Which Niche?

[Nightgaun7]

The appearance of a thread on the Bladesinger, and working on an Avenger patch, made me wonder what niches are left for classes, if any.

The Bladesinger (or at least, an idealized version of one) has the niche of melee controller, though it overlaps there with the Druid.

The Avenger is a melee striker, and although I've never seen one in action it seems like it would be a lot like the Barbarian, Rogue in terms of singling out a target and like both of them plus the Monk in terms of mobility. Of course, this is a feature of the Striker role in general, but still, it's easy to see why people don't play Avengers as much when you could play another striker that may do the same job much better.

Then there are the Essentials classes (Blackguard, Binder, Executioner, etc.) which add even more overlaps.

So what niches are left to fill, or at least badly-served? What could a fixed up Avenger or Bladesinger bring to the table, or what could a whole new class do? For example, there are several homebrew Necromancers that do various things via minion-mastery.

[vasharanpaladin]

First, a correction: A "melee Controller" is a Defender. All Defenders are Controllers.

The Avenger is unique among Strikers in that it plays up accuracy rather than damage; rolling twice on the attack roll is roughly equivalent to a +5 bonus to-hit, which in turn is +25% damage. Deals less damage than a rogue or a barbarian, but more often, with a side order of casual repositioning and behavior correction to suit its own ends. An interesting niche for an avenger might be that of an "anti-Defender," handing out a penalty to hit himself and using that to force a similar choice of setting off the "anti-mark" or the avenger's Censure damage.

The Essentials kits, on the other hand, need to die in a fire. The "ideal" Bladesinger actually appeared years beforehand in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide (hint: a "melee Controller" is a Defender, and a Bladesinger is a Swordmage), the Mage strips non-wizards of cognitive space (Pyromancer should have been a sorcerer thing) and the kits generally look better on paper than they do on the table. While I love Hexblades to death, they were still far better before Wootsie stripped out the Pact Blade Manifestation feat. And the summoning thing was kinda uninspired anyway.

That said, let's take the Hexblade for a spin. Start with the core warlock, keep Warlock's Curse and add from the Hexblade kit to taste. You'll want more melee spells, to start with, and probably a more intuitive way to use the pact weapon (say, just convert the implement into the weapon itself?), but otherwise it's pretty simple. Just an ACF, probably replacing Prime Shot and the normal pact at-will, and then Arcane gets a half-decent melee Striker.

[Nightgaun7]

First, a correction: A "melee Controller" is a Defender. All Defenders are Controllers.
I tend to agree, more or less, but it's still listed as "Controller".



The Avenger is unique among Strikers in that it plays up accuracy rather than damage; rolling twice on the attack roll is roughly equivalent to a +5 bonus to-hit, which in turn is +25% damage. Deals less damage than a rogue or a barbarian, but more often, with a side order of casual repositioning and behavior correction to suit its own ends. An interesting niche for an avenger might be that of an "anti-Defender," handing out a penalty to hit himself and using that to force a similar choice of setting off the "anti-mark" or the avenger's Censure damage.
We've had a similar discussion before; given the degree to which other classes can buff their accuracy, the Avenger is not as good as it seems compared to the others, and it shines the most against the hardest enemies, where it needs to pack more punch than it does.

[vasharanpaladin]

I tend to agree, more or less, but it's still listed as "Controller".

That would be part of the problem, yes, is that Wootsie can't keep it straight half the time. The Bladesinger, as I've noted, already existed and was only printed in the Neverwinter Campaign Guide because someone whined at them enough. The Bladesinger is, ultimately, shut down by its lack of real at-will attack powers (MBAs don't get Arcane support) and utter lack of dailies (encounter powers set to daily frequency don't count). Any attempt to fix this is basically patching a reinvented wheel that doesn't look anything like and honestly didn't need to be reinvented in the first place. :smallsigh:

No, I don't like it when people remake classes without legitimate reason; as far as I care, if you want a "better Bladesinger" you need to play a Swordmage. :smallannoyed:



We've had a similar discussion before; given the degree to which other classes can buff their accuracy, the Avenger is not as good as it seems compared to the others, and it shines the most against the hardest enemies, where it needs to pack more punch than it does.

Yes, and I agree, but I did point out what can be fixed here. An Avenger's individual attacks don't deal much damage, yes. The solution is to make more attacks. Avengers get, without multiclassing or abusing Dilettante, one off-turn attack power of note (relentless stride at e3, Pursuit kicker) and two off-action attack powers (fury's advance at e3, with a Unity kicker, and soulforge hammering at e17, which is a standard action but repeats 1/turn as a minor action until the end of your next turn), but no multiattack powers. Give them some, and they should be happy, or at least produce more variety than every last Avenger possessing the aforementioned powers.

The "anti-marking" bit I suggested was, as I pointed out, an interesting niche. The Avenger, like any Defender, benefits from a solid Catch-22, but has little ability to create one. In the Avenger's case, we have a full build that benefits if your chosen target turns away from you (Censure of Pursuit), but little ability to encourage that behavior (Power of Darkness, Power of Madness, temple of shadow at d9, but little else), so a Chaser might appreciate access to powers that penalize the target for attacking him, which might further encourage the target to move on and attack someone else. Basically, "ignore me at your peril" versus "touch me and suffer."

