I feel like everyone who complains controllers shouldn't exist haven't seen what hard-control can do to an encounter. Tell Silent Malediction or Sleep (both of which are level 1) that they aren't a clearly defined thing. Control is about being the opposite of a Leader. Leader rallies your team, buffs the players and grants extra attacks. Control neuters the enemies, cripples them with debuffs and denies them actions.
that's my point: a pure controller is either underwhelming or overpowered. In my opinion it's better off as a secondary function rather than a full time job. but I do agree with the definition of control as it being the opposite of support.
I feel like everyone who complains controllers shouldn't exist haven't seen what hard-control can do to an encounter. Tell Silent Malediction or Sleep (both of which are level 1) that they aren't a clearly defined thing. Control is about being the opposite of a Leader. Leader rallies your team, buffs the players and grants extra attacks. Control neuters the enemies, cripples them with debuffs and denies them actions.
that's my point: a pure controller is either underwhelming or overpowered. In my opinion it's better off as a secondary function rather than a full time job. but I do agree with the definition of control as it being the opposite of support.
The point is that a well-played controller is just as "overpowered" as a well-played leader is. They just do it in opposite ways. Really the only major problem I've seen in the controller is making their at-wills be crappy striker at-wills rather than having a lot of good control options . If I remade anything about controller it would be to make their at-wills more hard-control and less little effects+some damage.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here Spoiler:Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
What do you see as 4e’s core problems? What would you like to see changed?
4e's biggest problems were business and marketing decisions that contributed to its violent rejection. The system itself has a lot of good stuff, and, again, the worst things are often how its handled (the CB going from off-line to on-line, the way errata was approached, whatever Essentials was supposed to be, etc).
But, there are some fiddly problems, and some emergent ones.
One of the big 'problems' I see, as someone who likes to tinker with rules, is that creating a new class is an overwhelming amount of work. Because of Powers. The assumption that every class needs a unique set of powers all it's own is nice when you're playing a character - there's no one poaching on your schtick, and when you level up, you can page very easily to the powers that you get at your new level - but it creates a tremendous barrier to new classes. You don't just need a new class with some unique features, you need hundreds of powers - each one of which needs, at least, a unique name (gah!). 4e could be made a bit less bloated, and a lot easier to tinker with, if powers were grouped by Source instead of class.
A closely related 'fiddly' issue is Multi-classing. It's just over-valued at 1 feat per power swap. A feet to multi-class, then power swap as you feel like it would be better. Ditto Paragon Multiclassing, far too much given up for what you get. While a Paragon Path that worked thematically with a multiclass (like the Wizard of the Spiral Tower, for wizard-martial combos) is fine, though.
A closely related but deeper issue is that multi-class power-swaps can get a little out of whack when you swap /in/ controller powers to a non-controller. That's because controllers are a bit of kludge, IMHO. The controller role exists as little more than an excuse to give the Wizard better powers than everyone else in the PH (and the 'secondary controller role' to do the same for the Cleric, just with a smaller number of spells). The fix would be, again, to group powers by source, not class, and instead give Controllers actual class features to cover their role - like say, 'metamagic' for the wizard, to expand the size of AE spells or add (save ends) effects to them. That way a Warlock or McWizard could learn Sleep or Beguiling Strands without wondering "why would I ever take something from my own class?"
...
Hmm, what else? Themes & Backgrounds. These are neat ideas, but they should have been integrated from the beginning, as add-ons, giving you extra bonuses and powers over and above what you'd have without these 'options,' they added to power inflation. Backgrounds were reigned in, but they lost a lot of interest in the process. The general advancement structure should have 'room' for Backgrounds & Themes, that, can also be used for something else if you don't care to have a background or theme.
....
