Martial "Control" builds

[Rakaydos]

Back when I played regularly, I was a big fan of Martial classes that focused on battlefield control- stuff like Polearm fighters, spike chain intimidate rogues, and beastmater archers. (Vigilant Justice style is an amazing feat)

In the past few years, have new martial control options opened up? Are there any good martial hybrids for battlefield control? What is the best way to build the fabled "martial controller" with the existing classes?

[Ashdate]

In the past few years, have new martial control options opened up? Are there any good martial hybrids for battlefield control? What is the best way to build the fabled "martial controller" with the existing classes?

Pretty much every Defender is a kind of "Controller" in some form or another (especially the Warden, no pun intended). If you want a class that is *actually* martial (rather than the Warden's "Primal" category), then you pretty much don't need to look much farther than a core Fighter. Combat Challenge + Combat Superiority is a strong controlling core for a melee build. For my money, I think a Polearm focused fighter (with feats like Polearm Gamble) and Lightning Cheese is one of the hardest pure-control martial builds a DM could fear in the game.

I don't know about "new" options as there hasn't been much new player-option material printed since 2011 to my recollection. The only thing that springs to mind would be the "Hunter" Ranger from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, although most don't consider it a very good controller.

[VancianFighter]

Pretty much every Defender is a kind of "Controller" in some form or another (especially the Warden, no pun intended). If you want a class that is *actually* martial (rather than the Warden's "Primal" category), then you pretty much don't need to look much farther than a core Fighter. Combat Challenge + Combat Superiority is a strong controlling core for a melee build. For my money, I think a Polearm focused fighter (with feats like Polearm Gamble) and Lightning Cheese is one of the hardest pure-control martial builds a DM could fear in the game.

I don't know about "new" options as there hasn't been much new player-option material printed since 2011 to my recollection. The only thing that springs to mind would be the "Hunter" Ranger from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, although most don't consider it a very good controller.

The hunter is kinda bland on its own, but if you are able to access magical ammunition, it gains a whole 'nother level of depth. Magical ammo just synergises so well with the Hunter's powers. The hunter is already one of the more complex martial classes due to having 3 at will powers AND 2 stances. Add magical ammo into that and you become basically the Green Arrow.

[ghost_warlock]

Personally, I'm a big fan of grabbing an alhulak, taking flail expertise, and enjoying the tasty goodness of at-will prone from level one without having to jump through the ability score hoops spear users have to. Just take good ol' Footwork Lure or use the Rending Chains Student feat to gain +2 Intimidate and add a slide to Reaping Strike (admittedly not the best at-will otherwise, though).

Even better if you can splurge a feat for a kusari-gama. It's a defensive (+1 AC) double-weapon with reach. With that in mind, if you've got feats to spare, Dragging Flail means not having to choose between sliding and knocking prone. Amazing stickiness that way. Plus, the kusari-gama also qualifies for all the light blade feats and power riders.

At 11th, the Lashing Flail feat adds a slide to your MBA. Enemy triggers Combat Superiority, takes the hit, stops moving, and ends up on his face as well.

[obryn]

The only thing that springs to mind would be the "Hunter" Ranger from Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms, although most don't consider it a very good controller.
I think it gets short shrift around these parts, myself. :smallsmile: I've had one on the other side of the table from me, and it did its job as a controller just fine. (And its damage wasn't bad, either.)

-O

[Ashdate]

I think it gets short shrift around these parts, myself. :smallsmile: I've had one on the other side of the table from me, and it did its job as a controller just fine. (And its damage wasn't bad, either.)

-O

We used one in my first campaign as part of a PC-body switch shenanigans, and while it was only used for a pair of combats, it didn't seem horrible. I could totally imagine suggesting it to a first-time player.

[Yakk]

The "Hunter" ranger's most awesome ability is its burst 1 RBA, which the normal ranger can poach at the cost of one at-will and one feat. And it isn't as if the normal ranger was using their non-twin strike at-will anyhow.

