After fiddling with M&M for a while, trying to craft my perfect system, I find myself drawn back to D&D. I just cannot escape it. More free form systems are great, but they require more system mastery than something more structured like D&D. So, my creative energies have pointed themselves towards D&D once again. As a connoisseur of crunch, though, I can never leave a system well enough alone. I have already made many minor alterations to make the game more balanced, but now I am attacking the very fabric of the game: classes.
4th Edition did something no other editions had done before; it codified party roles and defined each class as a member of each role. Sure, these roles existed in other editions, but they weren't defined in the book and weren't even that clear; depending on how you built your Fighter, he could be a defender (standard sword and board with a bit of tripping and grappling perhaps), a striker (high dex, light armor, more mobile), or a controller (whip, chain, reach trip-cheese). This linking of role to class in 4E had an almost immediate side effect that I thought was great at the time; 2 years into the game, we already had 24 classes. Some of these new classes seemed a mite bit contrived to me, such as the Warden, Ardent, Seeker, and Rune Priest (curious how I don't like 3 out of the 6 PHB3 classes).
I hadn't really thought of what was bugging me until much more recently (a year ago in fact). The essentials books, Heroes of the Forgotten Lands and Heroes of the Fallen Kingdoms (or was it fallen lands and forgotten kingdoms, I don't know) introduced new, simpler, more nostalgic builds for the 8 iconic classes (featuring the Warlock instead of the Bard, oddly enough). Roles were maintained, but the Slayer Fighter, Hunter Ranger, and Sentinel Druid did something unheard of; they changed their roles: the slayer was a striker fighter, the hunter was a controller ranger, and the sentinel was a leader druid.
I don't know how I could not have thought of this on my own. More and more I began to feel that class should define theme, not role. It's why I disliked the warden, seeker, and ardent; those classes felt like they were filling holes that didn't need to be filled, or could have been filled by someone else (I suppose I just like the Avenger and the Invoker, even though their existence isn't wholly necessary). Now I have turned my eye back to 3rd edition to look for ways of doing it differently.
I think the classes could be rendered down to a "simple" 12, using the 3rd edition "core" classes as a baseline (a wholly unintended symmetry comes together in the end as well, watch):
Barbarian: A martial warrior whose fury unleashes power almost magical.
Bard: An arcane expert whose words and music can be an inspiration to their allies or a hindrance to their foes.
Cleric: A divine spellcaster whose magic blesses and heals allies and smites enemies.
Druid: A primal spellcaster who commands the magic of nature and the forms of beasts.
Fighter: A martial warrior possessing unrivaled talent with the tools of war.
Monk: A martial expert whose dedication and mastery of technique boarder on the magical.
Paladin: A divine warrior who smites their enemies and defends the faithful.
Psion: A psionic spellcaster whose psychic might manipulates their foes and their selves.
Ranger: A primal expert that lives off the land, hunting its beasts and protecting its travelers.
Rogue: A martial expert who uses tricks and manipulation to battle their foes.
Soulknife: A psionic warrior who forges their weapons from the power of pure thought.
Wizard: An arcane spellcaster who commands a breadth of arcane might.
I boiled down old classes into 3 types: warriors, experts, and spellcasters. Warriors are those who were typically defenders, with gobs of hit points that stood at the front lines. Experts are those who had a high number of skill points, who aided their allies out of combat as well as acting as mobile combatants in combat. Spellcasters were those who primarily slung spells, whether they were the healing spells of the cleric and druid or the offensive spells of the psion and wizard (yes, I said psion spells). Without trying hard, I ended up with 4 warriors, 4 experts, and 4 spellcasters (there was a tiny bit of fudging; originally I was using the Psychic Warrior, decidedly a heavy warrior, but switched out for the Soul Knife who was originally more of an expert but became more of a warrior with the "Expanded Psionic Handbook"). There are 2 arcane classes, 2 divine classes, 2 primal classes, and 2 psionic classes, and while there are 4 martial classes, two stand out as somewhat unmartial (the barbarian and monk both stretch the boundaries of martial, as well as proving to have an interesting dichotomy in that the barbarian is chaotic and the monk is lawful).
Unlike some of the classes I am looking at throwing out, all twelve of these classes are iconic, and I don't mean that just because they've been around for a while. All of them stand alone, possessing unique descriptions that can't just be gained via multiclassing; this is the reason I went with the Soulknife and not the Psychic Warrior. The bard is more than a rogue/wizard, the paladin is more than a cleric/fighter, the ranger is more than a druid/rogue, and the soulknife is more than a fighter/psion; all have something unique to them, both thematically and mechanically, unique enough that a paladin and a cleric/fighter can stand toe to toe and be different.
Where are the missing classes, though? Here's my thinking:
Artificer: A mage "kit", one that is highly setting specific (so much so that I haven't taken more than a cursory glance at it).
Ardent: Rather than being its own class, it seems like a psion's role could be determined by their discipline. A telepathic and clairvoyant psion could aid allies by manipulating their mood while protecting and guiding them by predicting the future.
Avenger: A paladin "kit"; instead of being the shield of the faithful, they'd be the weapon of the faithful. Avenging Paladin was already the name of one of the builds. If someone wants to wear robes instead of plate, I don't see why that can't be an alternate feature.
Battlemind: Having nothing unique other than psionic powers and weapons, this is simply a fighter/psion.
Invoker: A cleric "kit"; when one recognizes that classes could chose from multiple roles, it isn't long before one throws out the idea of the armored cleric and goes with a robed wearing priest. The Invoker is a cleric that focuses on hindering enemies with protective zones and divine blasts rather than healing and aiding allies.
