Why I would NOT want to see a martial controller. (hear me out)

50 posts / 0 new
Last post

Yes, I know - not another thread.  I cannot claim to have read ALL the threads concerning the above, but what I have read has got me to thinking about the arguments of both sides.


The warlord is the closest you can have in the way of what you are describing, if not what you want.  Start with the following, what are the properties that define a controller? a leader?


As per PHB: Controllers deal with large numbers of enemies at the same time.  They favor offense over defense, using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once, as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay their foes. By contrast, Leaders inspire, heal and aid the other characters in an adventuring group.  Leaders have good defenses, but their strength lies in powers that protect their companions and target specific foes for the party to concentrate on.  Finally martial is the art of war (NOT considering it mundane).


"The General" is a role sometimes offered as a suggestion for the role.  In fact, some have claimed that legend is FILLED with such characters.  I disagree.  I don't believe there are ANY truly martial controllers present, other than those that employ some form of traps (trapsmith - we'll get back to that).  The problem is the scope of the role.  Tactics and planning, using your forces to direct and control the enemy is NOT the controller.  It is defined as the role of Leader (as it should be, in my opinion).  The issue that always arises with the trapsmith is one of devices rather than powers.  The only viable translation for the type needed would fall under special weapons training, of which the Retiarius would be the exemplar.  Unfortunately, the net-man's net is only a 2x2 area (at most) and they would be of limited use (1/encounter), and would not make a viable class.  That leaves the last available, the close burst bladesmith.  Here, the issue becomes one of agression.  This person would be a front-liner and draw the attention of the enemy.  This, however, would require enhanced defenses, and the ability to withstand the resulting onslaught.  Well, that defines the defender.


Those are my thoughts.  I'm sure there is disagreement.  I truly would like to hear more of the opposing view, as I admit I may have overlooked a point or another.  However, as stated, I don't believe it is possible.  As a result, should one ever arise, I would think that WotC was straying from their own advice, as the role would NOT truly have a unique purpose, but rather was forced together against most sense of logic and/or verisimilitude. 

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

The easiest way to make a martial controller is none of the things that you've put forward.  The easiest, most straightforward way is with some variation on the archer.  The most common objection to that is "No archer controllers!  It steps on the Ranger's toes!"


An equally valid argument is "No sword-swinging defenders!  It steps on the Ranger's toes!"  That is to say, neither is particularly valid.  Care should be taken to keep one from eclipsing the other in their designated role, but neither is a mutually exclusive option.

My argument to the archer controller isn't that it's stepping on anyone's toes.  My argument is put forth in BOTH the definition of controller AND the trapsmith argument.  The only way to effectively control via projectile would be the incorporation of items.  Unlike the net, which justifiable (imo) requires specific training for effective use, projectile gadgets are truly aim and fire.

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"


The easiest way to make a martial controller is none of the things that you've put forward.  The easiest, most straightforward way is with some variation on the archer.  The most common objection to that is "No archer controllers!  It steps on the Ranger's toes!"


An equally valid argument is "No sword-swinging defenders!  It steps on the Ranger's toes!"  That is to say, neither is particularly valid.  Care should be taken to keep one from eclipsing the other in their designated role, but neither is a mutually exclusive option.




 


how many ways can you shoot people's feet with arrows?

In my opinion there is a martial controller (sort of). When the druid is in beast form and in melee they more or less become one. I know a lot of people say that the druid isn't that good of a controller. But If you play them correct you can really set the enemies up for your strikers and keep them away from the squishies.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/12.jpg)

In my opinion there is a martial controller (sort of). When the druid is in beast form and in melee they more or less become one. I know a lot of people say that the druid isn't that good of a controller. But If you play them correct you can really set the enemies up for your strikers and keep them away from the squishies.



I agree - in fact, the primal (not martial) druid is partly what led me to my conclusion in the OP.  The best controlling powers of the druid are the primal ones.  In martial form, his ability to affect the role is limited.  The issue boils down to an incompatibility between how a controller is defined (as opposed to leader, and defender) and how martial powers operate.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Martial implies "non-magical" in D&D. Which, of course, isn't entirely true since many of the moves are not possible without bending the laws of reality.


