Things That Are Missing II

[Nightgaun7]

Old thread got locked, but it had had a spate of posts recently

[Tegu8788]

And for the lazy folk, my list.

There are no Dexterity or Wisdom primary Defenders.
There are no Implement exclusive Defenders. (Swordmage and Paladin mix it up some, but their implement attacks are secondary)
There are no Defenders designed to use Ranged Weaponry.
No class adds Charisma to their AC.
Obviously there is no Shadow Defender, Leader, or Controller.
There is no Martial class that is a Controller. Coupled with...
There is no Controller class that uses melee weapons.
All Controllers use Intelligence or Wisdom, barring the Binder with Charisma.
Only 1.5 classes use Constitution as a primary stat, Battlemind and Warlock.
Despite it's great feat support and class features, there are only five hammers.
There is no theme for vampirism.
There is no lycanthrope feat.
There is no way to play a minion master ala Necromancer.
The Berserker, Hunter, Scout, and Executioner are the only classes that have two power sources.
The Berserker is the only class that officially fills two roles.
The Warlord is the only class to get a subclass label without getting an Essentials update.
There is no Military Spear or Mace.
Only the Genasi can boost Strength and Intelligence at the same time.
No Striker uses Intelligence as their primary stat.
There are no Psionic Essentials classes.
There are no Two-Handed Light Blades, that are not double weapons.

[Gilphon]

Something I noticed yesterday, on the subject of making a solid case for why Bullywug is the worst playable race, is the Assassin is the only class that wants Dex and Con as their highest scores.

The search for similarly rare combinations led me to discover that only Swordmages need Int and Str. Int and Dex is a bit of weird case, in that there's a few places where the books suggest it, but it's never actually the right choice. Closest to existing is the MP2 Rogue build.

Though, of course, Hybridizing changes things here.

Oh, but while I'm thinking of it: Bullywugs, Githyanki, Orcs, Duergar and Bugbears never got proper write-ups.

[masteraleph]

Something I noticed yesterday, on the subject of making a solid case for why Bullywug is the worst playable race, is the Assassin is the only class that wants Dex and Con as their highest scores.

And even then, only sort of- CHA secondary is better for Assassins.

The search for similarly rare combinations led me to discover that only Swordmages need Int and Str.

Not entirely true. Even the supposed INT/STR swordmages can get by without due to Intelligent Blademaster. Warlords can actually use STR/INT more, though- the Warlord powers are all STR based, and INT is one of their secondaries. Otherwise agreed, though- INT/DEX is a terrible choice, and the correct choice for the MP2 Rogue build is almost always DEX/WIS.

As for Tegu's list-

Scouts also have 2 sources (Martial and Primal). And the Hunter is in theory a Martial/Primal controller, but of course it's also not very good at its job.

[Inevitability]

Something I noticed yesterday, on the subject of making a solid case for why Bullywug is the worst playable race, is the Assassin is the only class that wants Dex and Con as their highest scores.

How about Iron Soul Monks?

[Tegu8788]

The Scout is a good call for dual source.

I've been slowly homebrewing some stuff to fill in the gaps. Classes are the hardest to fill, but I've a few ideas. 4.4 are a lot easier to build, I have to say.
Essential Warlord: Int primary, Striker/Leader, can either heal or do damage, gains a bonus to knowledge check type actions
Essential psychic: Con based shapeshifter using Cha secondary for armor, switching between defender, striker, and controller
Essential shadow leader/defender: use a shadow aura to pick an enemy to mark and an ally to buff, and a drain technique to provide healing, wisdom implement using
Essential martial melee controller: switches between weapons for different types of effects, high mobility, low damage multi-attacks
Essential arcane archer: dex based bow using defender. Not a ton here, a daily spell to add +10 or target everyone within range for an RBA, different stances cause different RBA mods

Edit: And somehow I forgot my necromancer. Because we all have one.
Essential shadow leader/controller: Int primary, Cha for more summons, Con for stronger summons, THP machine, surge sharing akin to the artificer, use minor actions to have minions make weak attacks

[Nightgaun7]

Essential shadow leader/defender: use a shadow aura to pick an enemy to mark and an ally to buff, and a drain technique to provide healing, wisdom implement using

I've been looking for Shadow stuff lately in the course of homebrewing up a bunch of monsters.