Runepriest: As much as it is mechanically different from the weapon wielding cleric, it functions exactly the same. Never liked it, just let it be a fighter/cleric.
Seeker: Primal magical archer? Ranger/Druid, or Rogue/Druid.
Sorcerer: With everyone using the same power mechanics, the sorcerer can just be rolled in with the wizard, trading a spellbook for some other kind of versatility.
Swordmage: Simply a fighter/mage. Sadly, as much as I like the class, there really isn't anything unique to them except for the blending of magic and swordplay.
Warden: A fighter/druid? Maybe a barbarian/druid? I could never tell where this class was coming from.
Warlock: A mage "kit"; I don't think this requires much explanation.
Warlord: A fighter "kit"; warlords wear heavy armor and stand toe to toe with their enemies. They're an inspiration to their allies, and I don't see any reason why a fighter couldn't be that inspirational figure.
Now I am lost in a different kind of deluge; one of ideas. I am looking through my new list of classes and I'm trying to decide which roles could be performed by which classes. My love of symmetry wants some sort of pattern. With 12 classes with multiple roles, one could have each class have 2 roles, leaving 6 of each with overlap. Right off the bat, though, I've identified the Fighter as being able to perform the defender, leader, and striker roles. I could have each class have 3 roles, leaving 4 classes lacking controller, defender, or leader, as every class could justify being a striker. Further complicating things, the more I think on it the more I start seeing several classes as being able to perform all four roles with some measure of stretching.
So now we reach my conclusion, the bulk of what I'd like help with. Which of the following class/role combinations sound like they're stretching things just a little too far? Some will be blank (meaning I can't think of a damned thing for them), while others will have fairly detailed descriptions. I'd love to hear what you think about the entire concept, as well as the validity of individual combos.
[ooc]Before I go further, I should note that I am rethinking the striker's role in the party. After playing 4E, and 3E, for a while, I am beginning to feel that letting one role deal significantly more damage than the other roles harms the fun of the other players. I have seen too many players feel that their characters aren't useful when they have paltry damage numbers. The largest example was in my first 3E game, where a Barbarian ran alongside a Ranger. The Ranger had a 10 str and a 20 dex, and was using Weapon Finesse from the get-go. The ranger's short swords afforded him more frequent critical hits than the barbarian, but there were several times when the ranger dealt 2 damage on a crit (having no str mod at first), while the barbarian dealt 10 damage on average (d12+4), and not even while raging. More recently, I have seen the game devolve into setting things up so the striker can deal the most damage, with leaders focusing their buffs on the striker, defenders defending the striker primarily, and controllers keeping things clear so the striker can move around. The game shouldn't center around 1 or 2 of the players in the party. The game shouldn't fall apart when you run a group of 4 or 5 strikers, who can tear through many fights without needing a leader's heals. We shouldn't have a situation where 3 of the roles are delaying a fight (healing, defending, or stalling) and only 1 is really putting effort into ending it.
Rather than having strikers focus on heavy damage, I think strikers would be more suited by focusing on heavy mobility. Strikers are skirmishers. They "strike" at the vulnerable foes in an encounter, with the ability to get past opposing defenders and get at the squishy artillery, or simply the best target for the moment. All of the 3E "strikers", the rogue, ranger, and monk out of the PHB, were highly mobile. They were also more skill focused than the warriors, but that's non-combat and should not be brought into talks about combat. By removing "high damage" from the striker and giving them "high mobility", the HP of monsters can be reduced so combat remains the same length while equalizing players so no one feels outshone.
Now, some characters are going to deal more damage than others. There is already a simple mechanic for this: two-handed weapons. Even looking at the 4E PHB1's defenders, the fighter or paladin, there is a choice between weapon and shield or just a two-handed weapon. Trading 2 AC for +1 damage per die is, apparently, an even trade (though I think it should come with something else, since it is effectively ignored proficiency feats). Rogues could keep their sneak attack since it is so thematic to the class since they tend to have lower AC.[/ooc]
Barbarian: The barbarian was a big bag of hit points, but he was also far more mobile than the fighter. I always felt that he filled in for the Fighter more than the Rogue, but I recognize that most people played them for their smashing abilities. Rage is clearly a striker ability, but I think that can be divorced from the issue; it's okay if a class's abilities lend them towards a role as long as it doesn't force it.
----Controller: This is the one I can see the least. PHB2 druids could be melee controllers, so it isn't unheard of. Perhaps a whirling dervish kind of barbarian, wielding two weapons, could be a controller, but that might be forcing it.
----Defender: A simple build, a meat shield who really doesn't like it when you hurt his friends.
----Leader: Slightly odd, but not at all unheard of. The current barbarian does have a build that is secondarily a leader, and the source media is full of barbarian warchiefs who lead with their passionate fury. Hell, the current Bravura Warlord fights like a barbarian could.
----Striker: Self explanatory.
Bard: Bards are an inspiration to their party, lending them to the leader role. They even gave them healing spells in 3E. The bard is a story teller and first and foremost an adventurer. A bard is also the "jack of all trades, master of none", which leads me to think that maybe, just maybe, they could be it all.
----Controller: In addition to inspiring allies, a controller bard mocks and ridicules enemies, instilling cowardice and doubt, or even more devious suggestions and control.
----Defender: Potentially a skald, I have a hard time seeing a defender like the fighter, but perhaps a more dodgy defender. Their wordplay could lock their opponents down, and their possession of magic could justify even more control of opponent's attacks.
----Leader: Self explanatory.
