More on 4th Ed Classes

[Person_Man]

From WotC_Miko's Playtest Blog:

Spoiler

Show

I mentioned a playtest report that hadn't gone up yet on D&DI...so here it is. Imagine that you read it before the previous report. It's probably a little stilted since I was trying to be clever...or something...but anyway:

***

(originally written 10/19)

As one of the editors on the Player’s Handbook, I consider it my responsibility to be as hands-on familiar with all of the classes as possible. That means playing each one of them and putting them through their paces. It’s a tough job, I know, but somehow I endure.

Heh.

At the moment I’ve got three games in various stages and will soon be adding a fourth. I has characters! My characters, let me tell you them:

* Zanne, the half-elf rogue for Bill Slavicsek’s Thursday night game. Our group is leveling at a rate of a level per week, so we can put the classes through their paces at all tiers. During last night’s (10/18) 6th-level playtest, Zanne smashed a harpy out of the sky and into a chasm by using a power that knocks the target prone; when the harpy tried to fly out of the pit, the aftereffects of the power knocked her down again and she fell to her death. This made me laugh like a hyena for the rest of the evening, and also made me jot down a note to clarify the effects of "knocking prone" on flying creatures. This is why we playtest. But for one combat, it was glorious.

I’m happy with the rogue. She’s got a nice variety of ranged and melee abilities, some clever ways of gaining combat advantage by herself (and therefore sneak attack), interesting noncombat tricks that tie into skills, and the occasional ability to do truly massive damage in a single round. Just like a striker should.

* Valenae, the elf paladin for Greg Bilsland’s Tuesday night game. We’ll be 2nd level next session, but Greg has hinted that he might also do faster advancement for playtest purposes. I’ve only played her twice so I’m still feeling out the class, but I’ve already noted some nifty synergies between elf abilities and paladin abilities, like the additional movement that lets me get away with heavy armor and not lag behind the rest of the party. (Slower movement is a primary reason that I don’t play dwarves much, although I’m really hoping for an opportunity to try out a dwarf wizard sometime soon. They’re going to work really, really well.) Pulling out a daily power to take out the nasty undead thing? Very satisfying.

I’m happy with the paladin, even on short acquaintance. She’s sufficiently "tanklike" without feeling like an over-armored turtle, and she’s got enough healing ability to keep the party fighting without overshadowing the cleric or warlord. Her divine challenge "come hit me, not the squishy wizard" ability makes her look like the most attractive target for attacks. Just like a defender should.

* Kithri, the halfling warlock for Chris Sims’s "editor’s playtest" on Monday at lunchtime. (Chris used to be an editor, so that’s all right, and we allow new developer Peter Schaefer to play too because we’re friendly that way.) After the happy-go-lucky Zanne and the so-good-my-teeth-ac he Valenae, it was sort of fun to sink into the persona of a scrubby, vicious little thing. I should point out here that no, not all warlocks are malevolent or nasty . . . they draw on dangerous, untamable sources of power, but that doesn’t make them innately evil. In fact, I’d initially planned on playing her as the cheerful, bouncy kind of warlock before I started playing the other two and realized I wanted a change of pace. Anyway, she’s got some very interesting "riders" on her damage powers, things that grant temporary hit points or slide creatures across the battlefield. The warlock just might be the most unpredictable character in the game, since you never quite know what her powers will do. I’ve also been watching Jeff Grubb play a warlock in Bill’s game, and he’s similarly having a lot of fun with it.

I’m happy with the warlock. The class is dark, yes, but there’s room in their concept for other styles of play, and the distinctiveness of their pacts sets each one apart from another. Like the rogue she can do massive damage, with extremely distinctive flair. She’s hard to hit, hard to get ahold of, and has the ability to move away from enemies (or move them away from her) before they reach her. Just like a striker should.