So, if I "really" wanted a "martial" controller.. I'd just have someone take the mage and re-fluff it to a "Grenadier" or "Fussilier" who uses AOE attacks via grenade like weapons and have him wield fire-arms like the Janissary of the Middle East.


In fact.. hmm.. new class "Janissary: Martial Controller" I think it works.. I think it will go right next to the Templars in my Dark Sun campaign.

Trouble with that is twofold - first, changing a keyword is BEYOND refluffing. (otherwise, can I refluff all my powers as "reliable").  Second, as a class, you're right back the item issue. (see trapsmith)

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Yo also missed a variation of both the Trapsmith and the blademaster- the pet class. the pet class can be combined with any or all of the others, and can utilize bursts and blasts of it's own, even in conjunction with the main character. As for Blademaster, you assume that a melee close burst type power would leave one in the senter of a groop of enemies... despite the existance of powers such as Darting Bite and Deft Strike. By combining mobility and AoE, with the additional effects available from a pet class, I believe a martial controller is viable.

Not at all - the problem there is you are going into a different role again (striker in this case - the dex build) - the current Martial AoEs don't cut it (and for the record, the two powers you mention - 1 is primal, the other is single target).  Also, the only beasts currently allowed (for a martial character) are natural animals that don't have the AoE's to support it.  Allowing those types of critters puts us right back to primal and arcana sources, however.


(I really did think this through - as I said - a wealth of myth and legends, and a good bit of fiction, and I CAN'T find a martial controller)

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

It is literally impossiblt to prove something CANNOT be done.


There are already two beast AoE powers, 1 slow, 2 immobilize and a daze. As for martial control, consider powers like Scattering Swing (fighter 13) and Boulder Charge (fighter 15)- If you don't see the control aspect of these powers, then it's no wonder you believe it to be impossible.

It is literally impossiblt to prove something CANNOT be done.


That is not a true statement.  It is indeed possible to prove.  You must just show that in order to do it requires contradictory elements.  For example, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a  cubic ball.  As the definition of ball is "spherical", it is in direct contradiction with the cubic nature.  QED


There are already two beast AoE powers, 1 slow, 2 immobilize and a daze. As for martial control, consider powers like Scattering Swing (fighter 13) and Boulder Charge (fighter 15)- If you don't see the control aspect of these powers, then it's no wonder you believe it to be impossible.



Which?  none of the existing beast companions allow such.  Further - as for the powers - they only help prove my point - the 2 powers you choose are both mid paragon tier, and of limited use (encounter and daily, respectively).  Further - the work for the role of defender.

As I put in my OP - the problem is that the terms controller and martial are contradictory elements as defined in this game.

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Beast Latch- Slow! Bear cat raptor spider snake
Bloodied Frenzy
- Immobilize!
Lacerating Maul
- Ongoing damage and CA
Menacing Cry
- AOE! Bear,cat, raptor wolf
Herd the Prey
- Slide. Lizard, Snake, Spider, wolf
Knockdown Pounce
- Prone and Push- bear cat raptor
Blood Frenzy
- Temp HP boar lizard spider
Hounding Beast
OAs! Cat raptor spider wolf
Ferocious Roar
AOE! Bear cat snake wolf
Gnawing Assault
Immobilize
Primal Rampage
- Daze! Boar cat raptor lizard spider
Pursuit of the Wild Hunt
Tank!
Beastly Vise
Immobilize boar cat raptor spider wolf
Catch and Drop
Prone bear lizard snake


 


and tell me, how is a push a defender power, when the defender in question requires melee to defend?

Ah - you meant ranger powers for their beast companion.  Difference - but it still doesn't matter.  As before only 2 - the rest are all single target, and the two are low paragon (9 and 15 respectively) this time.


As for the push - that's a WotC question.  However, I would say that push is available to ALL especially martial.  what role in martial is secondary (think bull rush)

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Anubis - let me change the question.  What MARTIAL ability (not talking powers - use your imagination) would truly contain and control an enemy at range that wouldn't be classified as some form of "magic" (arcana, primal, divine), basically requiring a weapon, or fall under the guise of gadgetry?


 

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Let me turn that question back on you- why must a controller be at range? While mobility may be somewhat related to the Striker role, without the DPR to back it up calling it a striker would be as foolish as calling the Paladin a Leader.