----Striker: Mobility through deception, trickery, and mental manipulation are the name of this game.
Cleric: Giving up the armored priest type to the paladin and the cleric/fighters, I envision the cleric as a robed priest, waving their holy symbols rather than their maces. The typical cleric is a healer, and I'm fine with that.
----Controller: Protective zones (magic circle against X), beams of light, smiting explosions; this can be the invoker.
----Defender: I'm having a real hard time seeing this one, so I'm not going to force it.
----Leader: Pretty standard fair.
----Striker: Holy Smite, radiant energy, all that good wrath of god stuff.
Druid: The druid presents an interesting option. In 3E, they were worse healers than the cleric but also worst blasters than the wizard. They were somewhere between. Also, their wildshapes let them do other things as well. Druids don't have to be married to a single role, as their wildshape gives them the distinct opportunity to shift.
----Controller: Weather magic and elementalism.
----Defender: Hard to imagine while in humanoid form, but something big like a bear could easily be a defender. By stretching the definition, though, I could also see a caster druid defender defending through the use of a summoned ally.
----Leader: Almost what they always were.
----Striker: Focusing more heavily on their blasting magic, or taking on predatory forms like wolves and cats.
Fighter: A master of arms, a fighter's role seems most mutable because they lack a defining mechanic.
----Controller: At first I thought this was hard, but with the melee defender druid it isn't too hard. A reach fighter could easily be a controller.
----Defender: Standard fighter.
----Leader: The Warlord, a fighter who is either a master tactician or simply an inspiring leader.
----Striker: Wielding a big two-handed weapon, this is the fighter that charges headlong into battle.
Monk: Unarmed and unarmored, the monk's dedication allows them to go above and beyond the limits of mere flesh and bone.
----Controller: Pressure point attacks, or even more exotic things like ki energy attacks, could make a monk a controller.
----Defender: This is the one I'm having a harder time thinking of, but even WoW is making a tanking monk. A martial artist who locks their opponent down with blocks, trips, and grabs could be a defender.
----Leader: Also having a hard time with this, but there are many monks in the source material who possess healing arts. Pressure point attacks can easily be made into heals for allies, and also hindrances on enemies that make it easier for allies to take them down.
----Striker: Simple, a highly mobile monk that flits about the battlefield punching people in the gonads.
Paladin: A holy warrior, sword or shield of the faithful.
----Controller: Harder to see for me.
----Defender: Standard paladin.
----Leader: Lay on hands is only a step away from being a leader. With the cleric's armor taken away, the paladin would be the divine frontline leader.
----Striker: The avenger, the holy assassin.
Psion: Master of the mind, the only thing 3E psions didn't do well was lead.
----Controller: Simple psion.
----Defender: Hard to do, but it could be done with ectoplasmic summons.
----Leader: Telepathy to inspire heroism and ignore the pain of wounds to clairvoyance to guide allies.
----Striker: Boom goes the force damage.
Ranger: A mobile hunter in the wilderness. A skilled woodsman, tracker, and hunter.
----Controller: An archer ranger, or maybe a spearman.
----Defender: Hard, but could be done by a pet.
----Leader: Harder, so much that I can't see it.
----Striker: Standard ranger.
Rogue: Wielding light weapons and tricking their foes, rogues are the quintessential strikers, but they could do more.
----Controller: Hard to see, but they could focus on hamstrings and other status inflicting attacks of precision.
----Defender: Harder to see, but a duelist could fit in here.
----Leader: A back of the lines leader from the rear who shouts commands and surveys the battlefield rather than gets right into the thick of things.
----Striker: Backstabbing, sneak attacking goodness.
Soulknife: Possessing a blade forged of thought, soulknives lend themselves to striking or defending. I'm having a hard time envisioning controlling or leading. They're more unique than "psychic warriors", but they still need some development.
----Controller:
----Defender: Standard soulknife.
----Leader:
----Striker: Simple, focusing on old psionic feats like running on walls and water for mobility.
Wizard: Arcane masters, primarily controllers.
----Controller: Standard wizard.
----Defender: Could be done with summons.
----Leader: Hard to envision, but the artificer did it.
----Striker: Blaster wizard/sorcerer/warlock.
Thoughts? Can they all be everything? Could everyone have one missing role, with each role being missing from 4 classes. I'm obsessed with symmetry mind you.
You're doing here what is essentially going on since the Essentials - making one class have multiple roles in different builds, so they don't have to pull whole classes out of their... decks just to fill power source/role combo niches. If they started 4e like that, we could possibly have never seen the Invoker or Ardent, but now that they're here, they got their own flair and ideas behind them - and I like them here.
I'm thinking the original Essentials divisions came from further inspiration by World of Warcraft. While originally they took "tanks", "healers" and "DPS" to fill out different roles, in the Essentials they realised WoW's warrior can fill two roles potentially, and they can make the fighter in D&D have two "specs" too. What you're doing here, is following those "specs" to their natural conclusion.
So in short, it's to me a natural conclusion to the most recent class system. Do I like it? Ha-ha - that's the catch. I like the big table where you can divide classes by power sources, and then their roles - but that's probably just me and my internal obssession of tabelarisation and categorisation of everything.
Another thing you could do to make a more concise list of classes and/or powers would be to just make lists of powers for given roles and power sources. That way, a rogue (martial striker) would be able to take many of his class powers from the martial list and from a striker list, and you only have to think of a smaller handful of rogue-specific powers. Richard Baker's been talking about the level of redundancy in 4e powers lately, and this seems like a way to keep things from getting too out of hand. You could also save yourself a lot of work and space that way.