[Dimers]

Well, that's the Hunter's best single ACTION, anyway. Having the flexibility to choose between multiple forms of control on-the-fly is nice. It's just that none of them are very potent, outside of specific situations.

[allonym]

Archer ranger, with optional Seeker hybrid, can be effective control. A couple of feats to make Twin Strike a prone/slow machine and decent ability selection is the basis of it. Items and/or other feat combos can help You won't have many area attacks - an at-will and a daily or two - and you'll be left in the dust by a wizard or invoker in terms of true control, but you can season your damage with a good chunk of single-target control and tactical options.

It also has the added bonus of not being incredibly boring to play, unlike a "regular" ranger.

[Rakaydos]

Archer ranger, with optional Seeker hybrid, can be effective control. A couple of feats to make Twin Strike a prone/slow machine and decent ability selection is the basis of it. Items and/or other feat combos can help You won't have many area attacks - an at-will and a daily or two - and you'll be left in the dust by a wizard or invoker in terms of true control, but you can season your damage with a good chunk of single-target control and tactical options.

It also has the added bonus of not being incredibly boring to play, unlike a "regular" ranger.
is there any prticular reason to play an archer ranger over a Beastmaster with a bow, these days?

[Tegu8788]

Aside from the fact that the Beastmaster Ranger is one of the worst ways to play a bow and beast character, not that I know of.

[Rakaydos]

Aside from the fact that the Beastmaster Ranger is one of the worst ways to play a bow and beast character, not that I know of.

Dont they still have "fly the bird above the battlefield to quarry whoever you want?"

[tcrudisi]

The "Hunter" ranger's most awesome ability is its burst 1 21+ RBA, which the normal ranger can poach at the cost of one at-will and one feat. And it isn't as if the normal ranger was using their non-twin strike at-will anyhow.

FYP.

But yeah, the Hunter still isn't worth it.

[tcrudisi]

is there any prticular reason to play an archer ranger over a Beastmaster with a bow, these days?

Yes, the paragon path.

[Yakk]

FYP.

But yeah, the Hunter still isn't worth it.
Sorry, Burst 21+ RBA?

[tcrudisi]

Sorry, Burst 21+ RBA?

Well, yeah. It's actually bigger. Something like 41+ and easily made much bigger.

Longbows are range 20/40 ... so 41 base.
Shortbows are range 15/30 ... so 31 base.
Crossbows are range 15/30 ... so 31 base.
Hand crossbows and Repeating Crossbows are 10/20 ... so 21 base.
Other weapons work (like slings), but Longbows are clearly the best here.

But that's probably not what you meant.

Rapid Shot: You make a RBA with a weapon against each creature in or adjacent to a square within the attack's range.

The monster that is 31 squares away: Is he in or adjacent to a square within the attack's range? The range is your weapon (since it's a RBA), so the answer is yes, he is in a square within the attack's range.

Your ally who is 7 squares away: Is he in or adjacent to a square within the attack's range? Once again, yes, your ally is in a square adjacent to the attack's range.

An enemy who is 41 squares away: Is he in or adjacent to a square within the attack's range? Yes, he is adjacent to a square within the attack's range. Your range is 40, so the 41st square is adjacent.

In fact, every creature (including yourself, yay physics!) within 41 squares of you is in or adjacent to a square within the attack's range. Therefore, per the power, you make an attack against all of them.

Yeah, clearly not what they intended. And I agree that it CAN be read the way that most people read it. However, the way they worded it? I feel this is the RAW (rules as written) reading of it. Obviously it's not RAI (rules as intended) and it's not how I'd play it at my table ... but it is RAW.

[Ashdate]

You know why 3.5 players make fun of things like the peasant railgun, drowing rules, etc.?

Because they know that those things are only "work" in a context where the DM refuses to be a DM.

