4e roles/power sources in 3.5

[zakkain]

So 4e brought the idea of having a class filling each role (leader, controller, striker, defender) coming from each power source (martial, divine, arcane, primal, etc).

So how does this idea play out in 3.5? What's the closest thing to a Martial controller in 3.5? The Knight? The Pathfinder Cavalier? They're more defender than anything else, so does a martial controller exist in 3.5?

What about Martial Leader (I found the 3.5 Warlord on these forums very exciting, what else is out there)?

I'm going to be running an E6 low-magic game without any spellcasters (except for the Adept with an edited spell list), and I need more classes for my players to choose from besides Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Warlock, and the aforementioned Adept.

[Faleldir]

If you allow the Warlock, what are your thoughts about Incarnum?

[Eldariel]

Crusader is a fine martial controller, and Setting Sun Swordsage can make for a very unconventional, but efficient controller. Warblade could work too.

Knight is a distant second, and Fighter and Barbarian can both be built in a way that works towards martial control (the archetype "Chain-Tripper" tends to be an archetypal martial controller, taking an area and punishing any actions in it).

[zakkain]

If you allow the Warlock, what are your thoughts about Incarnum?

Incarnum is completely bewildering to me, I really don't understand it.

As for ToB classes...would they not be a little overpowered in a low-magic/power game where there's no full casters? Would a simple house-rule of maneuvers per-day instead of per-encounter bring them more in line with the other classes? Or is that highly unnecessary...

[Eldariel]

Incarnum is completely bewildering to me, I really don't understand it.

As for ToB classes...would they not be a little overpowered in a low-magic/power game where there's no full casters? Would a simple house-rule of maneuvers per-day instead of per-encounter bring them more in line with the other classes? Or is that highly unnecessary...

I find they co-exist just fine. Everyone can have some ToB-levels or not, all the bonus-feats give everyone decent maneuver access if desired anyways and it gives people something more interesting to do.

I'm playing a low-magic game now and our Dynamic Duo of Rogue+Sublime Way Ranger has functioned just fine without any over/underpowering on either side. ToB tends to be more versatile rather than more powerful. Well, for certain definition of powerful, anyways.

[Caphi]

Maneuver limits are balanced to be reloaded in an amount of time that is negligible in the long run but significant in a time crunch. More important is that the maneuver effects themselves are designed with a fair amount of availability in mind. Sudden leap would be really good at will, is fairly useful as it is, and would be absolutely unusable once per day.

As a side note, what would you do with the adepts' various existing recharge mechanics?

[Boci]

As for ToB classes...would they not be a little overpowered in a low-magic/power game where there's no full casters? Would a simple house-rule of maneuvers per-day instead of per-encounter bring them more in line with the other classes? Or is that highly unnecessary...

The bigger problem is that ToB have a decent level of base optimization inherant of the class itself, so inexpirienced players may find them OP, but it doesn't take long to learn how to select a fighters feats in a way that makes him mechanically equal to a warblade.

IMO, the most fitting would be:
Martial

Controller: Lockdown Fighter X / Crusader 2
Defender: Crusader
Striker: Most martial classes can be built to deal alot of damage.
Leader: White Raven Warblade or Crusader

Arcane:

Controller: Battlefield control wizard
Defender: Buffing wizard (necropolitant helps)
Striker: Orb focused sorceror
Leader: Buffing wizard

Divine:
Guess

[Caphi]

The bigger problem is that ToB have a decent level of base optimization inherant of the class itself, so inexpirienced players may find them OP, but it doesn't take long to learn how to select a fighters feats in a way that makes him mechanically equal to a warblade.

Ten feats might be able to make up for more skill points, getting actual mileage out of intelligence, and IH/DM/WR maneuvers, but not when they all have to be fighter feats.

[Eldariel]

The bigger problem is that ToB have a decent level of base optimization inherant of the class itself, so inexpirienced players may find them OP, but it doesn't take long to learn how to select a fighters feats in a way that makes him mechanically equal to a warblade.

IMO, the most fitting would be:
Martial

Controller: Lockdown Fighter X / Crusader 2
Defender: Crusader
Striker: Most martial classes can be built to deal alot of damage.
Leader: White Raven Warblade or Crusader

Arcane:

Controller: Battlefield control wizard
Defender: Buffing wizard (necropolitant helps)
Striker: Orb focused sorceror
Leader: Buffing wizard

Divine:
Guess

This is really the biggest problem with this thread; as 3e doesn't separate classes by type, many classes can be built to cover almost any of them, and can even cover multiple at the same time. All martial classes can play striker, and basically all can play controller. Defender is mostly limited to Crusader and perhaps Knight, while Leader is the White Raven-classes+Marshal line.

And most spellcasters can do whatever they want. Which...really is one of the big balance issues in the game to begin with. But yeah, any role goes for a caster. So...meh.

[Boci]

Ten feats might be able to make up for more skill points, getting actual mileage out of intelligence, and IH/DM/WR maneuvers, but not when they all have to be fighter feats.

Fair point. Mechanically equal was a poor choice of words, more like "Able to be in the same party and not look too weak".

[zakkain]

I'm starting to get the idea. At the end of the day nobody will want to play Fighter with Warblade around. Which is how it is regardless of magic level or setting, so whatevs.

[Boci]

I'm starting to get the idea. At the end of the day nobody will want to play Fighter with Warblade around. Which is how it is regardless of magic level or setting, so whatevs.

For a lot of people yes, mainly because it is so much easier to play a warblade.

Sure, I could play a fighter instead of a warblade. That will require leafing through all the books I have access to hunting for good feats, since that is all I get, plus I will have few skills points and class skills.

Or I could play a warblade, have more skill points and class skills to work with, and not require nearly as much planning and source books to be competant, and I will have better mechanics for producing flavour.

Pretty much battlefield control is the only reason I would choose fighter over warblade, because that route is so feat intesive. I even then I would dip into crusader.

[Eldariel]

For a lot of people yes, mainly because it is so much easier to play a warblade.

Sure, I could play a fighter instead of a warblade. That will require leafing through all the books I have access to hunting for good feats, since that is all I get, plus I will have few skills points and class skills.

Or I could play a warblade, have more skill points and class skills to work with, and not require nearly as much planning and source books to be competant, and I will have better mechanics for producing flavour.

Pretty much battlefield control is the only reason I would choose fighter over warblade, because that route is so feat intesive. I even then I would dip into crusader.

The reasons I'd consider Fighter are:
1) Dungeoncrasher
2) Intimidation
3) Lost dare/drinking game/something of the sort