I ran across this shadow defender a while ago. Haven't tested it but it looks pretty interesting.

Just yesterday I found this batch of Shadow stuff - classes, races, and more. I haven't realy had a chance to go through it yet though.

[Gilphon]

I don't know how Warlords managed to slip my mind for INT/STR. I do know how Iron Soul Monks slipped by, though- it's hard to keep track of every extra secondary the powers books added.

So INT/DEX is the only combination without a viable option.

[Yakk]

Two types of role are about battlefield positioning: Defender and Controller.
Two types of role are about HP: Leader and Striker.
Two types of role are about status effects: Leaders and Controllers.
Two types of role are about self-position: the Striker and the Defender.

The Defender is the Melee-range positioning type. It encourages foes to attack it only insofar as being in melee range, it is hard to avoid it: so they are also tough.

The Controller is the Ranged positioning type. It discourages foes from attacking any of their allies. Foes only get close if they fail their job, so they are also fragile.

The Striker manipulates foes HP down rapidly (and otherwise "ends" things/cripples foes). The Leader manipulates allies HP upwards.

The Controller debuffs foes. The Leader buffs allies.

The Defender positions themselves to best protect themselves and their allies. The Striker positions themselves to best take down their foes.

    Defender ---- SELF POSITION -- Striker
       |                              |
   OTHER POSITION                    HP
       |                              |
    Controller -- STATUS EFFECTS -- Leader

Now, this isn't set in stone, but it does line up with at least the early 4e game design. You can see positional mechanics in the first 3 Strikers:
+1 for being nearest, apply striker mechanic only to nearest foe, combat advantage if flanking, etc

This "square of concern" gives each character 2 things to worry about in their core role.

In this analysis, a ranged defender isn't a hole in the game any more than "there isn't a striker who instead of dealing damage, heals their allies" is a hole in the game.

[Tegu8788]

That, is an awesome breakdown. Can we pin this somewhere?

[Nightgaun7]

In this analysis, a ranged defender isn't a hole in the game any more than "there isn't a striker who instead of dealing damage, heals their allies" is a hole in the game.

This is pretty much it. A ranged defender is...a controller. It's a thing that we have already.

[Kurald Galain]

This is pretty much it. A ranged defender is...a controller. It's a thing that we have already.

No, that's not what he's saying.

Nevertheless, nice analysis Yakk.

[Nightgaun7]

No, that's not what he's saying.

Nevertheless, nice analysis Yakk.

It's what I'm saying, because as far as I can tell that's how it works.

[vasharanpaladin]

This is pretty much it. A ranged defender is...a controller. It's a thing that we have already.

Other way around. A Defender is a specialized soft Controller. It's designed around a specific debuff - penalizing a target for attacking someone else - with various soft control effects appended to it... regardless of who's doing the marking, a marked creature still has the choice of whether or not the effect applies. Whereas the Controller points at a few squares and says "nope, everyone here gets the anime tentacles, period," or hard control.

There is overlap, yes, but the two are distinct. Seekers, for example, have very little in the way of hard control... they're one mark/punish feature away from being ranged Defenders.

[Excession]

There is no Military Spear or Mace.

For spears, the PHB1 has the Longspear (2h, reach), AV has the Trident (1h, heavy thrown), and MME has the Pike, which is just a Longspear that Halflings can use. I'm not sure if any of them get used much. If you meant Staves though, I would agree that we're missing a Military or Superior staff. There are a couple of feats that make the basic staff more powerful, but they don't make it into something a Barbarian|Wizard (Rage Mage?) would want to use.

We're a bit short on strikers that use heavy armour and shield. There's the Blackguard, which feels a bit underdone. I think I might be able to make something playable out of a Ranger|Paladin using the shield enchantments that make it count as a weapon.

[Tegu8788]

Part of what makes a defender in my mind is the ability to do spike damage when the mark is violated, though that may be in part to so many fighter and paladin games.