Intent matters. Suggesting that Rapid Shot can be used as a burst 20+ attack on the basis of reading "a square" to mean "every square" is a reading that would not pass any DM mustard. At least have the decency to highlight such a suggestion in blue text!:smalltongue:

[Yakk]

"There exists an interpretation of these words that mean what I say it is" is not the same as "the correct interpretation of these words is what I say it is".

[obryn]

Yes, the paragon path.
I'd argue Sharpshooter is just as good, if not maybe a bit better.

IMO, the ... lord, so many terms ... PHB-style Ranger with the Hunter class feature from Martial Power ... 2? ... (not the Ranger Subclass called Hunter from HotFK, although I like them too)... is significantly better than the Archer-Style PHB ranger for shooting people in the face.

-O

[tcrudisi]

You know why 3.5 players make fun of things like the peasant railgun, drowing rules, etc.?

Because they know that those things are only "work" in a context where the DM refuses to be a DM.

Intent matters. Suggesting that Rapid Shot can be used as a burst 20+ attack on the basis of reading "a square" to mean "every square" is a reading that would not pass any DM mustard. At least have the decency to highlight such a suggestion in blue text!:smalltongue:

I agree that intent matters. That's why I, personally, would not allow it at my table. But the RAW matters, too. And, unfortunately, by the way they worded the power, you effectively shoot every square within your range +1. I've literally had a linguistics professor, an English professor, and several English majors read that sentence and tell me that it means "every square +1 within range". (I had to set up an example battle mat and explain what "range" was.) The English language is finicky like that.

Does that mean I'd /ever/ play it like that? Oh heck no. That's far too powerful, but it is a legal reading of the rules.

[Kurald Galain]

Does that mean I'd /ever/ play it like that? Oh heck no. That's far too powerful, but it is a legal reading of the rules.

Shooting the whole battlefield would make an interesting idea for an encounter or daily power (although probably not at level 1). At any rate, it's a shame that WOTC basically stopped with errata.

[tcrudisi]

Shooting the whole battlefield would make an interesting idea for an encounter or daily power (although probably not at level 1). At any rate, it's a shame that WOTC basically stopped with errata.

There is the ranger 27 enc power that lets them do just that ... enemies only.

[Yakk]

I agree that intent matters. That's why I, personally, would not allow it at my table. But the RAW matters, too. And, unfortunately, by the way they worded the power, you effectively shoot every square within your range +1. I've literally had a linguistics professor, an English professor, and several English majors read that sentence and tell me that it means "every square +1 within range". (I had to set up an example battle mat and explain what "range" was.) The English language is finicky like that.

Does that mean I'd /ever/ play it like that? Oh heck no. That's far too powerful, but it is a legal reading of the rules.
Ya, but I'm a programmer.

And the binding of "a square" could be either before or after the rest of the dependent clause. If it is before, then it a burst 1. If it is after, your interpretation is correct.

The timing of the binding is ambiguous. Both are valid readings of the sentence. One of them is ridiculous in context.

It is a legal reading of the rules, but you'll note that the rules don't say "interpret these rules in English" anywhere, and I have invented a language that is similar to English except in a few ways, the reading of the rules in my pseudo-English is an equally valid reading of the rules. And by equally valid, I mean equally ridiculous.

[Kurald Galain]

It is a legal reading of the rules, but you'll note that the rules don't say "interpret these rules in English" anywhere, and I have invented a language that is similar to English except in a few ways, the reading of the rules in my pseudo-English is an equally valid reading of the rules. And by equally valid, I mean equally ridiculous.

Welcome to the game where an "attack with a weapon" is not the same thing as a "weapon attack", rolling for damage doesn't mean you have a "damage roll", and people argue that "forced movement" is not a kind of "movement.

[Ashdate]

Does that mean I'd /ever/ play it like that? Oh heck no. That's far too powerful, but it is a legal reading of the rules.

But to what point is that "legal reading" worth making when you know that such an interpretation wouldn't actually work in a proper game?

