometimes instead of actually flinging that kind of creature, you simply use their momentum against them. Rather than actually flinging them, you maneuver them into a position where you can force them off-balance into their allies, accomplishing precisely the same result. Plus, what LuciferNietzsche said.
Meanwhile, I've yet to see anyone complain about Own the Battlefield, whereby a MARTIAL character can make ALL enemies in a 105 x 105' area move upwards of 40' to 45' to a precise location of said martial character's choosing in approximately 6 seconds (plus similar abilities). On top of that, the martial defender has multiple abilities allowing him to drag in multiple enemies all at once, and strike them. Yet, that sort of character seems to be just fine, and doesn't suspend disbelief enough to disrupt the game whatsoever.
But making a character class that specializes in that sort of battlefield control, instead of merely splashing into it? Well, that's right out, or simply HAS to be a new build of an existing class, or a multiclass character using both of those classes in concert. There is simply no way to make a new class that specializes in that kind of ability, instead of dipping into it. Nope, nosiree bob.
He can set his traps and hinder enemies along the combat.
He can set explosives charges and control the area.
I think the TRAPSMITH can be a good Martial Controller.
What do you think?
What about a TRAPSMITH?
He can set his traps and hinder enemies along the combat.
He can set explosives charges and control the area.
I think the TRAPSMITH can be a good Martial Controller.
What do you think?
A trapsmith could go either way as a martial controller. It all really boils down to the setting, I've found out.
What about a TRAPSMITH?
He can set his traps and hinder enemies along the combat.
He can set explosives charges and control the area.
I think the TRAPSMITH can be a good Martial Controller.
What do you think?
You can set traps on the spot in 6 seconds or less, potentially at range? And you can do this sort of thing at-will despite prohibitive materials? And you can do this sort of thing while other people with the same equipment cannot?
There is nothing new under the sun.
I think anyone really considering such a thing should look closely at the Artificer. Such things have already been designated as Arcane. And a leader, no less.
So, I thought I'd help a bit and give you an analysis of your power so you can see why its not balanced. The main issue is that weapons have quite a bit more items and feats that boost their damage than implements do. I'm just cutting and pasting this, so its going to sound all rude and snarky, but I don't feel like editing it, so just look at the math. and realize I'm posting this to help.
That was all rather helpful.
I googled Bloodclaw and Reckless (found them too, as hard as it was). Bloodclaw looks a little strong for an enhancement to me. Reckless puts you in danger, since you'd need to be in melee and Dreadnoughts have only a middling AC. Something the wizard dealing less damage doesn't need to fret over.
How do you suggest handling the equipment difference?
Also, arcance power comes out soon, so they may get their own form 'bloodclaw'. As it stands, I think the problem is with bloodclaw rather than 1w powers.
Also of note, the Wizard can take Resounding Thunder at 12th to target a 4x4 blast, or Solid Sound (for something else). It more than matches the dreadnought's ability to take weapon specific feats.
That was all rather helpful.
I googled Bloodclaw and Reckless (found them too, as hard as it was). Bloodclaw looks a little strong for an enhancement to me. Reckless puts you in danger, since you'd need to be in melee and Dreadnoughts have only a middling AC. Something the wizard dealing less damage doesn't need to fret over.
Personally, I don't like those weapon enchantments and ban them from my games. That doesn't mean they don't exist though. There's others, too. Even if you drop the damage from bloodclaw/reckless, the weapon attack is still stronger, plus with weapon feats, especially masteries, weapons are still better.
How do you suggest handling the equipment difference?
Short of hoping some future supplement creates parity? Nothing. This is easily one of the biggest issues preventing a weapon based controller.
Also, arcance power comes out soon, so they may get their own form 'bloodclaw'. As it stands, I think the problem is with bloodclaw rather than 1w powers.
I certainly hope there is no bloodclaw implement. I don't even want there to be a bloodclaw weapon.
Also of note, the Wizard can take Resounding Thunder at 12th to target a 4x4 blast, or Solid Sound (for something else). It more than matches the dreadnought's ability to take weapon specific feats.
A blast 4 that hits allies too is not equal to dealing Con (one of your classes secondary stats) on a miss, or being able to use the attack as an OA, not to mention Polearm Momentum and Draconic Arrogance and all that craziness. There is a reason the fighter and warlord secondary as strikers.
Solid Sound is a very minor boost, and its a defensive one at that. And while Solid Sound and Resounding Thunder will apply to Thunderwave, they will not apply to all the rest of their attacks, while the Dreadnought's feats like Hammer Rhythm most certainly will.
The problem may very well be with the weapon feats and enchantments. In fact, I think it absolutely is. But placing blame on them does not make the problem go away or make your powers any less balanced. I honestly don't think you can make the powers in any other way. You did the best job that's possible. And even still, it doesn't work. This is exactly what I've been talking about all along. Weapon based controllers do too much damage and there is no way to drop it enough to balance against other controllers.
The problem with this, and the reason the unarmed fighter will be Ki and not martial, is that sometimes, monsters are made of fire.
And some are made of air and some are swarms. I can't personally imagine how a bull rush or grapple would work against them, but they're not mechanically impossible. Who says that with enough practice in a fantasy realm you can't literally catch the wind and make it go where you want it to?
Another idea:
Catch the Breeze: daily utility: interrupt: an enemy draws LoS for a ranged attack through a space within close burst 4 of your character. Shift to the first viable square the LoS enters within this radius. The ranged attack that was to use that LoS now targets you instead of the original target. This has no effect if you are unable to enter a square that the LoS passes through.