I’ll soon be starting Chris Perkins’s game, where I’m hoping to play an aloof eladrin warlord. But even so, there are too many character concepts and not enough time: the intellectual dwarf wizard, the fierce *mumble* ranger, the anomalous tiefling cleric, the brash human fighter. But I’ve been seeing these (in every combination) being played at each of the gaming tables, and it’s extremely gratifying to see them all fulfilling their design purposes in individual ways. Just like they should.

***

Hey, it was a revelation when I wrote it: the warlock is a striker.

But wait! you say. Reports have warlocks doing controller things!, you say. Right here, live and in print, a first look at an actual sentence out of the 4th Edition Player's Handbook*:

"Some warlocks manage a lot of control."

Sure, my warlock can push opponents around the battlefield as an occasional effect, but she's still "built" to do striker damage on a regular basis.

If a controller uses a power that does a lot of damage to a single target, that doesn't make him a striker. If a defender uses a power to heal an ally, that doesn't make her a leader. Roles aren't straightjackets; they're general guidelines for how a class functions. Specifics are determined by what the class should do. Meanwhile, a controller can affect not only multiple opponents on the battlefield, but the battlefield itself. Fogs and walls? Controller. Reshaping the terrain? Controller.

But you all figured that out already! :)

So, this is what we now know about the current lineup:

Cleric: Divine: Leader
Warlord: Martial: Leader
Fighter: Martial: Defender
Paladin: Divine: Defender
Ranger: Martial and/or Divine: Striker
Rogue: Martial: Striker
Warlock: Arcane: Striker
Wizard: Arcane: Controller

With only one Controller in the current lineup, I'm thinking WotC will add at least one more. I'm guessing the Druid, who will be able to Shapechange (PHBII variant), summon, and have nature based powers. There's also room for an additional Defender (Monk?) and/or Leader (Bard?)

Every class will most likely have Tome of Battle-ish abilities and/or Complete Scoundrel-ish Skill Tricks.

Trip attacks of some sort are still in.

Sneak Attack is in, though its not clear how its triggered, especially since flat footed AC no longer exists.

Elves get a movement related ability at 1st level.

Elves apparently make good Paladins. Now that Elves are essentially Wood Elves and Eladrin are Upper East Side/High Elves, perhaps Elves get a Wis or Cha bonus, and Eladrin get an Int bonus?

Paladins still have Lay on Hands or something similar. And apparently Warlocks can heal as well. I'm guessing pretty much any class will have easy access to healing of some form or another. Good.

The Paladin killed the Knight, took Test of Mettle, and renamed it Divine Challenge. Apparently, Aggro is now Core. Prepare for hundreds of posts about how D&D is becoming too much like WoW.

Warlocks are definitely Strikers.

Within 10 minutes of the 4th Ed PHB being released, someone will post a build on the optimization board about how X class can do X, Y, and Z roles better then the classes that were intended to fulfill those roles. Because apparently WotC isn't taking niche protection/roles very seriously at all, despite all the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller talk.

Discuss.

[Nonah_Me]

Looking forward to playing a cleric. Though I might play pally if I don't like how spellcasting for divine casters works.

*puts on Flame Retardant Suid* Aggro makes sense. Otherwise why have the option to wear heavy armor at all?

[Azerian Kelimon]

NO! Powers are coming back! It HURTS! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


This is seriously bad mojo, though Dalboz of Gurth will probably like this 2ed shift.

[shadowdemon_lord]

Thank god for aggro being core, especially if casters are being toned down to the point where their squishiness is actually a disadvantage. I mean, if it's finally being set in stone that the role of melee combatants is to defend, then aggro makes sense. That would also imply that heavy damage dealing is being shifted away from the defenders and being given to the somewhat squishier strikers. I wonder if the Frenzied Berserker has no place in 4th ed?

[brian c]

It would make sense for a Monk to be a defender, and for Bards to be Leaders; I'm really hoping Monks don't get cut from Core (have there been confirmation one way or another about that? I remember people speculating they might be gone)

Also, I hope that Eladrins having an Int bonus wouldn't pigeonhole them into being the Grey Elves of 4e, who are only ever Wizards. I guess it would require readjustment of the whole ability score system, or of the way it affects spellcasting, but spellcasting has been revamped so it's possible high Int doesn't make you the best wizard evar anymore (or that other classes have Int-keyed abilities).