I will also be the first to admit I'm the mix master hybrid lover, so I might see gaps that don't truly exist. Dual source classes aren't really a hole, and classes that fill more than one role doesn't constitute a true hole. But I couldn't think of a way to make a Essentials Warlord to explain the subclass title that was new, and the Int striker hole was there, so I merged them. Plus, I played a Ranger|Warlord in a one-off that was hilarious. Twin great axe strike, then healed himself.

There is overlap, yes, but the two are distinct. Seekers, for example, have very little in the way of hard control... they're one mark/punish feature away from being ranged Defenders.

I'll have to check out the seeker, maybe make a subclass instead of a new arcane archer.

For spears, the PHB1 has the Longspear (2h, reach), AV has the Trident (1h, heavy thrown), and MME has the Pike, which is just a Longspear that Halflings can use. I'm not sure if any of them get used much.

The spear is an iconic military weapon, I'd love to see it get some more love.

If you meant Staves though, I would agree that we're missing a Military or Superior staff. There are a couple of feats that make the basic staff more powerful, but they don't make it into something a Barbarian|Wizard (Rage Mage?) would want to use.

I did not, but I would agree. They have some wonderful feats, and my Barbarian|Sorcerer build does use one. Not optimal, but not provoking attacks and reach outweigh having a fullblade implement. To me, at least, in heroic tier. Dragon sorcerer Str/Cha merges beautifully with Barbarian.

We're a bit short on strikers that use heavy armour and shield. There's the Blackguard, which feels a bit underdone. I think I might be able to make something playable out of a Ranger|Paladin using the shield enchantments that make it count as a weapon.

The Slayer uses heavy armor I believe, but no shield most of the time if I recall correctly. I think the Berzerker uses a shield, or at least can. I've seen Ranger and Barbarian hybrids with Battle Clerics that are nasty with heavy armor. But the Blackguard is the only narrative Striker in armor and shield, and you're right, it's not a great one. A Viking build would be great, though Barbarian/Berzerker covers that slot fairly well.

[Dimers]

So INT/DEX is the only combination without a viable option.

Hey, wand wizards aren't worthless, they're just worth less ... than other wizards. Which is not saying much!

For spears, the PHB1 has the Longspear (2h, reach), AV has the Trident (1h, heavy thrown), and MME has the Pike, which is just a Longspear that Halflings can use. I'm not sure if any of them get used much. If you meant Staves though, I would agree that we're missing a Military or Superior staff. There are a couple of feats that make the basic staff more powerful, but they don't make it into something a Barbarian|Wizard (Rage Mage?) would want to use.

The lance is also a military spear. It's a tiny niche because it's very difficult to be on a mount all the time, but there it is. I'd dig a military staff with reach, maybe a superior one that negates flanking like the longstaff from 3.5 Complete Adventurer.

Something I noticed yesterday, on the subject of making a solid case for why Bullywug is the worst playable race, is the Assassin is the only class that wants Dex and Con as their highest scores.

While such classes are rare on paper, I'd like to say that both warlock and battlemind can safely ignore their normal secondary stat in favor of Dex. It's good for skills, initiative, and about two-thirds of your defenses in a typical scenario. That can easily outweigh the benefits granted by some (not all) specific powers/features. Warlock has Stealth and Thievery on their class list and a self-concealing feature ... seems like a good Dex class to me.

Not that that makes bullywugs good, of course

[Kurald Galain]

Hey, wand wizards aren't worthless, they're just worth less ... than other wizards. Which is not saying much!

Indeed. They're much better than their rep suggests, and I can think of a lot of things that are worse to play than a wand wizard (or witch, or sha'ir).