A scout and his companion diving through the enemy ranks, tripping and knocking aside. Some blows to the hamstrings, some swordpommels to the forehead... and out the other end, diving for cover to escape retribution. Fear and Suprise, shock and awe, and twin whirlwinds of mobile chaos.


Debilitate the foe, and flee, leaving them noone to vent their wrath upon. If the description of a controller is to mess up the enemys plans, I see nothing wrong with this.

Because in play you do NOT dart in and out.  Standard, move, minor - that's it.  For the entire rest of the round you are going to be the center of attention.  The beast AND you can't attack.  (there are VERY few exceptions to that rule - the only possible work around is if you set the beast up as a movable zone, but then your back to power level issues).  As a result, you are STILL looking at either single target - OR overpowered melee bursts.  Controlling 1 at a time does NOT fit the definition of controller.  It would have to be areas, and it would have to be set around the melee.  Without the DEFENSE (which in turn, makes you a defender - after all - they CAN control) you will not survive.  Unless, of course, you do enough damage to take out your single enemy.   Unfortunately, that puts you right back to striker. 


Melee = thick of things = either stiker or defender, as the system is set up and balanced.  Defense is necessary, so they can't make you a "squishy".  The only two methods of survival are already assigned roles.  So that leaves Ranged...


Ranged = the only way around the gadgetry (the item problem) is either using your allies to control multiple enemies (but then you're a leader), or not using a weapon (which implies non-martial means). 


 

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Also - in case you missed it - the reason I state that I don't want to see it, is because it seems there is no way to achieve it, and stick to WotC's own design and development advice, to wit:


1. Justify Your Existence
2. Know Your Destination
3. Limits Inspire Creativity

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Yo claim that there's onlly a few powers where both beast and player attack- just a glance through the compendim reveals a level 1 encounter, a level 1 daily, a level 3 encounter, a level 7 encounter, (level 9 daily is a close burst 2)... the level 15 daily allows you to combine attacks every round until the end of combat.


Level 17 encounter, another close burst 2 at level 19... I'm seeing that this is more of the norm, rather than the exception, for this kind of power. And being able to move while attacking, or while the partner is attacking, es even more common, with at-wills like Hit and Run and circling strike.


Imagine if Hit and Run was an Enconter power that attacked Close Burst 1. You could move into enemies, explode, and move out, all in a single turn, and still use yor minor to command your beast with a power like Scent of Fear.

As for a melee squishy... the Assassin seems to fit quite nicely. So does the druid.

what do you make of the dreadnought?


 


dreadnought

Yo claim that there's onlly a few powers where both beast and player attack- just a glance through the compendim reveals a level 1 encounter, a level 1 daily, a level 3 encounter, a level 7 encounter, (level 9 daily is a close burst 2)... the level 15 daily allows you to combine attacks every round until the end of combat.


Yes, PLEASE - look how few and far between. and you've only covered the 1 true AoE.

Level 17 encounter, another close burst 2 at level 19... I'm seeing that this is more of the norm, rather than the exception, for this kind of power. And being able to move while attacking, or while the partner is attacking, es even more common, with at-wills like Hit and Run and circling strike.


The late paragon tier, again.  And limited usage. It's NOT an easy feat for martial, it seems..

Imagine if Hit and Run was an Enconter power that attacked Close Burst 1. You could move into enemies, explode, and move out, all in a single turn, and still use yor minor to command your beast with a power like Scent of Fear.


I am, unfortunately, you, it seems, are not.  You're taking a ranger (supposedly balanced - in-line with ALL other classes) and ramped him up TREMENDOUSLY.  You've successfully created the single most unbalanced character in the game.  As I said earlier - NOT something I'd want to see.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

what do you make of the dreadnought?



A preliminary review would indicate that this exposes some of the shortfalls inherent in trying to force this combination.  First, as an attempt to balance this out, he took the fighter, scaled back 1 level of armor proficiency, and adjusted the hp to match those of a warlock (with better surges).  So, already, it is unbalanced (add in the fact that many of the power/level are along the lines of the warlock and psion - both with less armor and weapon capability).  Next - to get back to the martial roots - and make the concept more complete he goes on to introduce the juggernaught - which necessarily requires a feat tax to restore himself to heavy armor.  Don't get me wrong - as far as concept goes (fluff) this one actually hits the mark as to how a martial controller may enable his effects. (especially the gore hound).  It does essentially meet the 3 tests as posted.  As it is, however, it's unabalanced compared to the other classes.