@Person_Man: why do you say
[quote]Because apparently WotC isn't taking niche protection/roles very seriously at all, despite all the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller talk.[/q]

Anything specific that led you to that conclusion? I'm not arguing that, just curious if you made that based on recent observations or just guessing based on how WotC usually does things

[Azerian Kelimon]

Simple: The Warlock was suppoesed to be a controller, but the playtesting showed it's a better Striker. It's CoDzilla all over again, but less cheesy.

[Reel On, Love]

Simple: The Warlock was suppoesed to be a controller, but the playtesting showed it's a better Striker. It's CoDzilla all over again, but less cheesy.

Ummm, no. The Warlock was supposed to be a Striker. Playtesting showed that... it's a striker with minor control abilities.

[lord_khaine]

i hate the though of agro in d&d, i find it plain stupid that a intelligent opponent wont go for the squishier targets because the living tank is hurling insults at it.

[Artanis]

@Person_Man: why do you say

Because apparently WotC isn't taking niche protection/roles very seriously at all, despite all the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller talk.

Anything specific that led you to that conclusion? I'm not arguing that, just curious if you made that based on recent observations or just guessing based on how WotC usually does things

I'd like to know as well. Being able to do something in another role doesn't necessarily make it the best at doing so, they just have to take extra measures to ensure that they don't outshine the "real" classes of that role*. So there must be some other reason for this assessment.


*For example, there's nothing wrong with letting a Controller do some blasting as long as the actual Strikers are still better at it. The problem is making sure that the actual Strikers are, in fact, still better at it.



Edit:

i hate the though of agro in d&d, i find it plain stupid that a intelligent opponent wont go for the squishier targets because the living tank is hurling insults at it.

Depends on how the "aggro" is described. If it's some schmuck with a sword yelling "HIT ME!" then yeah, suspension of disbelief can be broken. But if it's a holy warrior invoking the power of a deity to force an enemy to target him, no matter how much that enemy wants to target somebody else...well, that makes plenty of sense. So it all comes down to presentation.

[Green Bean]

i hate the though of agro in d&d, i find it plain stupid that a intelligent opponent wont go for the squishier targets because the living tank is hurling insults at it.

Well, at least now they're giving it to the guy who has divine magic. People may have a problem with insults making monsters focus on you, but channelling the light of the gods, making you appear to be the biggest threat is more plausible.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Hey, it was a revelation when I wrote it: the warlock is a striker.

But wait! you say. Reports have warlocks doing controller things!, you say. Right here, live and in print, a first look at an actual sentence out of the 4th Edition Player's Handbook*:

"Some warlocks manage a lot of control."

Sure, my warlock can push opponents around the battlefield as an occasional effect, but she's still "built" to do striker damage on a regular basis.

If a controller uses a power that does a lot of damage to a single target, that doesn't make him a striker. If a defender uses a power to heal an ally, that doesn't make her a leader. Roles aren't straightjackets; they're general guidelines for how a class functions. Specifics are determined by what the class should do. Meanwhile, a controller can affect not only multiple opponents on the battlefield, but the battlefield itself. Fogs and walls? Controller. Reshaping the terrain? Controller.

But you all figured that out already! :)

We had been made believe warlocks would be controllers. Apparently, they changed the idea.

[Morty]

As long as the divine challenge is something supernatural instead of "yo, come and fight me, despite the fact you don't give a damn about honour-bound challenges" I can swallow that. But the concept of "aggro" applying to table-top games eludes me. Also, I hope the paladins, fighters etc. aren't relegated to the role of meatshields protecting squishy damage dealers. What's the point of playing as a warrior if someone else is doing the fighting?

[Starbuck_II]

Simple: The Warlock was suppoesed to be a controller, but the playtesting showed it's a better Striker. It's CoDzilla all over again, but less cheesy.