[its_all_ogre]

the TacLord is unusual for the STR/INT split simply because the TacLord really benefits more from a high Int than a high Str compared to other classes with secondary stats.

this is assuming you look at whole party dynamics and benefits.
(admittedly Str is still important to hit)

I'm playing an Artificer/Warlord hybrid in a game which is great fun (he also multi-classed cleric for another knowledge slot and an extra heal once per day)
he's the "lazy warlord" type with his warlord powers and his artificer powers are all Int based so I have Str 10 as he is a venerable "retired" general.

love Yakk's diagram, explains it beautifully, although my experience of the battlemind is weirdly very different, that may be specific to the one I've encountered though.
his build was more "you can move wherever you want, but I will still be next to you at the end of your move"

[its_all_ogre]

I've been slowly homebrewing some stuff to fill in the gaps. Classes are the hardest to fill, but I've a few ideas. 4.4 are a lot easier to build, I have to say.
Essential Warlord: Int primary, Striker/Leader, can either heal or do damage, gains a bonus to knowledge check type actions
Essential psychic: Con based shapeshifter using Cha secondary for armor, switching between defender, striker, and controller
Essential shadow leader/defender: use a shadow aura to pick an enemy to mark and an ally to buff, and a drain technique to provide healing, wisdom implement using
Essential martial melee controller: switches between weapons for different types of effects, high mobility, low damage multi-attacks
Essential arcane archer: dex based bow using defender. Not a ton here, a daily spell to add +10 or target everyone within range for an RBA, different stances cause different RBA mods

Edit: And somehow I forgot my necromancer. Because we all have one.
Essential shadow leader/controller: Int primary, Cha for more summons, Con for stronger summons, THP machine, surge sharing akin to the artificer, use minor actions to have minions make weak attacks

I like the sound of all of these...
for the low damage multi-attacks have you found a way to work on it not being potentially abused?
just curious

[Yakk]

My first pass (you can see remnants) was just (Defender & Controller: Position, Leader & Striker: HP). Which was lacking.

It was when I added status effects (which naturally attach to Controller & Leader) I noticed the gap, and the positional mechanics of (at least PHB) strikers and defenders popped out.

I agree that later iterations of 4e left the square of concern rules. Sorcerers care more about other positioning than their own (with ranged AOE powers), even if they lack significant control over them. But I'd argue that this is often to the detriment of these later class designs.

The Shaman is also interesting, in that it is a Leader with a "self positioning" (in the form of the spirit) baked in. I can now see why it really feels like the Shaman should have been at least a "sub defender".

If we follow that "Square of Concern" hard (and I'd argue when making something as novel as a ranged defender we should, to keep things on the rails, even more so than the later 4e classes do), the ranged defender has to be about both self and other positioning. This is hard to do with a ranged character. The closest we get is the Ranger/Warlock prime shot & d6 feature rules. The ranged defender can only mark the closest foe? That isn't quite enough. If a foe is closer than the ally, a different mark punishment effect than if the ally is closer than the foe? Some kind of thing where foes that move away from the defender are hindered? Uncertain.

The Shaman approach would be another one, where the Ranged defender doesn't care as much about their own position, as they do care about their "minion"'s position.

Another twist we can do is make a defender that doesn't mark (and not just "Defender Aura"). This is going to be tricky, because double-dip defending is often over powered. And defending allies in melee range without a mark is tricky.

[Tegu8788]

My ranged defender concept uses an aura, which has different effects based on stances. Some change the aura's shape, other make it hindering terrain for enemies or provide cover for allies, that kind of stuff. Pick one enemy that's in the aura, and Mark it. Then designate one ally as your Hand, who gets bonuses to-hit and damage, and a free swing when your Mark is violated. It's a lazy Defender.

Which is similar to the play of shaman, now that's it's been pointed out.

[Nightgaun7]

We're a bit short on strikers that use heavy armour and shield. There's the Blackguard, which feels a bit underdone. I think I might be able to make something playable out of a Ranger|Paladin using the shield enchantments that make it count as a weapon.

Pal|Lock might work too. I'd definitely like to see more there, though. I have a couple of homebrew classes that aimed for it, but they're barely developed.

Part of what makes a defender in my mind is the ability to do spike damage when the mark is violated, though that may be in part to so many fighter and paladin games.

Agreed. The "Catch-22" defenders usually aim for is a big part of the role to my mind. And it's something a ranged defender could certainly do, athough then you have to wonder why they couldn't just shoot the guy in the first place...