Similarly, a Revenger/Martyr would want powers that make the enemy think twice about ganging up. Especially if those powers have kickers along the lines of "push each adjacent creature 1 square before the attack." The Chaser wants his target to cut and run, the Martyr wants to be beat on by everyone but his target and then get out of that furball so that he can focus on said target. I'm focusing on these two because Unity's censure and kickers can be controlled entirely on the players' side of the screen, and are thus stronger for it.

That said, the most glaring thing I see that needs fixing (especially in the post-MM3 game) is that Retribution's kickers should be based on Con, not Int. Monsters deal more damage now, so trying to go Martyr with the indicated stats is pretty much a death sentence. :smalleek:

[Dimers]

Attribute scores can say a lot about a character/build as they tie into skills and various attribute checks, and skills can say a lot in how they tie into rituals. So some niches left to explore are based on attribute scores.

First, I'd like to see -- no, wait, let me amend. FIRST I want to see WotC publish an apologetic fix for ritual casting in general. Second, I want to see effective ritual users who don't rely on Int+Wis. I've created a race-based ritual caster concept based on Acrobatics for ritual dancing to please the spirits, so that's good for any Dex-heavy class. I could also see substituting Charisma for other stats in ritual skills to make a caster who convinces reality to see things his way, and I'd like to see more effects that you can boost with use of healing surges so that Constitution can play more of a role too.

After that, well, there's no Dex-primary defender, no Dex or Con leader (Int is a strong secondary for many), no real Int or Con striker (depending on how you view warlocks), no Con or Dex controller (depending how you see lots of things). If you include fighter and warden as melee controllers, Strength serves every purpose.

I'd like to see a pesky, taunting Dex-based defender class with secondary Wisdom or Charisma and little call for Constitution ... a Con-primary melee controller ... a vulnerability-exploiting Int-based single-target striker ...

[Tegu8788]

I've got a list of wholes missing, let me pull out the link. I'm working on filling as many of them as I can with me homebrew attempts. I don't have a Dex Defender, I swapped the Arcane Archer for Int. Made more sense for a caster to have a solid Arcana check.

Edit: Here it is. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314370-Things-that-are-missing)

[vasharanpaladin]

melee controller

Please stop saying things like this. A fighter is a "melee controller." A warden is a "melee controller." Your Con-primary "melee controller" already exists, it's in PH3 and it's called the Battlemind.

Again. A "melee Controller" is a Defender and every time someone says otherwise kittens die. :smallfurious:

[Dimers]

Disagree -- defenders are melee controllers, but not all melee controllers are defenders, e.g. druid.

Also, I hate kittens, so there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller there'snomeleecontroller :smalltongue:

[vasharanpaladin]

Disagree -- defenders are melee controllers, but not all melee controllers are defenders, e.g. druid.

You are making an incorrect assumption here. Specifically, that a druid specializing in melee powers is still a Controller.

A melee druid is a Striker, and you'll notice that the best Beastform powers encourage the strategy of sitting on someone's head... in other words, exactly what any fighter worth his salt does. A melee Bladesinger is a waste of everyone's time.

A melee Controller is a Defender, end of story.

[p.d0t]

IMHO, anything involving archery is sorely underserved and undersupported.

[vasharanpaladin]

IMHO, anything involving archery is sorely underserved and undersupported.

Seconded! Also, in answer to Dimers's "pesky, taunting Dex-based Defender," I recall seeing a Swashbuckler floating around the homebrew forum at some point...

[shamgar001]

Thrown weapons have pretty terrible support too.

[Dimers]

Thrown weapons have pretty terrible support too.

Thrown weapons are especially problematic in a campaign with inherent bonuses, because only magical throwing weapons automatically return.

[vasharanpaladin]

Thrown weapons are especially problematic in a campaign with inherent bonuses, because only magical throwing weapons automatically return.

Except for boomerangs, but those have problems of their own (namely, that dwarven throwers don't upgrade).

[shamgar001]

Thrown weapons are especially problematic in a campaign with inherent bonuses, because only magical throwing weapons automatically return.

That's not really hard to remedy, though. Just declare by fiat that returning to a thrower's hand is part of the inherent bonus.

[p.d0t]

I dunno if this qualifies as a niche, but CON-primary anything is limited to one class in the entirety of 4e.

Conversely, it's the secondary stat for 3 essentials classes (Sentinel, Warpriest, Elementalist) for no real discernable reason.

Classes with Thievery as a class skill and races with a racial bonus to Thievery are also pretty rare.

[Dimers]

I dunno if this qualifies as a niche, but CON-primary anything is limited to one class in the entirety of 4e.

Battleminds and some warlock types use it, so let's call it two. But yeah, being tough doesn't equate well to having offensive force.

[Tegu8788]

1.5 at best. The majority of the Warlock powers are Cha based.

[Kurald Galain]

There's an int-based striker, and that is the blaster wizard :smallbiggrin:

[Tegu8788]

Not officially, though at this point, what can't the Wizard do?

[Inevitability]

Not officially, though at this point, what can't the Wizard do?

Being a defender? Defenders may be melee controllers, but melee controllers don't have to be defenders.

[shamgar001]

Perhaps that's the niche that need to be filled: a melee controller that doesn't fit into the striker or defender category.

[Kurald Galain]

Perhaps that's the niche that need to be filled: a melee controller that doesn't fit into the striker or defender category.