Again - Control requires a certain amount of "squishiness".  Martial requires either high damage or high defense.  Since you can't have high damage + control without being overpowered, or high defense and be squishy, you end up falling flat.

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

I'm not sure about the balance of it either, but that's getting it down to play tests.  


I think it's useful to compare it to a druid in beast form.

That's an idea...


I play PbP anyway.  A bunch of us are regular enough to get away with a playtest.
straight delves, no plot - pure combat. take it from L1 and compare it.  Fill in the party with the other types that are needed, and someone DMs to moderate.


(You have to understand, I WANT this to work - I just don't believe it's possible)


edited to add: when I say "that are needed" I mean needed for comparison. - probably beast druid, warlord, fighter, and warlock

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"


what do you make of the dreadnought?



A preliminary review would indicate that this exposes some of the shortfalls inherent in trying to force this combination.  First, as an attempt to balance this out, he took the fighter, scaled back 1 level of armor proficiency, and adjusted the hp to match those of a warlock (with better surges).  So, already, it is unbalanced (add in the fact that many of the power/level are along the lines of the warlock and psion - both with less armor and weapon capability).  Next - to get back to the martial roots - and make the concept more complete he goes on to introduce the juggernaught - which necessarily requires a feat tax to restore himself to heavy armor.  Don't get me wrong - as far as concept goes (fluff) this one actually hits the mark as to how a martial controller may enable his effects. (especially the gore hound).  It does essentially meet the 3 tests as posted.  As it is, however, it's unabalanced compared to the other classes.

Again - Control requires a certain amount of "squishiness".  Martial requires either high damage or high defense.  Since you can't have high damage + control without being overpowered, or high defense and be squishy, you end up falling flat.





Swear to God, I blush everytime someone links me.  It's like getting a not-creepy hug from a passerby.

Here I'd like to argue a few points with you, having a long history of experience with the martial controller (debate and theory).


Specifics First:


Why do you think I started with a Fighter and scaled back Armor proficiencies?  I started with the warlord, because I imagined an anti-warlord to be a martial controller.  Warlod buffs allies, anti-warlord debuffs enemies.  I gave it the second lowest HP but gave it better surges.  This matches the "unbalanced" progression of the Avenger, not digit for digit, but they're unbalanced as I recall.


I'm not seeing where you have to be Plate Proficient to be a Juggernaught (Paragon Path).  You just have to be a Dreadnought.  I didn't bother putting down requirements because they were all pretty obviously Dreadnought PPs.  And the Dreadnought is already proficient with heavy armor (chain).  You have a choice of 'styles'.  Roaring Dreadnoughts get +1 to attack with Battelcries (new keyword) and large Auras of Menace.  Inexorable Dreadnoughts get Scale and the ability to single out a creature for a heavy debuff when they trigger their Aura of Menace.  The Sinister Dreadnought is fairly new and only half thought out.


Squishiness is not, I think, an inherent necessity of the controller.  Staff Wizards generally have higher defenses than defenders, making them highly un-squishy.  Furhtermore, the Dreadnought goes an extra step in becoming a Melee Controller.  Squishiness is relative based on your methodology of combat.  What is squishy for a pure ranged fighter is suicidal for a melee fighter.  What is squish for a melee combatant is overkill for a ranged combatant.  Because the Dreadnought must engage in melee combat to use almost all of his powers effectively, he needs a higher set of defenses.  A ranged combatant can be hit by ranged creatures and chased by melee creatures.  A melee combatant can be hit by everyone.  So, the Dreadnought trades Squishiness for Range.  And it is still pretty squishy for melee combat.  They've only got (Inexorable excluded) Chain proficiency, Dex isn't a class skill for them (Int is for the Sinister Dreadnought, but that's still under construction).


Essentially, they have the choice of spending feats to reduce their squishiness (a choice every class has) or remaining squishy relative to their position (melee).