Then there's "the Math." I'm not sure it's the all-fired problem it was made out to be. So an Epic character hits Epic monsters a little less than an Heroic character hits Heroic monsters? The Epic character has quadrouple the encounter and daily attack powers the Heroic guy had. So an Epic Character gets hit more by Epic Monsters pounding his worst NACDs - he can also freak'n /come back from the dead/ every day - maybe more than once. Maybe it wasn't so much a 'flaw' as part of the difference between low-level and high level play. PC races don't normally have the power of Demon Lords and Ancient Dragons, it's not that strange that they'd notice they're facing /really/ tough enemies...
1. I'm fairly sure that characters are supposed to use Second Wind frequently. Every encounter, even. I distinctly remember an early 4e teaser article in which the author describes his PC getting hit, using SW and then jumping back into the fray.
But as most of us know, using SW is largely pointless unless 1) you're a dwarf or 2) you're somehow incapacitated but still able to use a Standard.
(2)certainly happens, you get weakened or immobilized (lacking a good ranged attack) or blinded or a lot of other things.
It's a standardized power for all PCs, which creates another option for players to remember during combat, and another +2 to track if they use it...but it sees infrequent use at best. I just don't think that SW is pulling its own weight; it should either be more useable, or simply removed. Any opinions?
I think the all-PCs-get'em options weren't supposed to stay that useful for most characters. Second Wind, at low level, when you find yourself down to at-wills pretty quickly in most fights can be worth it. When you're higher level and your Leader has 3 encounter heals and maybe some attacks that heal, and a utility that gives everyone regeneration... It's like Grab or Bull Rush. Might be worth it when you don't have any powers that grab or immobilize or push, but once you do, not so much. Another thing that makes SW - or any Standard Action heal - a bad idea is when the monsters are dishing out more damage each round than you can heal. You haven't 'saved' someone if they're still going to go down the next time they're hit. There's another 'math fix' that may not have been such a fix, afterall: MM3 monsters do substantially more damage, which makes SW an even more marginal choice.
2. Strikers deal extra damage, defenders mark, and leaders heal; but what's the controller's thing? Controllers as a whole are a grab-bag of class features, only some of which actually seem to control anything. I'd love to have a shtick, like "one enemy takes -2 to attacks" or something, that I can define all controllers with. Any ideas?
Controllers have better powers than anyone else. It's a very inelegant design, IMHO. Like I said, above, my feeling is that it was done so wizards could have a shadow of their traditional (excessive) spell-power. ("One enemy takes -2 to attacks?" That's awfully close to a 'mark,' isn't it?)
Strikers attack enemy hps.
Leaders shore up their ally's action economy (making actions more effective with buffs, healing so allies don't loose actions to the 'unconsious' and 'dead' conditions, removing other less serious conditions, etc).
Defenders degrade enemy attack actions (by making themselves targets, and soaking them up like a sponge).
What does that leave for controllers?
Attacking things other than hps - inflicting conditions, popping minions.
Impacting enemy actions other than attacks.
I agree that controllers need to do that with class features, though, rather than with powers that are just bigger and better than others'.
See, I actually took the opposite answer in working on my 4.5 set... I killed the striker. Every class already does damage, so just doing more of it isn't nearly as unique a role as debilitating the enemy.
So I killed the striker role with the plan of normalizing the damage rates among the three remaining roles and then adding a specific controller mechanic to each of the controller classes. The skirmisher (ie. the martial controller) would get a distraction at-will interrupt that would give penalties to an enemy within range. By contrast the Evoker (i.e. arcane controller... long story, see below) gets an interrupt that creates a square of blocking terrain for a short duration (currently trying "until end of target's current turn" but may up it to "until the start of your next turn" if its not potent enough).
I'm also reworking the classes by effectively splitting them in two parts... for ease of discussion the "role" and the "fluff".
The roles are the specific way the class makes its attacks. The martial controller, defender and leader use weapons and exploits to do their thing, while the arcane ones use implements and spells to do their things.