I read it differently:
Warlocks make great Strikers, but you can play them decently as a controller if need be.

I do wonder how the Rogue knocked a flying creature prone?

[Azerian Kelimon]

It says, Powers. Guess everyone is going to do either Exalted stunts, or have some arcane power.

[Person_Man]

@Person_Man

Because apparently WotC isn't taking niche protection/roles very seriously at all, despite all the Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller talk.

Anything specific that led you to that conclusion? I'm not arguing that, just curious if you made that based on recent observations or just guessing based on how WotC usually does things

Currently, the niches/roles are:

Leader: Heal and buff
Defender: Meat Shield
Striker: Kill Stuff
Controller: Battlefield Control

Now obviously, every class will have some way to deal damage in combat. And everyone should have a variety of Skills and/or abilities to do fun/useful things out of combat. But when you start handing out special abilities that blur who does what, then you destroy niche protection. And when you destroy niche protection, you get the CoDzilla problem. Why play a Fighter, when I can play a Cleric with similar fluff, roleplay it the same way, and be able to do everything the Fighter does but better, and more!

For example, the Warlock apparently has some pretty blatant and useful battlefield control abilities. This blatantly robs from what makes the Wizard an interesting an unique PC to play. In fact, why create a Wizard who uses magic fog to slow down enemies, when I can just be a Warlock and push them away while killing them?

Also, here's my first optimized 4th ed build, which I've thought of before the 4th ed rules even come out:

Paladin X/Warlock Y

Use Divine Challenge to force my enemies to attack me, and then use my Warlock blast ability knock them back. Maybe even combine it with the Rogue ability to knock enemies Prone when I attack. And use the Paladin and Warlock abilities to heal. Ta da! Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader! All in one build. And it will probably be better at any of those roles then a strait Paladin, Warlock, or Rogue could be.

[Fax Celestis]

I do wonder how the Rogue knocked a flying creature prone?

You can do that in 3e already. Prone flyers go into a stall and fall at 150'/round.

[Artanis]

It says, Powers. Guess everyone is going to do either Exalted stunts, or have some arcane power.

I figured it was just a generic name for "stuff the class does". Like Spells, Maneuvers, Skill Tricks, etc. would all be stuff that their appropriate class does, and thus just get called "powers" for the sake of brevity. That doesn't necessarily mean they're all sorta-casters or superhuman.

[Fax Celestis]

I figured it was just a generic name for "stuff the class does". Like Spells, Maneuvers, Skill Tricks, etc. would all be stuff that their appropriate class does, and thus just get called "powers" for the sake of brevity. That doesn't necessarily mean they're all sorta-casters or superhuman.

Yeah. "Powers" is a better word than "Class Features."

[Azerian Kelimon]

I'd compare powers to the superhuman leaps from Tiger claw maneuvers, an extra added oomph for the normal thing.

[Reinboom]

It's nice that they are actually trying different combinations, but I want to see some reports from a group that is intent on optimizing the hell out of their party.
I want to see how well the system works when everyone is bending it.

It's interesting to see phb2 material definitely being tossed in (Knight into Paladin, it seems), but with more reason.

It also seems that they have been playtesting longer than we'd imagine - PHB2, Saga, and all definitely appear to all be playtesting sessions given to us all.

I hope they don't screw it up.

[Artanis]

Currently, the niches/roles are:

Leader: Heal and buff
Defender: Meat Shield
Striker: Kill Stuff
Controller: Battlefield Control

Now obviously, every class will have some way to deal damage in combat. And everyone should have a variety of Skills and/or abilities to do fun/useful things out of combat. But when you start handing out special abilities that blur who does what, then you destroy niche protection. And when you destroy niche protection, you get the CoDzilla problem. Why play a Fighter, when I can play a Cleric with similar fluff, roleplay it the same way, and be able to do everything the Fighter does but better, and more!