That could work. Perhaps you'd end up with a character with melee and close burst attacks that focus on conditions rather than damage, and that instead of mark/retaliate mechanics has some riposte ability that gives enemies an incentive to not attack him. I'm willing to bet you can already kind of do this with existing classes, but no class has this as its primary shtick yet.

[Urpriest]

That could work. Perhaps you'd end up with a character with melee and close burst attacks that focus on conditions rather than damage, and that instead of mark/retaliate mechanics has some riposte ability that gives enemies an incentive to not attack him. I'm willing to bet you can already kind of do this with existing classes, but no class has this as its primary shtick yet.

That actually sounds a lot like a Rogue build focused on Brutal Riposte. But yeah, would be interesting to see it baked into a class.

[TomPliss]

Or a melee bard with the white Lotus feats ?

[GPuzzle]

I'd say slightly modified Sorcerer.

[squiggit]

IMHO, anything involving archery is sorely underserved and undersupported.
Archer rangers are pretty good. Shame that Seekers and ranged rogues are so underwhelming and that no one else has any real ranged weapon support.


That actually sounds a lot like a Rogue build focused on Brutal Riposte. But yeah, would be interesting to see it baked into a class.
Well the rogue is probably the closest thing we have to a martial controller or a melee controller that differentiates itself from a defender.

Honestly I half think the rogue should have been built as a controller from the ground up, could have been interesting.

[GPuzzle]

Ranged Rogues? Underwhelming? Sure, Melee Rogues are better, but they have the ONLY minor action Ranged Attack in the game, can make a Sling have +4 proficiency, and can dual-wield crossbows. That's pretty good for me. Not top-tier, but certainly better than the Seeker.

The Warlord has some decent support, not overwhelming, though. And the thrown weapon attacks suck in a party that isn't too focused on Ranged attacks, but Eagle Shamans do it better.

[Inevitability]

A lot of arcane and divine classes may consider archery, because they can get to use their bow as implement with Moonbow Dedicate. A warlock, for example, can consider it.

Okay, we have Eldritch Strike, but how about Eldritch Arrow? One potential homebrew in the make?

[Nightgaun7]

Similarly, a Revenger/Martyr would want powers that make the enemy think twice about ganging up. Especially if those powers have kickers along the lines of "push each adjacent creature 1 square before the attack." The Chaser wants his target to cut and run, the Martyr wants to be beat on by everyone but his target and then get out of that furball so that he can focus on said target.
The Martyr certainly has the roughest job on the face of it. One fix is to make attacks trigger his censure, rather than hits. He's still got the issue of needing a stream of incoming attacks to fuel his Censure before trying to isolate the enemy to bring OoE online, so like you said, those pre-attack kickers will help. Might need some rejiggering to make sure every thing flows smoothly in the turn order, though.



That said, the most glaring thing I see that needs fixing (especially in the post-MM3 game) is that Retribution's kickers should be based on Con, not Int. Monsters deal more damage now, so trying to go Martyr with the indicated stats is pretty much a death sentence. :smalleek:
Unfortunately CON doesn't add enough to HP to make that worthwhile even if it were the main stat.


Attribute scores can say a lot about a character/build as they tie into skills and various attribute checks, and skills can say a lot in how they tie into rituals. So some niches left to explore are based on attribute scores.

To some extent that's true, but a power with the same wording that can be fuelled by two different stats will work the same either way, so while this can help generate ideas in the beginning I think that once you've decided on a class concept it's more important to focus on a play style, and there it can hard to find something to differentiate a class.

For example, if you're looking at Strikers...
Sorcerer - range, AoEs
Rogue - melee, sneaky and applies status effects, bonus for having CA
Barbarian - melee, tough, Big [w] powers, free hit on crit, charging
Ranger - melee, lots of hits, Hunter's Quarry, attack bonus, twin strike
Warlock - range, applies status effects, Curse
Monk - melee, hits multiple enemies, moves self and enemies
Blackguard - melee, tough, auto damage, bonus for having CA, ongoing damage
Slayer - melee, static bonus and extra [w] damage on hit
Assassin - stack and spend shrouds for damage, 1/enc big hit

What gaps remain to be filled?



A melee Controller is a Defender, end of story.

Marking is what distinguishes Defenders, not hitting people in melee. If you slide, stun, whatever, without marking, not a Defender. At least, that's what I would say the core difference is. PS: melee controller, dogs 4 lyfe.


Thrown weapons have pretty terrible support too.
But there's a whole class about that, the Seeke-oh, yeah.


That could work. Perhaps you'd end up with a character with melee and close burst attacks that focus on conditions rather than damage, and that instead of mark/retaliate mechanics has some riposte ability that gives enemies an incentive to not attack him. I'm willing to bet you can already kind of do this with existing classes, but no class has this as its primary shtick yet.
That was almost exactly what I was thinking to have the Bladesinger come into its own.
You know, I wonder if the Bladesinger could be related to the Bard somehow (in terms of mechanics)



Okay, we have Eldritch Strike, but how about Eldritch Arrow? One potential homebrew in the make?

How would that be meaningfully different from Eldritch Blast, though? Greater range?

[vasharanpaladin]

Marking is what distinguishes Defenders, not hitting people in melee. If you slide, stun, whatever, without marking, not a Defender. At least, that's what I would say the core difference is. PS: melee controller, dogs 4 lyfe.