General:



1. Justify Your Existence
2. Know Your Destination
3. Limits Inspire Creativity



I'm not exactly sure how to justify one's existance except by pointing out examples of such in fantasy mythos.  But, the Dreadnought fills the shoes of any melee creature that wades into the thick of combat, killing three men with a single swing, and causing others to flee in fear.  This sounds familiar but few people can put a name to it because largely, in the mythos, this character is a bad guy, generally a minor one.  Also, Conan.  Finally, I can't think of any stories I've read in which the Avenger, Invoker, or the Warden are difined in the manner in which they are currently defined.  As such, I have difficulty justifying their own existance.


I was aware of my destination at the outset of the Dreadnought.  The class would be a big bully.  Pushing foes around, lots of forced movement, status effects, and movement impairment.  I didn't know exactly what form they were going to take, but that's part of the creative process.  I knew there would be Sweeping attacks, Fear attacks, Bulldozing attacks, Jumping attacks, and Throwing attacks (not just throwing weapons).  The rest is written down on electrons (I should print that out some time as insurance against crashes!)


I dare say the martial power source is lays down the most limits of any power source.  No Ice, Fire, Radiant, Necrotic, or Lightning damage.  And believe me, it inspired some creativity.  There was a lot of finagling to get the powers right.  Fortunately, the Martial Controller is also the most divisive and possibly hated class concept out there and it provided me with miles of negative commentary.  Getting a project reviewed by someone that likes it is largely a worthless endeavour.  All the hate was very constructive, if frustrating at times.  No one picks powers and class features apart like a Martial Controller detractor.  The real trick is getting them to take a long and serious look at the class, rather than browsing it and dismissing it out of hand.


If you like, I'd be happy to play test it in our current campaign PBN, with only minor alterations to Brawldefor.

Resident Shakespeare

Lots of stuff... Basically, I will concede all points (I mentioned it was a QUICK assessment)


1. Justify Your Existence
2. Know Your Destination
3. Limits Inspire Creativity
I'm not exactly sure how to justify one's existance except by pointing out examples of such in fantasy mythos.  But, the Dreadnought fills the shoes of any melee creature that wades into the thick of combat, killing three men with a single swing, and causing others to flee in fear.  This sounds familiar but few people can put a name to it because largely, in the mythos, this character is a bad guy, generally a minor one.  Also, Conan.  Finally, I can't think of any stories I've read in which the Avenger, Invoker, or the Warden are difined in the manner in which they are currently defined.  As such, I have difficulty justifying their own existance.

I was aware of my destination at the outset of the Dreadnought.  The class would be a big bully.  Pushing foes around, lots of forced movement, status effects, and movement impairment.  I didn't know exactly what form they were going to take, but that's part of the creative process.  I knew there would be Sweeping attacks, Fear attacks, Bulldozing attacks, Jumping attacks, and Throwing attacks (not just throwing weapons).  The rest is written down on electrons (I should print that out some time as insurance against crashes!)


I dare say the martial power source is lays down the most limits of any power source.  No Ice, Fire, Radiant, Necrotic, or Lightning damage.  And believe me, it inspired some creativity.  There was a lot of finagling to get the powers right.  Fortunately, the Martial Controller is also the most divisive and possibly hated class concept out there and it provided me with miles of negative commentary.  Getting a project reviewed by someone that likes it is largely a worthless endeavour.  All the hate was very constructive, if frustrating at times.  No one picks powers and class features apart like a Martial Controller detractor.  The real trick is getting them to take a long and serious look at the class, rather than browsing it and dismissing it out of hand.



Those labels come from the recent Design & Development article - and I dare say, you do meet them well. However...
If you like, I'd be happy to play test it in our current campaign PBN, with only minor alterations to Brawldefor.


Not for that campaign, but if we can 5 "regulars", I'll ask Tiny if I can start up a new campaign (as stated) to playtest it.

Again - I'd want to go with the 5.  Dreadnaught, Beast Druid, Warlord, Warlock, and Figther - keeping it to combat.


Oh - and you'd play the Dreadnaught - this way if there are any tweaks you feel it would need, you can apply them.

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

^____^

I've talked about this with a friend of mine, and I think one of the best ways to make a Martial Controller is by making something along the lines of an Anti-Warlord; an Anti-Leader for lack of better words.  The Warlord (to some extent) makes allies better through inspiration and encouragement.  A martial controller could simply work in reverse.  Using insults, bad mouthing, and various other forms of negativity, the Anti-Warlord could cause enemies to doubt their abilities, question their tactics, be afraid, get angry, etc, etc, etc.