My ranged defender concept uses an aura, which has different effects based on stances. Some change the aura's shape, other make it hindering terrain for enemies or provide cover for allies, that kind of stuff. Pick one enemy that's in the aura, and Mark it. Then designate one ally as your Hand, who gets bonuses to-hit and damage, and a free swing when your Mark is violated. It's a lazy Defender.

Which is similar to the play of shaman, now that's it's been pointed out.

Sounds pretty cool. How far along is it?

If we follow that "Square of Concern" hard (and I'd argue when making something as novel as a ranged defender we should, to keep things on the rails, even more so than the later 4e classes do), the ranged defender has to be about both self and other positioning. This is hard to do with a ranged character. The closest we get is the Ranger/Warlock prime shot & d6 feature rules. The ranged defender can only mark the closest foe? That isn't quite enough. If a foe is closer than the ally, a different mark punishment effect than if the ally is closer than the foe? Some kind of thing where foes that move away from the defender are hindered? Uncertain.

The Shaman approach would be another one, where the Ranged defender doesn't care as much about their own position, as they do care about their "minion"'s position.

Another twist we can do is make a defender that doesn't mark (and not just "Defender Aura"). This is going to be tricky, because double-dip defending is often over powered. And defending allies in melee range without a mark is tricky.

This is why I think most ranged defender concepts are just going to end up as controllers. Defenders generally care about positioning themselves, and a character with any range worth speaking of will have that as a comparatively minimal concern. Even Tegu's concept above, or the Shaman, is still just outsourcing it to another piece on the game board, and the class in play is concerned with moving something under their control to where it needs to be. And Aura's probably aren't going to have very long range.

No marking is an idea, but as you pointed out, hard to actually defend without a mark or mark-proxy.

Other way around. A Defender is a specialized soft Controller. It's designed around a specific debuff - penalizing a target for attacking someone else - with various soft control effects appended to it... regardless of who's doing the marking, a marked creature still has the choice of whether or not the effect applies. Whereas the Controller points at a few squares and says "nope, everyone here gets the anime tentacles, period," or hard control.

There is overlap, yes, but the two are distinct. Seekers, for example, have very little in the way of hard control... they're one mark/punish feature away from being ranged Defenders.

I think there are a two things that make defenders different:
1) They're tough
2) They offer enemies a choice - attack me, or suffer.

A ranged defender will miss out on both, I think. They won't get to take as much advantage of being tough, because a lot of enemies won't be able to attack them as an alternative. And this is also the issue with the choice - so many enemies won't have one. So their mark will essentially become a striker mechanism - the troll has to attack the rogue, can't hit the ranged defender, ranged defender gets to stack on the punishment.

[Tegu8788]

I see a ranged defender as a good balance to highly mobile targets, which the Swordmage and Battlemind can handle some, or enemies you want to mark that are ranged primarily. That archer in the rafters, that dragon that remembers how to use her wings, any good lurker. Not as strong as a Fighter against melee fighters, but better at dealing with a wizard, for instance.

[Waddacku]

Maybe a class that punishes enemies (even non-adjacent ones) for moving away from them. "Turn your back and I'll shoot you" kind of thing. Thus your own positioning becomes important as well. Bit like a pursuit Avenger, though.

[Dimers]

Maybe a class that punishes enemies (even non-adjacent ones) for moving away from them. "Turn your back and I'll shoot you" kind of thing. Thus your own positioning becomes important as well. Bit like a pursuit Avenger, though.

For a defender, that would work well as a psionic, Charisma-driven, fear-using class. It could make a great battlemind PP, too -- especially a Vistani battlemind. My avatar was one of those (though not strong on fear or Charisma).

[vasharanpaladin]

I think there are a two things that make defenders different:
1) They're tough
2) They offer enemies a choice - attack me, or suffer.

A ranged defender will miss out on both, I think. They won't get to take as much advantage of being tough, because a lot of enemies won't be able to attack them as an alternative. And this is also the issue with the choice - so many enemies won't have one. So their mark will essentially become a striker mechanism - the troll has to attack the rogue, can't hit the ranged defender, ranged defender gets to stack on the punishment.