The fluff is HOW they do it. The martial defender might be a Knight (improved armor) or an Outlaw (improved mobility) or even a Wizard (augments their weapon attacks with magic from a spellbook). An arcane leader might take the fluff of a wizard (i.e. uses a spellbook), divine investiture (a cleric), or might just use their innate magical powers as an an extra tool in an otherwise non-magical bag of tricks (i.e. a non-magical fluff choice).
Regardless, the main role of the fluff portion would be supplying the list of utility powers (designed for exploration/interaction rather than as in-combat buffs) that can be selected by the character and some minor augments to the role's abilities.
I've got more bits in my re-build, but that's what I've been working on that's relevant to the class/role discussion so far.
I'm not well-versed enough with the math to offer hard rules for a 4.5e, though I do agree that I "sense" some of the problems listed here during my gaming (i.e. combat takes too long).
Maybe you ladies and gents who know the math well can all come to a consensus with a 4.5e, and list it on a thread somewhere. Or has this already been done?
So I've got a fair amount of random tweaks to 4e I'd do... but most of that would be errata instead of minor version changes:
Math Patches, and throwing away the relevant math-patch feats. I think the main change element would likely be in changing where stat boosts happen. "+2 to all stats" at paragon/epic would be pretty close to fixing the issue.
Revive (and create a few more) +Striker PPs for striker base classes (read Avenger and Barbarian, with Rogues, Sorcerers, and Warlocks also making an appearance)
Try and make sure controllers have some +Controller features, like strikers have. This is hard, but required to make Hybrids work right.
Fix up Hybrid AC issues (prevent double-dipping on AC features, but make sure everyone has an AC). Similarly, tweak armor proficiency rules to make it cheaper to buy proficiency if you somehow need more armor than your class gives you.
Nuke every single example of a scaling modifier applying to a d20 roll.
Other minor errata. (Fighters get one more trained skill. fer instance. A "lunge" action. Fix some infinite loops. etc.).
My personal idea for 4.5 was more along the lines of expanding on themes. Basically the idea is "You get N at-will/encounter/daily powers, see chart. Those powers can be selected from any list you have access to". Themes would have bigger power lists, classes would have much smaller ones. Paragon Paths and Epic destinies would also have power lists, instead of adding fixed powers.
So you'd choose a race, class, and theme. And from that have 2-3 souces for options for any given power slot. At paragon you'd add a PP (or PMC to add a 2nd class intead, or maybe add a 2nd theme instead) and gain another source. At Epic you'd add an ED to gain Yet Another source. But more sources isn't more powers: just more choices to choose from.
Having played a fair amount of 4e, the thing from Next that does seem compelling to me is the flatter accuracy. That's one that I'd consider cherry picking into a 4.5 if I could figure out how, while keeping any semblance of compatibility. Most of the other changes don't appeal to me yet.
(Re: "Combat takes too long". MM3 monsters, and let the PCs optimize. If they have no interrest in doing so, MM3 monsters of some number of levels too low, while giving elevated XP for continued progress)
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
If there is a role that should get the axe, it's the striker. Every class should have their extra damage alternate build, or better yet having it automatically built in.
Things that 5E needs to do: -Make the use of battlemaps/miniatures the default. -Make healing fun, magical AND non-magical needs to be an option. Long live the Warlord! -Make magic items feel magic/mythical. I don't want a dagger +1, I want STING.
1. Typically, Second Wind is used in conjunction with an action point, either to use the Second Wind, or use a standard action after using the Second Wind. I, personally, would make it a Move Action to use, rather than a Standard. Dwarves still get their bonus regarding it, though it's not quite so big of a bonus, and you can catch your breath and still do something elseful.
Hey, great minds think alike! I've been using this very house rule for a while now, and while it's a definite improvement on RAW, I don't think it's really elegant. Giving players a choice between moving and doing something else goes against 4e's mobility-for-all philosophy. Ideally, move actions should only be used for moving. Also, I'm not crazy about that +2 until-start-of-next turn bonus.