For example, the Warlock apparently has some pretty blatant and useful battlefield control abilities. This blatantly robs from what makes the Wizard an interesting an unique PC to play. In fact, why create a Wizard who uses magic fog to slow down enemies, when I can just be a Warlock and push them away while killing them?

Also, here's my first optimized 4th ed build, which I've thought of before the 4th ed rules even come out:

Paladin X/Warlock Y

Use Divine Challenge to force my enemies to attack me, and then use my Warlock blast ability knock them back. Maybe even combine it with the Rogue ability to knock enemies Prone when I attack. And use the Paladin and Warlock abilities to heal. Ta da! Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader! All in one build. And it will probably be better at any of those roles then a strait Paladin, Warlock, or Rogue could be.

You coulda just said "WotC's track record", you know.

[martyboy74]

I find it interesting that when the article is quoting the PHB that there is a asterik. Any ideas or knowledge about this?

[Reel On, Love]

For example, the Warlock apparently has some pretty blatant and useful battlefield control abilities. This blatantly robs from what makes the Wizard an interesting an unique PC to play. In fact, why create a Wizard who uses magic fog to slow down enemies, when I can just be a Warlock and push them away while killing them?

What? Um... because odds are, the wizard is much better at battlefield control? And has a whole variety of control abilities the Warlock doesn't? That's like saying "why would I play a Striker who kills his enemies, when I can play a Defender and defend my allies WHILE killing my enemies."

Also, here's my first optimized 4th ed build, which I've thought of before the 4th ed rules even come out:

Paladin X/Warlock Y

Use Divine Challenge to force my enemies to attack me, and then use my Warlock blast ability knock them back. Maybe even combine it with the Rogue ability to knock enemies Prone when I attack. And use the Paladin and Warlock abilities to heal. Ta da! Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader! All in one build. And it will probably be better at any of those roles then a strait Paladin, Warlock, or Rogue could be.

That sounds great... except that how effective it is depends COMPLETELY on the mechanics of those things. What if you fail the checks to push them back? What if because of your multiclassing, you're worse at all those things than the pure classes? It sounds like a good combination, in theory, but it could be anything from "totally useless" to "totally uber" depending on the mechanics.
Get a grip, man. Your build isn't uber until you know what it actually DOES.

[Artanis]

I find it interesting that when the article is quoting the PHB that there is a asterik. Any ideas or knowledge about this?

The bottom of the original article has:

* (unedited, subject to change without warning, some restrictions may apply)

[OneWinged4ngel]

Dear lord. It looks like they actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. If it's true, I officially hate WotC.

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions (regardless of how intelligent the enemy may actually be or what their personality is like) so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.

This is horrible. In fact, it may be the one thing to drive me away from 4e if it indeed goes further than just one class (and maybe even if it doesn't.)

It breaks suspension of disbelief, overrides roleplay and plot, and is just plain lazy on the designer's part (since, as we already have seen, they don't actually seem to have a very good idea how to make defender's ACTUALLY good at defending without such totally arbitrary things). And on top of all that, "gathering aggro with taunts" can already be done through roleplaying without a class ability WITHOUT infringing heavily on the spirit of the game.

Well, I hope it turns out to be something different than what it sounds like. I really do.

[Reel On, Love]

Dear lord. They actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. I officially hate WotC.

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions (regardless of how intelligent the enemy may actually be or what their personality is like) so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.

This is horrible.

As opposed to... spells that do the exact same thing? Hey, maybe the Paladin's ability is going to be (1) magical, given that it's divine, and (2) mind-affecting. Maybe it'll even have a save. If the Paladin's good enough, he can get the creature to attack him; if he's not--say, if it has a high Will save, i.e. a lot of willpower--it can force itself to do the more intelligent thing.

[RandomLogic]

I have to admit I understand the concept of aggro, but it makes sense for a computer game where a computer is behind the scenes. But for a pen and paper game where your (hopefully intelligent) DM is behind the scenes, I don't think it makes sense.

I could see it being a way for newer players/DM's to be able to decide who to attack compared to randomly going, goblin 1 attacks.... YOU, goblin 2.... attacks Steve! etc etc. But in that case I wouldn't imagine they would go to the trouble of putting class features into the rulebook then.