EDIT: Another small bonus: New classes become so much easier to build if you've already got like half their powers figured out from the get go.
Beejazz, actually what I'm looking at doing is making power lists for the power sources, and then having the roles be determined by class abilities. At-Wills and Encounters can be from power source, while class abilities and dailies can be drawn from your class.
Like Rich Baker said, remember in 3E when most classes were working off the same spell list? Sure, some classes had a handful of unique spells, but by and large when someone used a spell you knew what it was. Now there are 5k+ class powers and there's too much overlap between them.
Kalontas, I was with you in the beginning. I was one of those clamoring for the Ranger to be a Martial Controller, or to have the Ranger be Primal Striker and the Barbarian be Primal Defender (I still see the barbarian as a beefy meat shield, not just a striker).
Any thoughts on my changes to the striker role?
There's a ton of here to look over and mull, as a fellow lover of crunch, but one thing that pops out to me that I wanted to quickly throw in my 2cp about:
Quoteand while there are 4 martial classes, two stand out as somewhat unmartial (the barbarian and monk both stretch the boundaries of martial, as well as proving to have an interesting dichotomy in that the barbarian is chaotic and the monk is lawful).
This idea is something I'm going to use on a project that I have on the backburner until TM and TM-FATE are at least "beta complete", but figured I'd share for you to ponder:
They are very unmartial, and both approach the same thing from different angles. The Barbarian channels his inner power through wild bursts of rage and passion, while the Monk channels it through extreme discipline and focus. However, the result is very similar - both are capable of what are undoubtedly superhuman feats that aren't quite on the level of magic. Why keep these two classes Martial? Instead, give them their own category - in my notes, I've given the power source the working title of Ki, since that seems to fit what they do - to distinguish them from the fighter and rogue? Plus, this maintains the symmetry perfectly, giving you 2 classes of each power source.
And I like Beejazz' idea of a list dependent on either role or power source or both - and would be really interesting for a Monk or Barbarian to have choices from the Ki list, since something like a Ki shout or channeling their Ki into actual blasts of energy or enveloping their fists in it would fit both classes even though they approach it from an entirely different angle.
QuoteRather than having strikers focus on heavy damage, I think strikers would be more suited by focusing on heavy mobility. Strikers are skirmishers. They "strike" at the vulnerable foes in an encounter, with the ability to get past opposing defenders and get at the squishy artillery, or simply the best target for the moment. All of the 3E "strikers", the rogue, ranger, and monk out of the PHB, were highly mobile. They were also more skill focused than the warriors, but that's non-combat and should not be brought into talks about combat. By removing "high damage" from the striker and giving them "high mobility", the HP of monsters can be reduced so combat remains the same length while equalizing players so no one feels outshone.
Since you specifically requested thought on this, I figured I'd add a chime in here:
I love this idea. Partially because I love playing highly mobile characters, partially because it fits better - hell, I'd rename Strikers to Skirmishers if I were you. One thing to keep in mind, however - while playing mobile can be a ton of fun, if you're dealing the same amount of damage as someone who has twice the hit points of you, it feels like the mobility is not an advantage of the class, but rather something you're forced to do because you can't take the hits a beefy class could take. Increasing damage to compensate is the route Wizards took, but I agree with you that going that way made the striker way too powerful and central. I'd suggest that, in power design, giving them class features/abilities that allow them to draw upon that mobility to their advantage, dealing damage and throwing things off balance or dealing damage and providing a benefit to an ally or some other advantage to hit and run other than "You have to to avoid becoming squish."
If I was to decide what to do with the over-importance of the Striker, it would be balance out the numbers to make your default game either require more strikers (so neither of them is the king of the situation by topping everyone else's damage), or make the controller more of a "AoE" striker.
If we go with the latter, the controller doesn't make big numbers all at once (Wow, I hit that guy for how much!?), but he instead hits a whole lot of people at once, grinding down a whole army, turn by turn (Wow, I killed how many people with this spell?).
That resolution at least makes the numbers flying in combat exciting to Striker and Controller. Player playing Defenders and Leaders... That's another beast. If leaders concentrate more on healing, they can go "wow" over the number of hit points healed, and defenders... Defenders are a kind of tougher sell, but if I gave it more thought, I probably would come up with something that would not sound so MMO.
QuoteDefenders are a kind of tougher sell, but if I gave it more thought, I probably would come up with something that would not sound so MMO.
"Wow, I took how much damage!?"
The problem I have with the above approach is that it becomes too MMOy - it's about watching big numbers in one way or another, and really, if I want that I'll just play a video game, not a tabletop. Just my feelings on it, of course.
Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsThe problem I have with the above approach is that it becomes too MMOy - it's about watching big numbers in one way or another, and really, if I want that I'll just play a video game, not a tabletop. Just my feelings on it, of course.
Yeah, I know that, and that's what's conflicting me a bit about this approach. The reason is however just wanting all players to feel relevant, while maintaining the distinct roles in combat. And I don't deny it, my ideas are tainted by MMOs because of my years-long time of playing WoW, but if someone can have another idea of maintaining the combat roles while making everyone equally relevant, I'm all ears.
EDIT: Though when I think about it, "big numbers flying" is probably the only way of attracting the people mentioned by Xeviat. If they feel irrelevant because the striker one-shot the Kobold, they probably should not be non-strikers in the current system - and attracting them to those different roles would mean making their own big numbers fly. If one can be satisfied by his role without the big numbers, he would probably do well in the current system.