Monologue of Doubt


"You've been weighed; you've been measured, and you've been left wanting.  In what world could you ever defeat me?  Such a place does not exist."  With an unshakable bravado you tell your enemy of your impressive skills, your past victories, and play upon their failures; you plant the seeds of doubt in their mind, and cause them to hesitate to take action.


*Martial*


Cha vs Will


Hit: Whatever damage; the target is dazed (save ends.)

I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
 The Best in Gaming!

"The General" is a role sometimes offered as a suggestion for the role.  In fact, some have claimed that legend is FILLED with such characters.  I disagree.  I don't believe there are ANY truly martial controllers present, other than those that employ some form of traps (trapsmith - we'll get back to that).  The problem is the scope of the role.  Tactics and planning, using your forces to direct and control the enemy is NOT the controller.  It is defined as the role of Leader (as it should be, in my opinion). 

The Leader role is /not/ litteral, the PH goes out of it's way to point that out.  Leaders do not have to lead.  The party leader could be a defender or controller or striker, or, as with many adventuring party, there could be no leader.  The Leader role heals, enhances, and aids his allies.  The Warlord is a leader who, by fluff, exercises some leadership - a few of his powers are litterally giving orders, for instance, but, by 'obeying' those orders, his allies are enhanced in some way, gaining bonuses, extra actions or the like.

The Controller role is obviously different, but, just because it's a different role, doesn't mean some of the same fluff couldn't aply -  A Paladin, an Avenger, and an Invoker are all smiting foes with divine might - it'd just do something different.  Instead of ordering allies to open fire on a group of enemies giving the allies free ranged attacks (quite powerful, really), it might give the character giving the order a ranged area attack to model the volley of missles.   Free attacks for your allies is a leader thing; a ranged area attack is a controller thing.  Similar fluff, different power, different role.


The issue that always arises with the trapsmith is one of devices rather than powers.

Here, I agree.  With 'trapsmith' or 'grenadier' concepts, you run into the problem of the power being the equipment.  Making special equipment is more an arcane thing (like the Artificer).  Using normal equipment in ways other's can't is more martial.  If the trapsmith just makes ordinary traps but, is exceptionally capable at predicting just where to put them and how to hide them (modeled by choosing where they 'were placed' at the moment they go off, for instance), that could be martial.  You couldn't build a whole class around it, but it be /part/ of a class and even have a build focusing on it.

That leaves the last available, the close burst bladesmith.  Here, the issue becomes one of agression.  This person would be a front-liner and draw the attention of the enemy.  This, however, would require enhanced defenses, and the ability to withstand the resulting onslaught.  Well, that defines the defender.

Strikers draw enemy attention with thier high, concetrated damage, and defenders are supposed to defend them.  The Druid is a controller with some melee options, but he's only tougher than other controllers because all the Primal classes are a little beefier in terms of hps.  Defenders presumably do thier job where the meleeing Druid is concerned, too.  Melee strikers and druids aren't expected to be defenders, why would a multi-attack melee build have to be a defender?  Indeed, such a build couldn't be a defender, since it would step on the controller's role too much, and would be too powerful if it had a defender's durrability. 

Multi-attacking, be it close burst, blast, or even ranged is certainly available to martial characters.  A controller would have more and better examples of such powers, and pay for the added offense with decreased defense, like every other controller.  A multi-attacking martial character with Threatening Reach, for instance, would fill the controller role very well, and the danger closing with him would pose would serve to protect him a bit (make it easier for defenders to do thier jobs), just as other controllers' condition-inflicting powers that slow enemies tend to do.   


Those are my thoughts.  I'm sure there is disagreement.  I truly would like to hear more of the opposing view, as I admit I may have overlooked a point or another.  However, as stated, I don't believe it is possible.  As a result, should one ever arise, I would think that WotC was straying from their own advice, as the role would NOT truly have a unique purpose, but rather was forced together against most sense of logic and/or verisimilitude. 