I think it's pretty clear that the people who made 4e are not likely English professors (nor are most of the people who run/play their game). As Kurald points out, there's lots of weird inconsistencies in the wording that are a result of trying to convey concepts using English words, while also trying to use those same English words to convey meaning. Mistakes are going to happen.

RAW is fine in situations where the DM is not an active participant, but for all others (such as the situation described in this thread), RAI is much much more valid.

[tcrudisi]

But to what point is that "legal reading" worth making when you know that such an interpretation wouldn't actually work in a proper game?

I think it's pretty clear that the people who made 4e are not likely English professors (nor are most of the people who run/play their game). As Kurald points out, there's lots of weird inconsistencies in the wording that are a result of trying to convey concepts using English words, while also trying to use those same English words to convey meaning. Mistakes are going to happen.

RAW is fine in situations where the DM is not an active participant, but for all others (such as the situation described in this thread), RAI is much much more valid.

Sure, but as a DM, I like to follow the rules. Explicitly. There are very few things that I change because I prefer to have a rigid ruleset where the players and I both know what to expect. It's unbiased. I hate, hate, hate having to change rules for balance sake.

That power? It makes me change the rules for balance sake and I can't stand it.


Ya, but I'm a programmer.

And the binding of "a square" could be either before or after the rest of the dependent clause. If it is before, then it a burst 1. If it is after, your interpretation is correct.

The timing of the binding is ambiguous. Both are valid readings of the sentence. One of them is ridiculous in context.

It is a legal reading of the rules, but you'll note that the rules don't say "interpret these rules in English" anywhere, and I have invented a language that is similar to English except in a few ways, the reading of the rules in my pseudo-English is an equally valid reading of the rules. And by equally valid, I mean equally ridiculous.

Once again: The power doesn't say to pick a square and attack it, and everything adjacent to it. If it did so, then it would be clear what we should do when we use the power.

Let's break it down, taking out the "or" to help it become clearer.

"Make a RBA with a weapon against each creature in a square within the attack's range."

"Make a RBA with a weapon against each creature adjacent to a square within the attack's range."

The problem is that neither of those limits the use of the power to a single square. As a programmer, you probably see this. What happens if you design a program that says those lines? It will make an attack against every creature within your attacks range, because each square is a square within the attack's range. It will go down the list, "Is this a creature in a square within the attack's range? Yes? Attack it."

I admit that its ridiculous by context, but my point is that its legal by the rules. Perhaps the point was to allow the Hunter to attack everything within its range. I can see someone thinking that is balanced; after all, it forces you to attack yourself and your allies in addition to all the enemies. When it comes to discussing RAI, we can only assume, we can't know. We can assume fairly easily that they meant the equivalent of "area burst 1" rather than "area burst 41", but we can't know that unless the guy who designed the power comes out and says so. Instead, we know what the power says. You and I may disagree with how its meant, but we both agree that its a perfectly legal reading to read it as "area burst 41". Once I see it that way, I actually can't see it as "area burst 1" any more. There's nothing that says that you choose the square first and derive the "in/adjacent" after. Reading it strictly like a programmer, I read it as "area burst 41". (Note: I'm saying "area burst", but it's not really an area burst. No need to correct me on this; it's just easier to describe it in those terms. It's actually simply a RBA.)

And while you can say that "no sane DM will allow it", I can also say that "some sane DM's will allow it because we like to have rules which define what can and cannot be done and then work within those rules to craft an appropriate and fun story that everyone can enjoy."

[Ashdate]

tcrudisi I really feel that you're reaching here, not in the interest of fair discourse, but in the interest of defending a completely pedantic reading of the power.

[Yakk]

Once again: The power doesn't say to pick a square and attack it, and everything adjacent to it. If it did so, then it would be clear what we should do when we use the power.
Yes, the power is unclear, not unambiguously saying attack everything within weapon range +1


Let's break it down, taking out the "or" to help it become clearer.