No, the core difference is that, looking at the ones Wootsie's labeled directly as "Controller," they're all traditionally bathrobe-wearing monkeys waving magic sticks that don't want to be anywhere near the enemy. Or, y'know, an archer, but we've already decided to ignore that one.

See, here's the thing: Control is about denying your target something. Action denial is "hard" control, penalty to rolls or movement is "soft" control. Any power that stuns, dazes, dominates or otherwise flatly says "no, you can't do that" is hard control. A power that penalizes attacks or otherwise makes them a poor option, but still an option is soft control. Now, the problem I've seen with a lot of homebrew is that the homebrewer makes the same mistake WotC did early on, that "control equals AoE." Which is the more obvious bit carried away from the various spells, prayers, disciplines and evocations used by our Controllers, they're mostly bursts, blasts and in a few cases, "splashes" that only need a single target to be hit but affect everything around him.

So, with that out of the way, I'll clear up some misconceptions: AoE does not mean control. Range does not mean control. Status lock is not the only form of control. A druid focused around staying in wild shape isn't very good at control, and trying to play her like a Controller will only end in tears. Said druid's "control" amounts to picking a target and physically sitting on his head... in other words, what a Defender will tend to do. Meanwhile, with the release of Divine Power Charisma-focused paladins gained Divine Sanction and the ability to mass-mark enemies easily... soft control in large bursts, usually the realm of a traditional Controller.

They're two sides of the same coin, no amount of arguing is going to change it. But the thing is, our druid-in-melee still has the health and defenses of a(n albeit rather tough) Controller, while the paladin, using Defender soft control, can't force a hard shutdown on the enemies he's pinning. Further, even if you got around that, you're still left with a "melee Controller" that can only "control" what it can touch, and anything in that reach can just as easily shut him down harder. If you make a monster unable to move, you'd better be able to deal with being its only available target.

Tegu's "skirmisher" falls headlong into this trap, and worse, it only applies soft control, the same trap that the seeker falls into. Nevermind that it's also senseless grid-filling, that's a separate problem. I'm telling you this because it helps you avoid traps. A "melee Controller" is a Defender. Think about the difference in stats there. If you're going to insist on doing it, start from the Defender, not the Controller. That's a good soft control base, hard control comes from powers.

[Tegu8788]

I actually agree with both of you, that a Controller isn't just burst guy (Sorcerer, Monk), and that a Defender is the Marking guy with high defenses/HP that wants to draw attention.

To me, a melee controller would be a guy inflicting lots of conditions, in melee obviously, that doesn't want to draw attention to himself.

I agree that the Rogue would have been a good class to make a Melee Controller.

Vasharan, looking back with some time, I can definitely see that my Skirmisher has weak control with most of the weapons, but I've built in a number of ways to avoid being stuck next to the guy you just pissed off. Because otherwise, yeah that's bad. A Dex primary helps, but it could be really bad, I didn't think about that.

You also mention "senseless grid-filling." Can you elaborate? I'm honestly asking for more of the brutal feedback you gave earlier, because it's the most useful. What specifically do you see that's wrong with it? I may have to go back and pull the weapon swapper and melee controller apart, building them as too different classes.

[squiggit]

but no multiattack powers.
Well there is Thunder and Echo and Living Death Strike, but arguing they're doubletaps are pretty sketchy (especially for the second one). Not like the avenger would be broken if they were though given they're low level dailies.

Ranged Rogues? Underwhelming?

Underwhelming was probably the wrong word, but they can't hold up against rangers or melee rogues, especially when a dagger rogue can take the ranged powers too.

Two fisted shooters are pretty badass though, my last rogue was one.



What gaps remain to be filled?

Oddly enough, none of the ranged strikers actually want to be at range in the first place (thanks to prime shot for warlocks and rangers, curse for warlocks and flame spiral/lightning daggers for sorcerers). So you could argue that could be expanded upon.


To me, a melee controller would be a guy inflicting lots of conditions, in melee obviously, that doesn't want to draw attention to himself.

There is a point there though. Think about what a defender likes doing: Doling out penalties to hit, denying actions and sliding enemies around the battlefield, which is all stuff a wizard or invoker wants to do too. The fighter trades blasting and has less hard control but in turn is tankier, strike-ier and has tons of soft control and catch-22s to play with.

[vasharanpaladin]

To me, a melee controller would be a guy inflicting lots of conditions, in melee obviously, that doesn't want to draw attention to himself.

Note that "doesn't want to draw attention to himself" is the metric CharOp looks for when rating a Striker for mobility.



You also mention "senseless grid-filling." Can you elaborate? I'm honestly asking for more of the brutal feedback you gave earlier, because it's the most useful. What specifically do you see that's wrong with it?

Basically, we're throwing around ideas like "melee Controller" and "Martial Controller" or the like for the sake of having them present, as opposed to well-thought-out ideas and suitable archetypes. It's all well and good to say, "oh, such and such old military unit used to fight this way, maybe we can make a Martial Controller based on that?" but thus far every time I've seen "Martial Controller" come up in homebrew it's always been justified with "because WotC didn't make one."