While the the name of the Martial power source is derived from things military or warlike, it only partially addresses the concepts of the soldier and the general (and those in between, for that matter).  Warlords, even tactical ones, inspire, and make thier allies better, but they have only a handful of powers that touch on the duel of wills & tactics that is the stuff of military legend.  Fighters fight very well, indeed, but only a few of thier powers touch upon formation fighting, disciplined drills, and the like. 

Fighters have also been scrubbed of the potential of the 3.x reach-fighters, no more threatening reach, no more large-area Whirl-wind Attacks.  The reason is clear: that would have stomped all over the controllers toes.  How can we  think that there 'can't be' a martial controller, when the fighter had to be re-designed to /avoid/ being one?
 


 


Again - Control requires a certain amount of "squishiness".  Martial requires either high damage or high defense.  Since you can't have high damage + control without being overpowered, or high defense and be squishy, you end up falling flat.

Martial dose not in any way require either high damage or high defense.  The Warlord, for instance, has neither - his defenses are modest, his damage well below the striker level, at best flirting with that of the fighter, if built in that direction.  Even if you consider the existing classes to fit what you say, you're still looking at a Source, defining it by it's existing roles, and concluding that the missing role is inapropriate.  If you judged Arcane by the Warlock and Wizard, you'd never accept that something like the Swordmage could exist.  You're effectively concluding that there can't be a Martial Controller, because no existing martial classes are controllers. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The Leader role is /not/ litteral, the PH goes out of it's way to point that out.  Leaders do not have to lead.  The party leader could be a defender or controller or striker, or, as with many adventuring party, there could be no leader.  The Leader role heals, enhances, and aids his allies.  The Warlord is a leader who, by fluff, exercises some leadership - a few of his powers are litterally giving orders, for instance, but, by 'obeying' those orders, his allies are enhanced in some way, gaining bonuses, extra actions or the like.


You misread me - the important part is bolded: "using your forces to direct and control the enemy is NOT the controller. " The point was that the powers affect allies, not enemies.

The Controller role is obviously different, but, just because it's a different role, doesn't mean some of the same fluff couldn't aply -  A Paladin, an Avenger, and an Invoker are all smiting foes with divine might - it'd just do something different.  Instead of ordering allies to open fire on a group of enemies giving the allies free ranged attacks (quite powerful, really), it might give the character giving the order a ranged area attack to model the volley of missles.   Free attacks for your allies is a leader thing; a ranged area attack is a controller thing.  Similar fluff, different power, different role.


True - but this wouldn't play out well.  As much as people love to put an iron wall between "fluff" and "crunch" - the default always shoots for contextual relevance.. Therefore, a nebulous "volley" wouldn't come from the other players (weapon switching, range weapon possesion, etc).

Multi-attacking, be it close burst, blast, or even ranged is certainly available to martial characters.  A controller would have more and better examples of such powers, and pay for the added offense with decreased defense, like every other controller.  A multi-attacking martial character with Threatening Reach, for instance, would fill the controller role very well, and the danger closing with him would pose would serve to protect him a bit (make it easier for defenders to do thier jobs), just as other controllers' condition-inflicting powers that slow enemies tend to do. 


Agreed.

Martial dose not in any way require either high damage or high defense.  The Warlord, for instance, has neither - his defenses are modest, his damage well below the striker level, at best flirting with that of the fighter, if built in that direction.  Even if you consider the existing classes to fit what you say, you're still looking at a Source, defining it by it's existing roles, and concluding that the missing role is inapropriate.  If you judged Arcane by the Warlock and Wizard, you'd never accept that something like the Swordmage could exist.  You're effectively concluding that there can't be a Martial Controller, because no existing martial classes are controllers. 


True - until I did a more careful reading of the Juggernaut.  I believe this is of particular interest to you, if I recall correctly.  As you are a fairly regular poster - would YOU be interested in a PbP playtest?

J_V (has to be)
Me (I'll volunteer)


need 4 more volunteers (once the group is set up, we can pick a DM).

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

::raises hand::

::raises hand::



List is now: J_V, me, General Henry

Half way there - 3 more?

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

You misread me - the important part is bolded: "using your forces to direct and control the enemy is NOT the controller. " The point was that the powers affect allies, not enemies.

I don't think I did, but I failed to get my point across.  When an Invoker uses a prayer to slow an enemy, there's presumably some divine agency at work.  He's not slowing the enemy, his god or the force of the gods divinity is doing it.  That's fluff. 