QuoteThough when I think about it, "big numbers flying" is probably the only way of attracting the people mentioned by Xeviat. If they feel irrelevant because the striker one-shot the Kobold, they probably should not be non-strikers in the current system - and attracting them to those different roles would mean making their own big numbers fly. If one can be satisfied by his role without the big numbers, he would probably do well in the current system.
Xeviat can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his problem is not that the striker one shot the kobold and they didn't, but rather that the entire party basically becomes a support team for the Strikers as soon as combat starts - the leader buffs the striker, the defender protects the striker, the controller moves things into position for the striker...in short, the striker becomes the focal point of
every single fight, and that's where the problem lies.
Quote from: Xathan Of Many WorldsXeviat can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his problem is not that the striker one shot the kobold and they didn't, but rather that the entire party basically becomes a support team for the Strikers as soon as combat starts - the leader buffs the striker, the defender protects the striker, the controller moves things into position for the striker...in short, the striker becomes the focal point of every single fight, and that's where the problem lies.
Do they, though? Defender protects everyone just as well, because if Kobolds see they get shuffled around constantly by one guy, they can get after him just as well as after the striker. Or a smarter band may realise the leader is what keeps their enemies up and try go after him - so the defender keeps leader safe as well. Controller just as well doesn't just shuffle things around for the striker - defender will benefit from correct positioning like everybody else. And finally the leader - if the defender is doing his job well, leader's efforts should be concentrated on him, not the striker.
So if your monsters behave like just a stupid mob who keep attacking one thing without thinking about the real threat, yes, then everybody will converge around the striker. But if you give your monster some intelligence, they will know the "one in the dress" is an even better target.
Quote from: Xeviat
Beejazz, actually what I'm looking at doing is making power lists for the power sources, and then having the roles be determined by class abilities. At-Wills and Encounters can be from power source, while class abilities and dailies can be drawn from your class.
Like Rich Baker said, remember in 3E when most classes were working off the same spell list? Sure, some classes had a handful of unique spells, but by and large when someone used a spell you knew what it was. Now there are 5k+ class powers and there's too much overlap between them.
But that's what I'm saying. This way, you'd get 16 (potential) classes out of around 8 lists. A few more if you want both class-specific lists and feats. This way, if you want your fighter to be a striker, all you have to do is swap a list. Also, having to choose a role keeps that niche protection and prevents watered-down builds. You don't want someone building a character to do everything and end up with a 3x bard or something.
And as usual I'd advocate swapping dailies for stances/auras across the board. Lets you choose from similarly limited alternatives while avoiding balance based on encounters per day.
As for the striker role, I'd second mobility as a key feature. The way I see it, outside the "leader" type, roles can be point defense, striker, and squishy wizard. Point defense stays still, soaks/deflects damage, and delays enemy strikers by acting like a wall. Squishy wizard might specialize in area effects and be vulnerable. Striker would be there to counter enemy squishy wizards and bypass enemy point defense. So mobility is a must there.
For specific mobility features, I've always seen the 3x wallrunning feats or climb speeds as the way to go. Set distance can be covered in a move over any. terrain. period. as long as you land somewhere stable. Leave the extra rolls out of it. Just not mentioning running on walls would put it in the "parkour" domain, something we can easily see a rogue doing.
Quote from: Xathan Of Many Worlds
QuoteRather than having strikers focus on heavy damage, I think strikers would be more suited by focusing on heavy mobility. Strikers are skirmishers. They "strike" at the vulnerable foes in an encounter, with the ability to get past opposing defenders and get at the squishy artillery, or simply the best target for the moment. All of the 3E "strikers", the rogue, ranger, and monk out of the PHB, were highly mobile. They were also more skill focused than the warriors, but that's non-combat and should not be brought into talks about combat. By removing "high damage" from the striker and giving them "high mobility", the HP of monsters can be reduced so combat remains the same length while equalizing players so no one feels outshone.
Since you specifically requested thought on this, I figured I'd add a chime in here:
I love this idea. Partially because I love playing highly mobile characters, partially because it fits better - hell, I'd rename Strikers to Skirmishers if I were you. One thing to keep in mind, however - while playing mobile can be a ton of fun, if you're dealing the same amount of damage as someone who has twice the hit points of you, it feels like the mobility is not an advantage of the class, but rather something you're forced to do because you can't take the hits a beefy class could take. Increasing damage to compensate is the route Wizards took, but I agree with you that going that way made the striker way too powerful and central. I'd suggest that, in power design, giving them class features/abilities that allow them to draw upon that mobility to their advantage, dealing damage and throwing things off balance or dealing damage and providing a benefit to an ally or some other advantage to hit and run other than "You have to to avoid becoming squish."
One thing to play with might be status effects in place of increased damage. Especially since their role is to take out the squishy wizard (who already has low hit points, so you don't need much of a damage boost to be effective here). Status effects could work the way breaking concentration historically has on that front.
Another thing to do might be to limit the striker's defensive capacity, play up things like cover, and downplay defensive buffs or anything that might let more people be tank-ish (if the wizard can get a defensive buff he doesn't need defending; if the striker can get a defensive buff he doesn't need to pick a route carefully or avoid the enemy defender).
Quote from: Xathan Of Many Worlds
QuoteThough when I think about it, "big numbers flying" is probably the only way of attracting the people mentioned by Xeviat. If they feel irrelevant because the striker one-shot the Kobold, they probably should not be non-strikers in the current system - and attracting them to those different roles would mean making their own big numbers fly. If one can be satisfied by his role without the big numbers, he would probably do well in the current system.