The same applies to "melee [weapon] Controller," because having run both I can honestly say that Seekers don't work as weapon Controllers (they're more like really poor Strikers) and Druids don't work as melee Controllers (see above rant regarding sitting on a target's head, it's a Defender tactic). If you're going to combine the two, it helps to understand why these two fail (Seeker relies too much on "splash" effects and doesn't get any hard control, Druid can deliver hard control to a furball but can't get back out easily, but that's just what I got skimming the handbooks a couple years ago).



Oddly enough, none of the ranged strikers actually want to be at range in the first place (thanks to prime shot for warlocks and rangers, curse for warlocks and flame spiral/lightning daggers for sorcerers). So you could argue that could be expanded upon.


Prime Shot was likely meant to discourage focus fire in favor of the fantasy medium's more traditional "pick a target and go." Personally, I'd more like to see a proper sniper (one shot, one kill) that's a viable tactic compared to Moar Dakka. :smallyuk:

[Nightgaun7]

Prime Shot was likely meant to discourage focus fire in favor of the fantasy medium's more traditional "pick a target and go." Personally, I'd more like to see a proper sniper (one shot, one kill) that's a viable tactic compared to Moar Dakka. :smallyuk:



"Mega hits" are ill-advised unless you drastically change how static bonuses are applied. Multiattacks are the end-all because each attack carries the full (or a vast majority of) amount of the static bonus. In a nutshell, this is why the [w] doesn't matter; what matters is how often you hit, how often you attack, and what you're adding to the damage roll.

Huh, that's weird. Guess we'll just have to work on it together :smallwink:

EDIT:


Basically, we're throwing around ideas like "melee Controller" and "Martial Controller" or the like for the sake of having them present, as opposed to well-thought-out ideas and suitable archetypes. It's all well and good to say, "oh, such and such old military unit used to fight this way, maybe we can make a Martial Controller based on that?" but thus far every time I've seen "Martial Controller" come up in homebrew it's always been justified with "because WotC didn't make one."



This is sort of what I was trying to get at earlier when I was talking about stats vs play style. It's more important to me that a class have a strong theme and be fun to play than worrying about having a STR/INT Defender or something.

[Tegu8788]

Oddly enough, none of the ranged strikers actually want to be at range in the first place (thanks to prime shot for warlocks and rangers, curse for warlocks and flame spiral/lightning daggers for sorcerers). So you could argue that could be expanded upon.

That is a very interesting point. I suspect it's so that ranged characters don't hang out at the edge of their range, sniping from relative immunity.


There is a point there though. Think about what a defender likes doing: Doling out penalties to hit, denying actions and sliding enemies around the battlefield, which is all stuff a wizard or invoker wants to do too. The fighter trades blasting and has less hard control but in turn is tankier, strike-ier and has tons of soft control and catch-22s to play with.

The other way to look at this, is what would make a Ranged Defender. We figure out exactly splits a Controller from a Ranged Defender, and then we can figure out what makes a Melee Controller different from a Defender.

I'm also a dog person, so there.

[vasharanpaladin]

Ranged Defender.

Kite. Less health, less armor, traded for the focus on ranged weaponry. Mark response and powers should "encourage" the target to come after you, while you run willy-nilly around the battle map.

[Tegu8788]

I'm in the very early stages of an Arcane Archer, a Martial/Arcane Defender that's Bow focused. Not sure between Dex or Int as primary, both are very appropriate, but redundant. A kiting focus, that's interesting. A bonus to AC for moving, ala Shadow Walk, and punishment if not attacked. I'm debating between a Fighter like second shot, or a Paladin's instant burn using arcane tricks.

[Nightgaun7]

I'm in the very early stages of an Arcane Archer, a Martial/Arcane Defender that's Bow focused. Not sure between Dex or Int as primary, both are very appropriate, but redundant. A kiting focus, that's interesting. A bonus to AC for moving, ala Shadow Walk, and punishment if not attacked. I'm debating between a Fighter like second shot, or a Paladin's instant burn using arcane tricks.

How about DEX/INT and CHA, make him more like a sorcerer than a wizard in terms of magical use? I would lean more towards the Paladin style.

Check out Green Arrow or Hawkeye for weird arrow ideas - Boxing Glove Arrow is go! :smalltongue:

[squiggit]

That is a very interesting point. I suspect it's so that ranged characters don't hang out at the edge of their range, sniping from relative immunity.

Maybe. Honestly the most common complaint I hear about ranged characters playing at ranged though is them not 'Sharing" damage with the party so their healing surges don't end up getting used (for groups that don't have comrade's succor I guess).


I'm in the very early stages of an Arcane Archer, a Martial/Arcane Defender that's Bow focused.
Amusingly I've been working on the same thing, albeit as an int based arcane striker.


Basically, we're throwing around ideas like "melee Controller" and "Martial Controller" or the like for the sake of having them present, as opposed to well-thought-out ideas and suitable archetypes. It's all well and good to say, "oh, such and such old military unit used to fight this way, maybe we can make a Martial Controller based on that?" but thus far every time I've seen "Martial Controller" come up in homebrew it's always been justified with "because WotC didn't make one."
Like I said, I kinda liked the idea of a rogue as a controller. We already had hints of that, a lot of their powers apply debuffs or screw with enemies in some way. Would have been cool for them to go all-in with it and focus on the rogue's dirty tactics debuffing shenanigans.