"Make a RBA with a weapon against each creature in a square within the attack's range."
This either means attack each creature within a particular square within the attack's range, or attack each creature that has the state of "in a square" within the attack's range, or attack each creature that has the state of "in a square within the attack's range".

Which it is is insufficiently specified by the language used.

Really.

"Make a RBA with a weapon against each creature adjacent to a square within the attack's range."
This either means attack each creature adjacent to a particular square within the attack's range, or attack each creature that has the state of "adjacent to a square" within the attack's range, or attack each creature that has the state of "adjacent to a square within the attack's range".

Which it is is insufficiently specified by the language used.

The problem is that neither of those limits the use of the power to a single square. As a programmer, you probably see this. What happens if you design a program that says those lines?
It would be a strange programming language that would allow for the same level of ambiguity as English.

Now, many programming language have some ambiguity. As an example, in C++ if you modify a variable twice without having a sequence point between the modifications, what happens is ambiguous (undefined behavior).

In this case, the set of ambiguous behavior is relatively limited. The compiler could do any one of these options, and I would have a bug in my program code, as I probably didn't intend for an arbitrary one of those options to be chosen.

If I was to program it in a language that didn't admit that level of ambiguity, I'd be forced (by the language) to pick one of the possible parsings of that sentence and write it in the language.

It will make an attack against every creature within your attacks range, because each square is a square within the attack's range.
Which describes why this sentence is wrong, because this is far from the only reading of those sentences.

It will go down the list, "Is this a creature in a square within the attack's range? Yes? Attack it."
Or, it will ask "is this creature within a square?" and "is this creature within the attack's range", and if both, attack it.

Or, it will ask "what is the square within the attack's range?", then "is the creature within the square?"

I admit that its ridiculous by context, but my point is that its legal by the rules.
No, it is one possible interpretation of what is legal by the rules. The existence of one possible interpretation of a set of words does not mean that this is the only interpretation of the set of words. Words can, and are, ambiguous in their meaning.

Claiming that the existence of ambiguity means that your chosen interpretation is what the words mean is incorrect: it means your chosen interpretation is one of the possible meanings of the words.

You claimed that "this is what the power does by the words", not "the wording is sufficiently ambiguous that you could interpret the words to mean that the power does this". The first statement is simply wrong, the second is right.

You and I may disagree with how its meant, but we both agree that its a perfectly legal reading to read it as "area burst 41". Once I see it that way, I actually can't see it as "area burst 1" any more.
Your inability to understand ambiguity is not my, or anyone else's, problem, and do not make your claims more accurate.

I was being quite precise in how I disagreed with your claims

There's nothing that says that you choose the square first and derive the "in/adjacent" after.
Agreed!

Look, you actually rewrote my post, claiming my post was wrong, and that the power was an area burst 21+.

You have claimed that the existence of ambiguity means your chosen reading is the RAW. That is what I'm saying is ridiculous.

That your chosen reading is also ridiculous is a secondary problem that is far more obvious.

[Rakaydos]

This topic has gone off course. As the topic creator, I decree that Rapid Shot is poorly written and should be ignored for this discussion.

New topic- the best way to build a Rogue to use Rattling powers for battlefield control, as well as other debuffs.

I would start with a Brutal Scoundrel with Riposte Strike and Vigilant Justice Style.

[Kurald Galain]

New topic- the best way to build a Rogue to use Rattling powers for battlefield control, as well as other debuffs.
I've played one for awhile, and found that most rattling powers suck, therefore it relies on the feats Underhanded Tactics, Disheartening Ambush, and Psychic Lock if you can get your hand on a Githyanki weapon. This is because a single -2 penalty is not enough to create a whole build around (which means you'd be mostly a regular rogue, which is effective as usual but not exactly battlefield control).

Nice gimmicks are a Sandstorm weapon and the Gloomwrought Emissary theme.