If you have a martial character who, say, commands a set of allies (maybe fellow PCs, maybe some class feature that represents allies) to fire into a 'beaten zone,' it could be fluff for an AE attack /he/ makes.  Or, it could be a power that gives them limmitted free RBAs.  If the former, the character is acting like a controller, and the power might not even be /that/ powerful (however buffed up or well equipped the allies, the power will still just perform as written).  If the latter, you're talking a potentially much more powerful leader power.



True - but this wouldn't play out well.  As much as people love to put an iron wall between "fluff" and "crunch" - the default always shoots for contextual relevance.. Therefore, a nebulous "volley" wouldn't come from the other players (weapon switching, range weapon possesion, etc).

Leaders let thier fellow PCs take actions they're not otherwise capable of.  Heck, non-leaders do so (the Wizard can let an ally /Jump/ prodigiously out of turn with a level 2 utility, for instance).  The Warlord does it a /lot/.  Actually, mechanically gives allies actions or capabilities they wouldn't otherwise have.  Hypothetical powers of that sort could just as easily tap allies for mere 'fluff' visualizations of how they function. 

There really isn't a lot you /can't/ do with a martial power, and the fluff can be pretty out there.  A 1st level rogue can throw 9 daggers in six seconds and blind each of his targets (quickdraw & Blinding Barage).  A fighter can drag enemies 15' away to his side and attack all of them, then hit each of them again, before they can react (Come and Get It + Rain of Steel).  A Warlord can re-arange enemies against thier will (Own the Battlefield).  It's all perfectly apropriate for a game of heroic fantasy.



True - until I did a more careful reading of the Juggernaut.  I believe this is of particular interest to you, if I recall correctly.  As you are a fairly regular poster - would YOU be interested in a PbP playtest?

J_V (has to be)
Me (I'll volunteer)


need 4 more volunteers (once the group is set up, we can pick a DM).


Given the slow pace of PbP, I don't know how much could be accomplished, but I'd be willing to contribute.  

Also, if each of us has a group they game with, maybe we could co-ordinate several sepparate live playtests and compare notes? 


What were you thinking of playtesting? 



 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

What were you thinking of playtesting? 



Balance test - delve format - steadily increasing (L, L+1, L+2, L+3, etc), figure when rests are needed.  5 chars would be Dreadnaught, Warlord, Warlock, Beast Druid and Fighter.

 

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"

Why that mix of characters?  A 2-controller 5-PC group strikes me as a bit odd.  I'd think a group with the Dreadnaught as controller, and one or more control (npi) groups, identical, but with an existing controller - maybe a wizard or druid? - replacing the dreadnaught would be more informative. 

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I'll leave it to you, then - the other 4 were for comparison.  In essence, the should all work as controllers for this

Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"


My argument to the archer controller isn't that it's stepping on anyone's toes.  My argument is put forth in BOTH the definition of controller AND the trapsmith argument.  The only way to effectively control via projectile would be the incorporation of items.  Unlike the net, which justifiable (imo) requires specific training for effective use, projectile gadgets are truly aim and fire.




False.  Zones of fire, defense penalties, movement penalties, aoe damage and forced movement are not mechanically difficult whatsoever and are easily fluffed.


Now, if you want a martial controller who is controlling at range without benefit of any weapon or item...seems an unnecessary restriction, but not at all impossible.  Just more difficult.


how many ways can you shoot people's feet with arrows?





How many ways can you swing a sword or shout at somebody in combat? 

I'd reckon they're reasonably similar in number.

I'm sorry, if I seemed to be trying to hijack your idea there, just trying to understand what you're looking for in the test...

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

How many ways can you swing a sword or shout at somebody in combat? 

I'd reckon they're reasonably similar in number.


Heh.  You never hear anyone complaining that the wizard is 'just saying arcane words and waving his staff around /again/' for yet another power...

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

@ PBN


Why couldn't something like what I mentioned with my previous post work as a controller?  It seems to me that if it's possible to boost and buff my allies via morale and inspiration that I could hinder and harm my foes via lowering their morale and controlling their emotions.  As a matter of fact, this actually a very valid tactic employed in many real life conflicts.

I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
 The Best in Gaming!