Xeviat can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his problem is not that the striker one shot the kobold and they didn't, but rather that the entire party basically becomes a support team for the Strikers as soon as combat starts - the leader buffs the striker, the defender protects the striker, the controller moves things into position for the striker...in short, the striker becomes the focal point of every single fight, and that's where the problem lies.
Xathan's right, about my opinion that is. And you point out that the defender protects everyone; I feel like the defender and leader are protecting the controller, and that the leader generally doesn't need protection because they typically aren't squishy. Controllers and Strikers have a bit of overlap in being offensive power houses, but controllers generally trade power damage for effects. Worse still, a striker who picks up controller focused powers is as good a controller as the controller while still dealing more damage (I'm looking at you Sorcerer). But this is a problem with the controller role as well.
Part of the benefit of mobility is getting to avoid what the DM is throwing at you to limit your mobility. Enemy defenders and controllers are going to try to lock down the skirmishers (I like that), and the skirmishers would get to say no. The skirmisher doesn't move because they have to to cover their paltry defenses (though perhaps a defense bonus for moving to encourage it), they move because they can, so they can get to the choice targets. An enemy soldier or brute can't hold a skirmisher in position. Heck, applying this to monster skirmishers would give the defenders something they can't lock down, and make things a little more interesting; a wolf won't stand toe to toe with you, after all, especially if you're shoving a shield in its face.
Beejazz, I was getting all ready to argue you on the powers from role or power source, but then it dawned on me: perhaps role powers could be primarily utility, or levels could alternate so you aren't choosing between one or another. I wouldn't want a Fighter who picked all "martial" powers to feel like a weak defender because they didn't pick defender powers. My basic philosophy is trying to prevent players from making bad decisions that sound good.
Well, it seems like you're pretty fixed on a certain idea right now, so there's not much discussion left. I still believe that playing your enemies and your characters correctly will involve everyone. While leader is not as squishy as a wizard may be, him going down will affect everyone negatively.
So in my eyes, that's how group roles work:
-The striker kills the enemies quickly, so they don't get to kill defender and screw everyone
-The defender protects everyone essentially, but mainly the often squishy controllers and very important leaders.
-The leader boosts everyone, but mainly keeps his eye on the defender, so he doesn't go down from all the fire he gets
-The controller shuffles around and wears down enemies, so the striker can kill them faster.
So as I'm seeing it, there is balance to group roles and their importance, as lacking any one of them can result in a serious handicap. No defender means the weaker party members get attacked, no leader means you will be severely injured at the end of the encounter, no striker means combat will take really long, no controller means that again, weaker members may get fired upon.
Quote from: Kalontas
Well, it seems like you're pretty fixed on a certain idea right now, so there's not much discussion left. I still believe that playing your enemies and your characters correctly will involve everyone. While leader is not as squishy as a wizard may be, him going down will affect everyone negatively.
Here's the thing we're trying to say and I think that's causing the confusion: we agree with you in that is how it was intended to work, but our point is that it
does not work that way in actual fights. In an actual 4E fight, the combat will almost always be resolved most quickly and with least amount of HP damage done to everyone if the rest of the party functions as a support team for the Strikers, regardless of how you play the monsters, because they do so much damage per hit.
however, if you want to discuss this further, we should do so elsewhere - at this point, I think Xeviat's thread has been derailed enough by us. :P
Quote from: XeviatOne thing to play with might be status effects in place of increased damage. Especially since their role is to take out the squishy wizard (who already has low hit points, so you don't need much of a damage boost to be effective here). Status effects could work the way breaking concentration historically has on that front.
I like that idea a lot, it makes them into better "anti-casters" - which is an ideal role for someone who's incredibly mobile, because the ability to wear plate doesn't do much when your opponent can throw around lightning bolts and summon wind storms, where as the ability to get the hell out of the way of those things is very helpful.
QuoteAnother thing to do might be to limit the striker's defensive capacity, play up things like cover, and downplay defensive buffs or anything that might let more people be tank-ish (if the wizard can get a defensive buff he doesn't need defending; if the striker can get a defensive buff he doesn't need to pick a route carefully or avoid the enemy defender).
I'd allow for limited defensive buffs but do play them down - after all, if the tank goes down, you don't want the MMO problem of "oh crap, it's gonna be a wipe now." Just choose them carefully so a buffed Wizard or Rogue can't fully replace the tank for an entire fight or soak like one, or limit them to things that fit with their existing roles - a defensive buff has different effects depending on the targets role. A rogue getting the buff might gain a boost to their defense when behind cover or after making a 10 ft move, a wizard getting the buff would instead gain the boost to their defense if (again) behind cover or after casting an AOE and only against people in the AOE (because he forces them to duck down) - that sort of thing.
EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if I missed your response or if you missed my comment but was wondering what you thought of the "Ki" power source for Barbarians and Monks. It might have gotten lost in the shuffle. :P
Quote from: Xathan Of Many Worlds
Quote from: Kalontas
Well, it seems like you're pretty fixed on a certain idea right now, so there's not much discussion left. I still believe that playing your enemies and your characters correctly will involve everyone. While leader is not as squishy as a wizard may be, him going down will affect everyone negatively.
Here's the thing we're trying to say and I think that's causing the confusion: we agree with you in that is how it was intended to work, but our point is that it does not work that way in actual fights. In an actual 4E fight, the combat will almost always be resolved most quickly and with least amount of HP damage done to everyone if the rest of the party functions as a support team for the Strikers, regardless of how you play the monsters, because they do so much damage per hit.
