Martial Power 2?

[Asbestos]

So, over at WotC they have their little Editorial Calendar with a playtest for Martial Power 2 coming out on Monday the 23rd.

So, assuming that only classes come out in PHBs, what the heck can we speculate will be in MP2?

[Archpaladin Zousha]

More powers, paragon paths and epic destinies for fighters, rangers, rogues and warlords, one would assume.

[Thajocoth]

More powers, paragon paths and epic destinies for fighters, rangers, rogues and warlords, one would assume.

And feats...

And, just maybe... A Martial Controller. As it stands, Martial Controller is the only power source + party role combo that doesn't exist.

[Izmir Stinger]

So, assuming that only classes come out in PHBs, what the heck can we speculate will be in MP2?

Books other than the Players handbooks will have classes. Monk is going to be in Martial Power 2. They are introducing a new power source (Ki) which implies several new classes (ninja, anybody?). We also know that the Artifacer will be in Arcane Power.

[Hzurr]

Books other than the Players handbooks will have classes. Monk is going to be in Martial Power 2. They are introducing a new power source (Ki) which implies several new classes (ninja, anybody?). We also know that the Artifacer will be in Arcane Power.

Err...I'm not sure if all of this is correct. It doesn't make any sense that they would introduce a new power source in a book that is specifically for the Martial power source.

They have announced that there will be a monk playtest showing up in...May, I believe, but my understanding was that it would appear in the PHB3 (just like they gave out Barbarian 6+ months before the phb 2).

Also, Artificer in Arcane Power? Again, it was my understanding that the artificer would appear in the Eberron campaign setting stuff (similar to how the swordmage appeared in the FRPG). They released an early playtest of it, so that people in Eberron games could continue.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

And feats...

And, just maybe... A Martial Controller. As it stands, Martial Controller is the only power source + party role combo that doesn't exist.

How the heck would they pull that off? Martial characters get all stabby with their swords and stuff, controllers make things go BOOM!

[hamishspence]

Traps, Reach weapons, Caltrops, Followers ? It is a bit tricky- its not the boominess, but the moving enemies around, creating danger zones, etc, that makes a controller though.

[JackMage666]

How the heck would they pull that off? Martial characters get all stabby with their swords and stuff, controllers make things go BOOM!

I would assume through an Archery or Thrown-weapon based class. The point of the Controller, from my understanding, is crowd control through status effects, and area-of effect type attacks. Arrow volleys and well placed shots could simulate this control from a martial standpoint. Basically, it'd be a Ranger that gives up extra damage for extra effects.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

What would they even call a class like that? The ranger's already the only class where archery is even viable.

[chiasaur11]

Archer?

Hawkeye?

[Izmir Stinger]

Err...I'm not sure if all of this is correct. It doesn't make any sense that they would introduce a new power source in a book that is specifically for the Martial power source.

You are right, I was misremembering.

[Oracle_Hunter]

What would they even call a class like that? The ranger's already the only class where archery is even viable.

How about "Scout"

If I were doing a Martial Controller, I'd probably go with a lightly-armored fellow who has good OA defenses and uses a lot of Burst 1 effects that primarily give status effects.

I'd call him "Skirmisher" or possibly "Shock Trooper."

[Artanis]

And feats...

And, just maybe... A Martial Controller. As it stands, Martial Controller is the only power source + party role combo that doesn't exist.

And I pray to God that it stays that way. There are way way WAY too many controllers. Seriously, there's eighteen known classes, and only four are not primary or secondary controllers. And three of those are in the PHB.

How the heck would they pull that off? Martial characters get all stabby with their swords and stuff, controllers make things go BOOM!

The hallmarks of a Controller are multi-target attacks, debuffs, forced movement, and area denial. A martial controller is kinda hard for even me to imagine, and I have both a seriously overactive imagination and a very strong willingness to say, "meh, you can B.S. the fluff to make the crunch make sense."

What I do imagine, however, would look a lot like a cross between a Fighter and a Barbarian. The Fighter because it would make a lot of sense for different weapons to be linked to different effects. Things like stun powers benefitting from using a hammer, slow powers benefitting from using a light blade, etc. And the Barbarian because...well, have you seen the thing? It seems like pretty much any power that doesn't give them temp HP does some sort of controller-style effect, such as AoE damage, knocking prone, forced movement, and to-hit or AC debuffs.




And I still haven't figured out why they say the Barbarian is a secondary leader. There's the one PP, but other than that, I can find virtually nothing that's even remotely leader-ish.

[hamishspence]

Warlords and Clerics are leaders, and their powers have some of that style.

Or is it that they are secondarily controllers, and their similarities to barbarian come through that?

[Draz74]

And I pray to God that it stays that way. There are way way WAY too many controllers. Seriously, there's eighteen known classes, and only four are not primary or secondary controllers. And three of those are in the PHB.