So maybe I'll make a Rogue subclass that turns it into a controller. Only not terrible like the Binder or Hunter.


The same applies to "melee [weapon] Controller," because having run both I can honestly say that Seekers don't work as weapon Controllers (they're more like really poor Strikers)
The seeker problem is less them using weapons and more them having godawful powers though. As a capstone Invokers get a mass dominate and Seekers get... A single target stun with an area -2 to hit attached to it.

Though with the striker comment I admit that more than a couple of my strikers wouldn't mind having trampling shot in their list.

[vasharanpaladin]

I'm in the very early stages of an Arcane Archer, a Martial/Arcane Defender that's Bow focused. Not sure between Dex or Int as primary, both are very appropriate, but redundant. A kiting focus, that's interesting. A bonus to AC for moving, ala Shadow Walk, and punishment if not attacked. I'm debating between a Fighter like second shot, or a Paladin's instant burn using arcane tricks.

I would say Cha-primary, Int- or Dex-secondary. (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/3074781) But then, I'm also rather fond of the warlock, so...

EDIT: WOW the forum switch wasn't kind to this one... :smalleek:

[Tegu8788]

No it was not. I have this image in my head, of a guy firing wands from a bow. He enchants his arrows, for punishment he can trigger the effect again. I've been going back and forth between Ranger and Wizard as a base class.

[shamgar001]

Alternatively, go with Dex or Str as secondaries, to go along with either bows/crossbows or thrown weapons. Since this is going to overlap with the Seeker in some ways.

[Nightgaun7]

While Tengu tinkers, what would you say is the role of the Avenger? What sets it apart from other strikers?

[Inevitability]

How would that be meaningfully different from Eldritch Blast, though? Greater range?

I imagine it as a weapon attack that deals only 1[W] damage (no stat mod), but has a nice control effect. What would be approciate, you think?

[p.d0t]

Not officially, though at this point, what can't the Wizard do?
For that matter, Druids. There's A Druid Build/Subclass For That.



Okay, we have Eldritch Strike, but how about Eldritch Arrow? One potential homebrew in the make?

We need Helm of Horned Arrows and Vanguard Bows. Again, melee is far better supported than ranged weapons. But of course spellcasters get their share of support.

The further you get into 4e's progression (specifically Essentials) you'll notice that ranged characters stop being strikers and range becomes strictly the purview of controllers.

[Kurald Galain]

This is sort of what I was trying to get at earlier when I was talking about stats vs play style. It's more important to me that a class have a strong theme and be fun to play than worrying about having a STR/INT Defender or something.
Yes. A new class should have a narrative niche, not just the mechanical niche of some power source/role/stat combo that happens not to exist yet. There are already some WOTC classes that fall into that trap.


That is a very interesting point. I suspect it's so that ranged characters don't hang out at the edge of their range, sniping from relative immunity.
The thing is that kiting is (a) highly effective and (b) rather boring for the players. This goes both ways; you can utterly destroy most printed modules with a team of four underleveled archer rangers, and on the other hand you can destroy most groups of PCs by having a team of archer enemies kite them to death. Neither situation is interesting, so it's good that the rules discourage using these.



See, here's the thing: Control is about denying your target something. Action denial is "hard" control, penalty to rolls or movement is "soft" control.
Yes, but in order to be efficient, control needs to be multi-target. Spending your own attack to give an enemy -2 to his attack is clearly not a good tradeoff. Spending your attack to give four enemies a penalty is a much better deal. So in practice, control is very much about area effects.

Aside from that, WOTC has decided that the controller role also includes (1) wall/zone spells; (2) large amounts of forced movement; (3) summons; and (4) dealing a low-ish amount of damage to the entire battlefield. Of those, the first two are pretty much about denying the enemy options; the latter two aren't really.

[Inevitability]

The two-fisted shooter comment got me thinking. Cool Factor notwithstanding, there's zero reason to dual-wield ranged weapons.

How about a class that wields two hand crossbows, slings, or shuriken? What role would it have? Maybe the often requested martial controller?

I may be going to work on it this weekend, but I'd love to hear your opinions on it.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, the thing is that wielding a single ranged weapon in 4E is already enough to attack any number of targets (e.g. with twin strike or cloud of steel), so wielding two of them doesn't do anything. I'm frankly not sure how you'd build a class on that.

[Tegu8788]

Perhaps a variant of the executioner, using bolos to trap people, daggers to weaken on inflict a penalty, maybe using two fisted shooting for minion clearing. Arrow in knee needs to be a thing.

[Inevitability]

Well, the thing is that wielding a single ranged weapon in 4E is already enough to attack any number of targets (e.g. with twin strike or cloud of steel), so wielding two of them doesn't do anything. I'm frankly not sure how you'd build a class on that.

I know, but wielding two melee weapons normally doesn't give you anything either. But if you are a ranger with twin strike, a barbarian with whirling frenzy, a fighter with dual strike, or even an executioner with two-weapon defense, you are, in fact, getting something from wielding two weapons. If those classes didn't exist, reasons to wield two weapons would be zero. In the same way, the class I'm thinking of will make fighting with two ranged weapons a viable tactic.

[Mando Knight]

The other way to look at this, is what would make a Ranged Defender. We figure out exactly splits a Controller from a Ranged Defender, and then we can figure out what makes a Melee Controller different from a Defender.