And from my experience, this is false. If everybody concentrates too much on the striker, people do get hurt - because they weren't watching the other people. If it works the way you mention to you, I think just some numbers need tweaking to change it, but the actual roles are not guilty of it.
Kalontas, the only reason I wasn't dwelling upon the striker role part of my post, and partially why it was in a note, is because it isn't the crux of this thread, nor does my stance end discussion. No matter what the striker does, I think every class could be a striker, as evidenced by the recent Slayer and Blackguard builds.
Xathan, I actually like the idea of the ki power source, but I'd like an English word for it for my setting's thematics. Then one could say the monk is the "ki caster" and the barbarian is the "ki gish".
Another way I had looked at making the classes ended up looking like this:
| Source | Martial | Arcane | Divine | Primal | Psionic |
| "Caster" | Warlord | Wizard | Cleric | Druid | Psion |
| "Expert" | Rogue | Bard | Monk | Ranger | Soulknife |
| "Warrior" | Fighter | ??? | Paladin | Barbarian | Psychic Warrior |
My only complaint about this is it would require the barbarian and the monk to be tweaked to be more than they are. In a 4E style where I still use largely individual class powers, it could be done. I left the warrior arcanist off because I cannot think of an iconic warrior/wizard that isn't just a multiclass. Monk loosely fits into divine because they treat their regiment as a religion (and they're based on Buddhist monks for crying out loud), and Barbarian definitely fits into primal. Psychic Warriors are also bland, but at least they've been around for a while.
I was just stopping by the internet to see if my etsy sales sold, so I'll be back tomorrow with a more in depth post about some of my thoughts I had while doing nothing at work.
Something that won't take me long to question is this: In a game where Wizards and Psions walk side by side, what differentiates them? They have always had considerable overlap in their spell selection, even though the names were changed to protect those innocent spells. My own setting uses four "spheres" of magic: Elemental, Physical, Mental, and Aether (Aether contains healing/harming, radiant/darkness, warding/binding, and summoning of aligned things, fyi). I was trying to figure out different ways to dole them out, such as having each power source lack one, or having each power source only have access to two, but both the Wizard and Psion throw things off for me. I can easily leave Elemental out of the psion, but I'd also want to leave Aether out of the psion as well. I can't see leaving anything off the Wizard, though; taking anything away would make a wizard of a very different color indeed.
Quote from: Xeviat
Kalontas, the only reason I wasn't dwelling upon the striker role part of my post, and partially why it was in a note, is because it isn't the crux of this thread, nor does my stance end discussion. No matter what the striker does, I think every class could be a striker, as evidenced by the recent Slayer and Blackguard builds.
Xathan, I actually like the idea of the ki power source, but I'd like an English word for it for my setting's thematics. Then one could say the monk is the "ki caster" and the barbarian is the "ki gish".
Yeah, I've been trying to think of a western name for it. Spirit? Drive? Will? Anima?
QuoteAnother way I had looked at making the classes ended up looking like this:
| Source | Martial | Arcane | Divine | Primal | Psionic |
| "Caster" | Warlord | Wizard | Cleric | Druid | Psion |
| "Expert" | Rogue | Bard | Monk | Ranger | Soulknife |
| "Warrior" | Fighter | ??? | Paladin | Barbarian | Psychic Warrior |
My only complaint about this is it would require the barbarian and the monk to be tweaked to be more than they are. In a 4E style where I still use largely individual class powers, it could be done. I left the warrior arcanist off because I cannot think of an iconic warrior/wizard that isn't just a multiclass. Monk loosely fits into divine because they treat their regiment as a religion (and they're based on Buddhist monks for crying out loud), and Barbarian definitely fits into primal. Psychic Warriors are also bland, but at least they've been around for a while.
I love this part of the post, first of all because I can now see the table code without having to make a post in the dragons den going "Uh...how do you make a table again?" AND because it's a nice, unique way of looking at things. I do think the breakdown of "Caster" "Expert" "Warrior" poses a problem when it comes to arcane - while spellswords/warmages/etc are common, they're all multiclass without a doubt. Heck, the term "gish" originally was used to refer to a spellsword, if I recall correctly. That being said, the spellsword is iconic enough and has been around for long enough that I think no one would blink twice at it being made a core class - especially because most of 4e and most derivative systems makes multiclassing very disadvantageous or unable to really fill the archetype, and having a class that just IS a spellsword would be very fitting.
Also, something that I became confused on - you mentioned at first your love of the Essential's route of expanding classes beyond their typical role, but the focus on each class being a caster, expert, or warrior seems to go against that and go more towards the 4e route of each class having it's role and sticking within it. It's possible I just misunderstood, but wanted to clarify I understood what you were going for.
QuoteSomething that won't take me long to question is this: In a game where Wizards and Psions walk side by side, what differentiates them? They have always had considerable overlap in their spell selection, even though the names were changed to protect those innocent spells. My own setting uses four "spheres" of magic: Elemental, Physical, Mental, and Aether (Aether contains healing/harming, radiant/darkness, warding/binding, and summoning of aligned things, fyi). I was trying to figure out different ways to dole them out, such as having each power source lack one, or having each power source only have access to two, but both the Wizard and Psion throw things off for me. I can easily leave Elemental out of the psion, but I'd also want to leave Aether out of the psion as well. I can't see leaving anything off the Wizard, though; taking anything away would make a wizard of a very different color indeed.