Well, that's not so ridiculous when you consider the most recent pattern where each class has three of the four "roles" -- one as primary, two as secondary. If you have an issue, it should be with that IMHO.

Besides, you're referring to ... Fighter, Paladin, Warlord, and Barbarian? ... as the only classes without a Controller element? Because I think calling Ranger, Rogue, and Cleric "secondary controllers" is a bit of a stretch. And I don't know much about the Avenger, but what's Controller-ish about it?

[Asbestos]

And I still haven't figured out why they say the Barbarian is a secondary leader. There's the one PP, but other than that, I can find virtually nothing that's even remotely leader-ish.

Spoiler

Show

Thaneborn Triumph: You gain the roar of triumph
power. In addition, whenever you bloody an
enemy, the next attack by you or an ally against that
enemy gains a bonus to the attack roll equal to your
Charisma modifier

Spoiler

Show

Roar of Triumph Barbarian Feature
Your howl of victory shakes your enemies to the core, as they
know your blood thirst is not yet quenched.
Encounter ✦ Fear, Primal
Free Action Close burst 5
Trigger: Your attack reduces an enemy to 0 hit points
Target: Each enemy in burst
Effect: Each target takes a –2 penalty to all defenses until
the end of your next turn.

Those two bits right there make them secondary leaders. I don't think that AC or to-hit debuffs are necessarily controllery. AC debuffs for instance are basically the same as to-hit buffs, its leader territory. Forced movement, status effects, area denial, and the like are controller territory.

[Kurald Galain]

Books other than the Players handbooks will have classes. Monk is going to be in Martial Power 2. They are introducing a new power source (Ki) which implies several new classes (ninja, anybody?). We also know that the Artifacer will be in Arcane Power.

I'm sure all of that is not correct.

Books other than PHBs will have classes, but that refers to Setting books, and the * Power books won't. The Monk appears in the PHB3 or 4, as does the new Ki power source; indeed, it makes no sense to put a Ki class in a Martial book.

Also, the Artificer won't appear in Arcane Power, but in the Eberron player's book. However, there will be some Artificer add-ons in Arcane Power, but certainly not the class itself.

[RebelRogue]

How the heck would they pull that off? Martial characters get all stabby with their swords and stuff, controllers make things go BOOM!

A Monk would make perfect sense as a Controller. Close Blast 1 type flurry of blow stuff would be awesome and debuff Controller stuff (stunning, disarming, tripping) is right up the monk's ally as I see it.

[Artanis]

Warlords and Clerics are leaders, and their powers have some of that style.

Or is it that they are secondarily controllers, and their similarities to barbarian come through that?

Clerics are definitely secondary controllers.

Warlords, on the other hand, aren't secondary controllers, but they have nowhere near the sheer number or magnitude of controller-y stuff that secondary controllers do. Powers with controller-style secondary effects like debuffs, AoE damage, and forced movement are relatively rare.

Look at the level 5 dailies, for example. Warlords get two that are blatantly leader-type powers, and their third option is something that Fighters do on a regular basis. Barbarians, on the other hand, have two that keep them from dying; one ongoing AoE damage "aura"; and one that not just dazes, but ALSO lets them try and knock an enemy prone every turn as a free action. The other levels are varying degrees of the same (L23 Encounter powers are really, really telling).

Well, that's not so ridiculous when you consider the most recent pattern where each class has three of the four "roles" -- one as primary, two as secondary. If you have an issue, it should be with that IMHO.

1) I've only seen that in the PHB2. As far as I can tell, the Swordmage and the PHB classes tend to be one primary and one secondary. Several classes in the PHB2 are that way as well, such as the Bard and Sorcerer.

2) Even if every single class in the PHB2 had 2 secondary role options, that would lead one to expect two non-controllers, not just one. They may have intended to make the Barbarian a non-controller, but they failed pretty miserably if that's the case.


So controllers are, IMO, somewhat overrepresented, even in the PHB2.

Besides, you're referring to ... Fighter, Paladin, Warlord, and Barbarian? ... as the only classes without a Controller element? Because I think calling Ranger, Rogue, and Cleric "secondary controllers" is a bit of a stretch. And I don't know much about the Avenger, but what's Controller-ish about it?

Fighter, Paladin, Warlord, and Shaman. See above regarding the Barbarian.

I don't just look at the powers. What I look for is what percentage of each level's power options do the things that I listed earlier as controller hallmarks. What I see when I do that puts the Cleric squarely in secondary controller territory, with a huge percentage of its choices tending to have controller-y side effects. It also puts Rangers securely in there, since they get a lot of multi-target attacks, and debuffing attacks are hard (or sometimes even impossible) to avoid.

I had thought it had been established that Rogues were "officially" secondary controllers . At any rate, they get a good number of debuffs and forced movement. And if nothing else, they sure as hell aren't secondary defenders or leaders.

The Avenger...well, first off it comes out and says it is, but unlike the Barbarian, it has the powers to back that up. Their dailies don't tend to do much controller stuff, but the encounter powers do, especially when it comes to forced movement.