Also, I must admit I haven't played D&D in a long while, but was really excited about 4e. I take it they have removed the Sorcerer and replaced that with the Warlock?

[Artanis]

Dear lord. They actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. I officially hate WotC.

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.

Prove that the taunt abilities make no sense. Oh wait, you can't, because we don't know what they are, how they work, what their basis is...or anything about them, really. For all you know, it could be an outright SPELL.

And how do you propose that they make tanks be good at their job without SOME way to draw a monster's attention? Any halfway intelligent creature will think, "do I want to hit the pansy in full plate, or the squishy guy throwing fireballs at me? Definitely the guy in the dress" and smack the Wizard. The only possible way to keep that from happening is to either 1) taunt the enemy, or 2) physically impede the enemy's progress...and #2 doesn't work if they have a bow. Or magic. Or any of quite a few other things.


So really, only the last sentence of your post has any logical foundation.

Edit: last sentence of what I quoted, not the other last sentence that was edited in while I was typing

[Fax Celestis]

Dear lord. They actually did it. They actually added that stupid challenge ability to the core lineup. I officially hate WotC.

Seriously, you're giving arbitrary taunt mind control abilities that make no sense in the context of the game. It forces enemies to make stupid decisions (regardless of how intelligent the enemy may actually be or what their personality is like) so WotC doesn't have to actually think about how to make tanks ACTUALLY good at their jobs without completely arbitrarily forcing enemies to go for them first. It also reeks of MMORPG.

This is horrible. In fact, it may be the one thing to drive me away from 4e if it indeed goes further than just one class (and maybe even if it doesn't.)

It breaks suspension of disbelief, overrides roleplay and plot, and is just plain lazy on the designer's part (since, as we already have seen, they don't actually seem to have a very good idea how to make defender's ACTUALLY good at defending without such totally arbitrary things). And on top of all that, "gathering aggro with taunts" can already be done through roleplaying without a class ability WITHOUT infringing heavily on the spirit of the game.

So...don't play?

[OneWinged4ngel]

As opposed to... spells that do the exact same thing?

Absolutely. Mind control is one thing. A TAUNT that somehow makes the beholders go after you exclusively for no good reason isn't. I can BUY mind control forcing you to do something.

Prove that the taunt abilities make no sense. Oh wait, you can't, because we don't know what they are, how they work, what their basis is...or anything about them, really. For all you know, it could be an outright SPELL.

Yes, of course, we don't know anything for sure yet, so I'm very much hoping that it's not just a rehashed Knight Challenge ability.

If it's what it LOOKS like it is, that just opens the gate for all kinds of weird and senseless things like the PHB II Knight's "cover"-like ability that was fluffed as you jumping in front of an ally to take their blow... only to absorb half of their damage Shield Other style (while they still took the other half). Except now it's core, and thus the rest of the game is going to be based off of it, and thus far more problematic than just some random class lodged in the PHB II.

I have to admit I understand the concept of aggro, but it makes sense for a computer game where a computer is behind the scenes. But for a pen and paper game where your (hopefully intelligent) DM is behind the scenes, I don't think it makes sense.

Exactly. The thing is, it's NOT just like WoW. It's FAR WORSE than WoW, because in the context of WoW, aggro actually makes some sense to implement (though, of course, you can't use it in PvP, for obvious reasons. No such restrictions existed for Knight Challenge, though. It is NOT fun when you get forced roleplay like "No, your character can't resist their taunt. No, it doesn't matter that you can't understand the language he's speaking. Your calm and collected character just can't resist to make a tactically suicidal position and attack the guy who flipped you the bird while the world is destroyed in a round by the eldritch machine having time to go off. HURRAY." God I hate Knights so much). In the context of pen and paper, it's just utterly horrible. Not to mention that it turns every knight into "Sir Talks Trash A Lot." That is the LAST thing I want to see paladins turn into.