|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 11:37AM
#31
|
|
|
But to say that the Martial Controller concept lacks traction within R&D makes me wonder why. If R&D's goal in making new classes is to do the same kinds of things in new ways, a martial controller really will open up whole new concepts on a particular playstyle.
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of what that controller would look like. Rather, none of the treatments that we've seen or brainstormed have gained traction enough to find their way in a book as of yet.
We're more than a little choosey about what finds its way into published material. It takes a great deal of energy, deliberation, and brainpower to design, develop, and edit a class. Then there is the fact that it has to fit with whatever product mix we have on the schedule.
Just curious, but do you follow the various "brainstorm a martial controller!" threads that pop up from time to time? While I understand that there's a lot of garbage to wade through, a few ideas, such as thhe Dreadnaught, seem pretty well developed.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 11:45AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Dec 13, 2008
|
Oh, okay. I got the impression that R&D pretty much decided that there will not ever be a martial controller for 4th edition. Although your post doesn't say that there will be, it also doesn't say that there won't be. If there comes a time when martial again shows up as a power source in a PHB, that might be the time we see such a class, I suppose, as Power books are explicitly for new builds/options for existing classes... The reason I mentioned it was just that while some of the people in R&D acknowledge the plausibility, it seemed like R&D has decided that working on a viable martial controller is a wasted effort; it seems like one of the best ways to keep expanding the possibilities would be trying to make something that seemingly can't be done.
But to say that the Martial Controller concept lacks traction within R&D makes me wonder why. If R&D's goal in making new classes is to do the same kinds of things in new ways, a martial controller really will open up whole new concepts on a particular playstyle.
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of what that controller would look like. Rather, none of the treatments that we've seen or brainstormed have gained traction enough to find their way in a book as of yet.
We're more than a little choosey about what finds its way into published material. It takes a great deal of energy, deliberation, and brainpower to design, develop, and edit a class. Then there is the fact that it has to fit with whatever product mix we have on the schedule.
Just curious, but do you follow the various "brainstorm a martial controller!" threads that pop up from time to time? While I understand that there's a lot of garbage to wade through, a few ideas, such as thhe Dreadnaught, seem pretty well developed.
Actually, depending on how far the R&D can massage the rules or the massage the concept of a turn, a lot of options seem rather viable. The dreadnought is a pretty well designed one, but a scout, or a lancer/dragoon type controller that behaves a bit like a defender, all seem like they could be viable.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 12:33PM
#33
|
|
|
Just curious, but do you follow the various "brainstorm a martial controller!" threads that pop up from time to time? While I understand that there's a lot of garbage to wade through, a few ideas, such as thhe Dreadnaught, seem pretty well developed.
The Dreadnaught is by far the best of the Martial Controllers I've seen. It has it's own niche while still filling the controller role. It and the Archivist are the only two classes from the forums I allow in my home games.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 12:52PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Sep 24, 2009
|
I wouldn't say that the concept lacks traction within R&D. As I point out in the commentary, there are a number of us interested in the concept. And by concept I mean the idea that the game has room for a martial controller and even some ideas of what that controller would look like. Rather, none of the treatments that we've seen or brainstormed have gained traction enough to find their way in a book as of yet.
We're more than a little choosey about what finds its way into published material. It takes a great deal of energy, deliberation, and brainpower to design, develop, and edit a class. Then there is the fact that it has to fit with whatever product mix we have on the schedule.
Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us since we may not see all the threads, so it may just be an issue of perception, but it's nice to not have to go to some other forum to hear back from the staff. Thank you!
Host of the HTL Podcast Series: http://www.holdtheline.com/media/category/htl-podcast.6/ 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 12:56PM
#35
|
|
|
Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us since we may not see all the threads, so it may just be an issue of perception, but it's nice to not have to go to some other forum to hear back from the staff.
Thank you!
Agreed. Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 1:48PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 26, 2008
|
Probably not. This was often discussed for the Artificer during playtest and how artificers were annoyed that they had to carry multiple thrown weapons at low levels (one for each target). This was when 4th edition first came out, so people were still pretty new to the rules, but it was clear you needed one thrown weapon for each target. I don't think they ever changed that, but the system's been out for long enough that most people don't even care and just tweak it for the one build it totally screws over. (That and most Weaponificers use some kind of bow)
In short - they didn't change it for the Artificer, nor for the Prescient Bard, I doubt they are going to change it for the Seeker.
Actually, the artificer has a specific clause that throw weapons used with their powers act as if they were magic and return- on another note if you surveyed the boards I can guarentee most DMs don't require players to keep track of arrows expended of archer characters. Consuming your weapon is just not viable in the game wealth model.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 2:26PM
#37
|
|
|
SRM (you really do have a long name), I appreciate u as a dev engaging the D&Di forums. The Seeker looks like its gonna be popular class. For me, the PH3 is a must-have because of the Psionic power source, but the Seeker shows itl be a well-rounded solid book. Cant wait to play one.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 3:22PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2001
|
Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us since we may not see all the threads, so it may just be an issue of perception, but it's nice to not have to go to some other forum to hear back from the staff.
Thank you!
My pleasure. We really do try to reply to the boards, but there are so many of you and so few of us! And we do spend a lot of time cooking up the D&D, and in our free time we try to play the game as often as we can. There is a reason my wife wears a "gaming widow" shirt. 
Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Pathfinder RPG Designer
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 3:23PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
May 17, 2001
|
SRM (you really do have a long name)
Don't I know it.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland
Pathfinder RPG Designer
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Oct 07, 2009 - 4:47PM
#40
|
|
|
Don't have much to add, just wanted to take a sec and say that I like the seeker. I always seem to have trouble expressing why I like certain classes. I'm a very hands on player, I s'pose. I'm anxious to give the seeker a run. I'm not usually a fan of ranged combatants (say, archer rangers), preferring in yer face brawlers with the occassional tactic thrown in for good measure  . Real quick note; Thanks SRM for being responsive and part of the discussion. It's great seeing staff responding to us on these boards, even if you have to put up with our ramblings. Maybe you guys do post here more often than it appears to some of us since we may not see all the threads, so it may just be an issue of perception, but it's nice to not have to go to some other forum to hear back from the staff.
Thank you!
I also agree. I'm aware of other big 'uns (like EN World) but the WotC/DnD boards are the only ones I take time to frequent. So, it is nice to hear responses from the designers and staff occassionally. The perception of course, is that they spend their board time elsewhere .
/\ Art
|
|
|