I'm also a dog person, so there.

Here's my opinion: Defenders are separated from Controllers by the "direction" of their control, and I'd like to mark for the record that I think Leaders are also extremely similar for this.

Defenders "control" by directing the enemy towards themselves. Controller-y Defender abilities generally spread this out among a large number of targets and/or induce hard control on secondary targets (Paladins, in this manner, can be very Control-heavy, particularly with Divine Sanction, and Champion of Order's Certain Justice is one of the strongest sources of hard control outside a Wizard). Leader-y Defender abilities generally can mitigate damage that gets through (Aegis of Shielding, Divine Mettle, the Hospitaler PP) and/or incentivize focus fire on the marked target. Striker-y Defenders (such as the PHB/"Weapon Master" Fighter) eat the enemy alive for ignoring them, or simply pose too much of a threat to not focus fire on. However, in all of this, the Defender's job is to be the one that the bad guys want to attack, and possibly the only one they can attack. Thanks to the issues with ranged attacks in melee, this is why WotC didn't make a purely ranged Defender (though Swordmage and Paladin both got powers that can let them run as "part-time" Ranged Defenders).

Controllers control by directing the enemy anywhere else. They shape the battlefield by making it difficult for the enemy to make successful attacks. They usually only punish enemy success in self-defense, and the most Defender-y Controller builds (such as a Wild Shape Guardian Druid) are off-tanks at best due to lacking effects that direct the enemies toward themselves (a lot of the Beast Form powers hinder enemy movement, but don't hinder the enemy from attacking your flanking buddy more than you), and because they focus more on Control than Defense, they have less ability to mitigate incoming damage. Leader-y Controller abilities are generally "soft control," usually forcing some manner of Combat Advantage.

Leaders sometimes have control effects that are similar to both Controllers and Defenders, but generally hinder the enemy by improving their allies rather than helping their allies by hindering their enemies. A Healing Word after the enemies deal about a surge's worth of damage is only slightly worse than a one-turn daze or stun, a +2 to attack is about as good as forcing Combat Advantage, and moving your allies is about the same as sliding your enemies. +2 to defenses is more-or-less the same as -2 to the enemy attack.

[p.d0t]

Yes. A new class should have a narrative niche, not just the mechanical niche of some power source/role/stat combo that happens not to exist yet. There are already some WOTC classes that fall into that trap.

In terms of stat combos, those are more important insofar as they dictate which skills you can potentially be the best at (although class skill lists are arguably a bigger part)

A pet peeve of mine is that Slayers get exactly 0 DEX-based class sills, as a DEX-secondary class. Berserkers are in the same boat, except technically their secondary can be INT. Which leads into my other pet peeve that there are tons of STR/WIS and STR/CON races in 4e, but STR is rarely combo'd with anything else, shafting the two aforementioned classes, plus "balanced" PHB paladins, cavaliers, blackguards, and warlords.

[shamgar001]

In terms of stat combos, those are more important insofar as they dictate which skills you can potentially be the best at (although class skill lists are arguably a bigger part)

Also feats (which often affects which weapons a class can be strong in) and what races have synergy with the class.

[vasharanpaladin]

Also feats (which often affects which weapons a class can be strong in) and what races have synergy with the class.

Narrative niche takes priority over everything else. Stat combo, power source and role after that. Example: Were it not already a warlock kit, the Hexblade (especially as presented in 3.5, possibly eating the Duskblade for good measure) would make an excellent Cha-primary Shadow Defender, with heavy Controller undertones. The Hexblade's curse fouls up his enemies' blades, snares their attention at the worst possible time, a dark geas that forces all eyes to light upon himself. This same power allows him to impress his will upon the world, channeling shadow magic through his weapon much the same as a paladin uses divine power.

For secondaries, what archetypes are best represented... the brutal, vitriolic sting of vengeance (Strength)? Frigid, sneering scorn (Intelligence)? Focused, seething dark hate (Constitution)? When I tried my hand at it a couple years ago, I had in my mind, for the two basic builds, a heavily armored brute wielding a massive weapon (Cha/Str, very much an anti-paladin), versus a more mobile, lightly-armored skirmisher wielding sword and shield (Cha/Int, based on the Hexblade of 3.5). The former would want to get up close, to personally savage anyone who fell under his curse, while the latter would be similar to an anti-avenger, cursing an enemy and then kiting him, baiting his enemies and punishing them regardless of who they attack.

That said, my attention span was... not worth writing home about, so it never really got off the ground beyond that. :smallredface:

[Mando Knight]

Also, as to the question of what a Melee Controller would look like, to me it should be like the Arkham series Batman (and Bat-Family), particularly Arkham City. His combat style is extremely fluid, full of counter punches, redirects, and disables designed to avoid getting hit.

[Inevitability]

Hm... How about a class that has controller-level HP, defenses and combat ability, yet goes into melee to redirect attacks, debuff enemies, and generally be annoying?

This thread is giving me so much ideas to homebrew.

[vasharanpaladin]

controller-level HP, defenses and combat ability

So far, describes any Controller...



yet goes into melee

Pred druid, specifically...



to redirect attacks

Soft control, anyone can do this. Usually the Defender.



debuff enemies

Soft control. Everyone does this.



and generally be annoying?


...Any Controller, Defender or a warlock.