I think the answer is very simple - take out the Aether from the psion and the Mental from the wizards. Charm, Dominate, and other spells that wizards do to control people are crudely using the warding/binding element of the Aether to bind their will - a psion controlling someone, since they can actually use Mental, makes them able to do it much more subtly - a wizard controlling someone completely will always get a obedient thrall that lacks initiative or free will or creative/higher reasoning, while a psion can do it so well that people who knew that person well might not even know the change was anything other than natural. As for wizard spells that induce emotions, they're not literally inducing them, they're summoning a spirit of that emotion to haunt the person - something that would feel much different than a psion just changing how you feel, and the reactions would likely be very different.
Hmmm ... an interesting thought. The mental spheres are Illusion, Charm, Artifice, and Divination, so I'm not entirely sure I want to give that up. Then again, for my setting, I don't have the same caster distinctions, as this thread is really thinking of D&D baseline and not my setting.
You're confused about my use of the terms expert and warrior in this. That's more of a descriptive term here. I want classes to be able to be multiple roles, so expert doesn't mean "striker" and warrior doesn't mean "defender". Warrior means generally beefy guy who generally fights straight forwardly, while Expert means skillsy guy who generally fights with a bit of trickery/talent/penache/whatever that makes them less straight forward. When a striker fighter charges you, he does so in the open, slashes at you with a big sword, and hacks away. When a rogue striker charges you, he does so from the shadows and with a few flips thrown in for good measure. It's also more of a line between "light" and "heavy" armors, but even that line is blurred from time to time.
I also agree that the "spellsword" in whatever form is rather iconic, but it's flatly iconic (just like the psychic warrior). It would really need something unique to make me want to have it be a class. I am also wholly aware of how sticky 4E multiclassing can be in tone, so that is something I am heavily looking into fixing (in fact, I think generally rolling the power-swap feats in with the initial multiclass feat would do that; paying a feat to swap a power isn't balanced if powers are supposed to be balanced against each other).
Random thoughts:
1) Regarding power lists by theme vs. power lists by class, one thing you might want to look at is doing at-wills and utilities by power source, encounters by role, and dailies and class features by class. That way, the bread-and-butter powers for in and out of combat are determined by your schtick (martials swing swords, arcanists shoot fire, etc.), you can do things every encounter that definitively say "I'm a defender!" or "I'm a controller!", and your big guns are class-defining to really set them apart, kind of like how barbarians have their rages as dailies, wizards can swap out daily spells, etc.
This means that (A) people have less need for system mastery/memorization, as knowledge of at-wills, utilities, and encounters will transfer between roles as well as between power sources and (B) this increased overlap means you don't need to worry about repeating role-specific powers too much between power sources and will have lots more room to get creative with dailies.
2)
Quote from: XeviatAnother way I had looked at making the classes ended up looking like this:
[table snipped]
I left the warrior arcanist off because I cannot think of an iconic warrior/wizard that isn't just a multiclass.
How about the Sorcerer? They have the basic fluff of "innate, uncontrolled magic," which lends them well to a very direct in-your-face style of magic while bards might be more tricky and wizards might be more...caster-y with theirs, and sorcerers got several melee-friendly variants towards the end of 3.5 and gishes are well-served by reusing a signature set of buffs and debuffs rather than being Swiss army knives, so the playstyle would be familiar to many people. Also, sorcerers had plenty of special options like making good use of reserve feats, having those draconic-themed "sacrifice a spell to do X" feats, and similar that would allow a sorcerer to blur the lines of "casting spells" vs. "channeling magic" in order to differentiate it from other casters (for instance, while a fighter/wizard in 2e/3e might pre-buff before combat and toss a few blasting spells before charging in, sorcerers with Draconic Heritage and other dragon-y feats and features might have dragon scales for armor and could breathe fire in peoples' faces instead of blasting from afar).
3) Psions and wizards are fairly similar mechanically, but there are a few points where they have differed. In 4e, of course, psions have the augmentation mechanic for greater on-the-fly flexibility. In 3e, they had blasting powers where you could choose energy types on the fly and different energy types did different things. In 2e, they had a psionic combat system that let them directly attack opponents' minds and do so faster than most other caster-types. Putting these together, I would say the major difference between the wizard and the psion is that the psion is more tactical while the wizard is more strategic, if you know what I mean.
--The psion targets individuals well (messing with individual minds, quickly crushing single targets with overwhelming force, etc.) while the wizard targets groups well (creating free-standing illusions that can fool many people, filling the battlefield with spell effects, etc.).
--The psion improvises tactics on the fly (tailoring energy types, astral construct forms, and such to the situation) while wizards plan out strategies in advance (predicting the situations he'll face, preparing certain spells to be combined in certain orders, and such).
--Psions can be more subtle and sneaky in the thick of things (having no components or issues with armor mean they don't have to be obvious casters, many of their powers are invisible, etc.) while wizards benefit from having a bird's-eye view, sometimes literally (they are safer when separated from immediate combat, good range and vision help with targeting their wide-area powers, etc.).
--Psionic abilities are more ephemeral (many requiring concentration, not affecting the physical world, or similar) while magical abilities can be more grounded (lasting permanently, creating real or quasi-real things, and such).
So the difference, then, is not a matter of mental vs. physical, it's a matter of style, just like divine and arcane casters pre-4e shared many of the same spells but had differences in components, tools, synergies, and the like.
I left the sorcerer out because it can easily just be a wizard variant. But good points otherwise.
I think gishes like the bard, paladin, and ranger throw a wrench in the works. Their at-wills are going to want to be weapon attacks. That's why I was looking at encounters being more defined by source, as these classes used to have a smaller subsection of spells. But I can see roles support going into encounters; perhaps there could be common riders that are triggered by role, though that would be odd for multiclasses.