*yeesh* didn't expect this post to take so long. I'm sure there's more to reply to by the time I finish it, but I'm going to go watch a movie now.

[MammonAzrael]

A Monk would make perfect sense as a Controller. Close Blast 1 type flurry of blow stuff would be awesome and debuff Controller stuff (stunning, disarming, tripping) is right up the monk's ally as I see it.

Except that the Monk is going to be Ki based, not Martial.

But yes, I expect a lot of short-ranged bursts, sliding, tripping, reach weapons, etc as debuffs. Ranged is also a conceivable way to go. They could even be combined if WotC can't come up with enough ideas, and be like a Ranger, offering close and ranged combat options.

[Aron Times]

I'm guessing Martial Power 2 will focus on mounted combat or perhaps weapon specialization.

[RebelRogue]

Except that the Monk is going to be Ki based, not Martial.

Sure. I'm not deying that Which means we'll probably see them no sooner than PHB III. It does sound like a character I'd like to play, though. I just hope they won't make them yet another striker

[Artanis]

Surprise surprise, there was more

Spoiler

Show

Thaneborn Triumph: You gain the roar of triumph
power. In addition, whenever you bloody an
enemy, the next attack by you or an ally against that
enemy gains a bonus to the attack roll equal to your
Charisma modifier

Spoiler

Show

Roar of Triumph Barbarian Feature
Your howl of victory shakes your enemies to the core, as they
know your blood thirst is not yet quenched.
Encounter ✦ Fear, Primal
Free Action Close burst 5
Trigger: Your attack reduces an enemy to 0 hit points
Target: Each enemy in burst
Effect: Each target takes a –2 penalty to all defenses until
the end of your next turn.

Those two bits right there make them secondary leaders. I don't think that AC or to-hit debuffs are necessarily controllery. AC debuffs for instance are basically the same as to-hit buffs, its leader territory. Forced movement, status effects, area denial, and the like are controller territory.

Thaneborn Triumph could easily fit into the Striker, Controller, or Leader categories. So let's call that a wash.

Yes, you can write defense debuffs into strictly-constrained attack buffs, and vice versa. The required strict constraints to get the exact same effect is a factor in and of itself. Even besides that though, if you look at the non-controller leaders (Shaman and Warlord), they give buffs to allies; if you look at secondary controllers like the Warlock, Sorcerer, and Ranger, they give exactly the sort of debuff that Roar of Triumph gives.

So I still don't see any leader-style capabilities.

What's more, even if you do consider the two effects to be leader-ish, I still see no way that the Barbarian can be called a secondary leader anyways. Any other class can at least pretend to fill in its secondary role should a primary go down, but there's no way in hell the Barbarian could do that. And even if you ignore that, there are levels where literally every single available power is blatantly controller-style, but the same cannot be said for leader-style powers.

[Inyssius Tor]

I'm sure all of that is not correct.

Books other than PHBs will have classes, but that refers to Setting books, and the * Power books won't. The Monk appears in the PHB3 or 4, as does the new Ki power source; indeed, it makes no sense to put a Ki class in a Martial book.

Also, the Artificer won't appear in Arcane Power, but in the Eberron player's book. However, there will be some Artificer add-ons in Arcane Power, but certainly not the class itself.

This exchange is hilarious.

According to the catalog, and I believe several previews, the artificer will not be augmented in the first Arcane Power.

[Reverent-One]

This exchange is hilarious.

According to the catalog, and I believe several previews, the artificer will not be augmented in the first Arcane Power.

What?! Noooo!!! *RAGE!*




In all seriousness, that is a shame. I like artificers.

[Inyssius Tor]

Oh, indeed. I can only hope that DDI will be oh-so-bountiful that month (speaking of which, hasn't it been fantastic lately? Playing Shadar-Kai, Secrets of the City Untombed, Art of the Kill, both effing-sweet Alloces articles, Ecology of the Sharn, Deities & Demigods: Bane, Masters of the Planes... the list goes on and on).

[NPCMook]

Martial Power 2 will probably consist of feats/Paragon Paths for the new races, and probably a few new class features, perhaps we will now have the "Archer Fighter" who would make no sense, but apparently some people want them

[TheOOB]

Perhaps we will now have the "Archer Fighter" who would make no sense, but apparently some people want them

Defenders are melee, period. It's in the description of the role. They may have some ranged powers, but they will always be melee characters.

I'd rather see an archer rogue.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I'd rather see an archer rogue.

Martial Powers I made Sniper Rogues extremely doable. Have you looked at it?

[TheOOB]

Martial Powers I made Sniper Rogues extremely doable. Have you looked at it?

I've skimmed over it, only having really read the fighter section all the way through. I don't own that book, my friend does, so I only got a chance to read the section on the character I was playing at the time.

I plan on picking up the book, but college textbooks are slightly more important right now :(