[squiggit]

Hm... How about a class that has controller-level HP, defenses and combat ability, yet goes into melee to redirect attacks, debuff enemies, and generally be annoying?

This thread is giving me so much ideas to homebrew.

I still think Rogue describes this as good as anything else (or a melee lock).

[Tegu8788]

Anything that dabbles makes for a good fifth member. Rogue (Striker/Controller), Warlock (Striker/Controller), Paladin (Defender/Leader), Bard (Leader/Controller), Druid (Controller/Striker). Basically, whatever isn't important enough to be a full "role" but is still useful. Often, it's filling in a missing set of skills.

[Dimers]

Anything that dabbles makes for a good fifth member. Rogue (Striker/Controller), Warlock (Striker/Controller), Paladin (Defender/Leader), Bard (Leader/Controller), Druid (Controller/Striker). Basically, whatever isn't important enough to be a full "role" but is still useful. Often, it's filling in a missing set of skills.

When I saw Paladin in that list, it reminded me -- I don't like two defenders in most parties, because they have the potential to get in each other's way. So there's one unfilled niche: a Defender that doesn't require either a mark or a defender aura to operate, so that they can work effectively with another Defender.

[georgie_leech]

When I saw Paladin in that list, it reminded me -- I don't like two defenders in most parties, because they have the potential to get in each other's way. So there's one unfilled niche: a Defender that doesn't require either a mark or a defender aura to operate, so that they can work effectively with another Defender.

What about the Battlemind? The other Defender can use marks and whatnot as it will, while the Battlemind uses Lightning Rush to guard against someone that snuck by, as well as forcing the enemy to take the other Defender's Mark punishment. The only thing better than a Catch-22 is a Catch-22 where you get to change their answer if you don't like it.

[Dimers]

What about the Battlemind? The other Defender can use marks and whatnot as it will, while the Battlemind uses Lightning Rush ...

:smallwink: Okay, you got me there. I was only thinking in terms of class features. (And no, "ability to take Lightning Rush at 7th level" is not a battlemind class feature :smalltongue:) But just think, if there were a defender made to do that kind of thing as their base ability, with emphasis on melee debuffs as standard-action attacks, and no reliance on mark or defender aura ... that's a thing I'd like to see.

[GPuzzle]

(And no, "ability to take Lightning Rush at 7th level" is not a battlemind class feature :smalltongue:)

Especially because some take Forceful Reversal instead.

[Nightgaun7]

:smallwink: Okay, you got me there. I was only thinking in terms of class features. (And no, "ability to take Lightning Rush at 7th level" is not a battlemind class feature :smalltongue:) But just think, if there were a defender made to do that kind of thing as their base ability, with emphasis on melee debuffs as standard-action attacks, and no reliance on mark or defender aura ... that's a thing I'd like to see.

I thought marks and auras could interact without issue...

[vasharanpaladin]

I thought marks and auras could interact without issue...

Nope, Defender Aura specifically excepts marked creatures from its effect. Errata hurts, sometimes.

[p.d0t]

When I saw Paladin in that list, it reminded me -- I don't like two defenders in most parties, because they have the potential to get in each other's way. So there's one unfilled niche: a Defender that doesn't require either a mark or a defender aura to operate, so that they can work effectively with another Defender.

I posted an idea like this in the 4e Homebrew thread, for Blackguards. Basically you "hunter's quarry" an enemy; you deal more damage to them but you grant them combat advantage. It's sort of an inverse-mark.

[Surrealistik]

:smallwink: Okay, you got me there. I was only thinking in terms of class features. (And no, "ability to take Lightning Rush at 7th level" is not a battlemind class feature :smalltongue:) But just think, if there were a defender made to do that kind of thing as their base ability, with emphasis on melee debuffs as standard-action attacks, and no reliance on mark or defender aura ... that's a thing I'd like to see.

Yes it is, just like 'ability to spam Twin Strike' is a Ranger class feature. :smalltongue:

[GPuzzle]

Forceful Reversal, guys.

[vasharanpaladin]

Forceful Reversal, guys.

DM either respects your mark (and the frankly laughably impotent mind spike) or he doesn't. Take forceful reversal in the one case, lightning rush in the other. They're both rated gold, meaning there is effectively no other a7 power for battleminds.

[GPuzzle]

Yeah, and if you're a Half-Elf, I'd take both. You respect my mark, I smack you. You don't respect my mark, I double-smack you. You shift away, I teleport to you. You try to get away, I smack you. Then choose a good power like Intellect Snap or Brutal Barrage and you're set.

Or you can be a Battlemind|Paladin/Champion of the Order and punish him for attacking an ally and attacking you!

[vasharanpaladin]

Yeah, and if you're a Half-Elf, I'd take both.

Wrong, on two counts. One: Dilettante takes a level 1 at-will from outside your class. Two: Dilettante takes a level 1 at-will from outside your class.

[GPuzzle]

You're already picking up Eldritch Strike as a Battlemind - might as well take Battering Shield and Bludgeon Expertise. You're probably multiclassing Fighter anyway - so why wouldn't you pick Hindering Shield then to make one of your bread-and-butter attacks that much more deadly? Pick up World Serpent's Grasp and it's suddenly a good idea to take both Lightning Rush and Forceful Reversal because you'll be sliding, slowing and proning enemies so much it's not going to be funny.