1) Not necessarily. A Defender tends to have a sturdier "chassis," so to speak, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's more durable. Especially on classes or builds that don't particularly care about Constitution. And since damage tends to outstrip mitigation by a fair amount, marshmallow tanking is rather blatantly discouraged in favor of steel or blink tanking... that is, you want to avoid attacks, not soak them. Whence the Defenders being the ones who get the best armor or other means of raising AC.

Tl;dr version: HP and surge count is not required. AC and NAD count is.

2) It's a bit less granular than that. The choice a good Defender offers is:

-Attack the Defender, and probably whiff on his AC, resulting in a wasted turn; or
-Attack someone else and face the Defender's wrath, and probably whiff anyway because of the mark penalty, resulting in a wasted turn and a net loss.

A creature is assumed to be aware of any effects in place unless a mechanic states otherwise. That goblin that the fighter just swung at will be aware of the threat he represents if it attacks someone else. Any marked creature is assumed to be aware of the mark and the consequences for acting in spite of it. The Defender's task is simply to make the choice as agonizing as possible.

So, with that said, let us take the hypothetical ranged Defender. Let's give him a simple mark/punish mechanic... something like the fighter's Combat Challenge will suffice. If he attacks a creature, that creature is marked. If the marked creature attacks someone else, it takes a -2 penalty on the attack roll, and our ranged Defender can make an RBA on it as an interrupt.

The optimal configuration, then, comes out like the swordmage: Our ranged Defender isn't a "tank," but a "kite." He'll want to pick one target and then play Keep Away; feats and powers would be geared toward making "ignore the archer and attack someone else" be consistently a worse choice than "chase down the archer." Remember: The difference between a ranged Defender and a Controller is that the latter does not offer a choice.

[Tegu8788]

Al of those are very good points.

[Nightgaun7]

Tl;dr version: HP and surge count is not required. AC and NAD count is.

And as far as I'm concerned, that's part of being tough.

The optimal configuration, then, comes out like the swordmage: Our ranged Defender isn't a "tank," but a "kite." He'll want to pick one target and then play Keep Away; feats and powers would be geared toward making "ignore the archer and attack someone else" be consistently a worse choice than "chase down the archer." Remember: The difference between a ranged Defender and a Controller is that the latter does not offer a choice.

I've only played a Swordmage for two sessions, so I'm not an expert, but when I played it, there wasn't "keep-away" so much as there was "I'm coming to get you" - Aegis of Assault, I know the others are different. But the Swordmage still stabs monsters in the face in all its forms.

Suffice to say that I doubt a ranged defender will ever truly work as such. If you brew one up and it does, then great, but I suspect it will end up like a Warlock - a bit of control and a bit of damage and not much of a defender, most of the time.

[vasharanpaladin]

And as far as I'm concerned, that's part of being tough.



I've only played a Swordmage for two sessions, so I'm not an expert, but when I played it, there wasn't "keep-away" so much as there was "I'm coming to get you" - Aegis of Assault, I know the others are different. But the Swordmage still stabs monsters in the face in all its forms.

Suffice to say that I doubt a ranged defender will ever truly work as such. If you brew one up and it does, then great, but I suspect it will end up like a Warlock - a bit of control and a bit of damage and not much of a defender, most of the time.

Having played all three swordmage builds at one point or another, I can say that the best configuration is a lot like treating your Aegis like a rubber band... you mark one target and then go deal with a different target, only interacting with your marked enemy when it does something you don't like. Which, for the swordmage, is either "engages you" or "attacks someone else." The swordmage, however, has a hard time making the latter consistently a worse choice than the former...

Archer (Martial Defender): Core mechanic is Overwatch, area burst 2 in 10, zone. Enemies within the zone are marked EONT. If a marked enemy makes an attack that doesn't include the archer as a target, the archer can make an RBA against that enemy as an interrupt.

Pros: You have a ranged Defender that can easily be appended to an existing chassis (i.e. the fighter) and jockey off existing support with little trouble. You'll be good friends with an Eagle Shaman or archer warlord.
Cons: Most ranged weapons are two-handed, precluding shield use; a feat tax or class feature may be necessary to adjust AC to proper levels. You also have a ranged Defender; this isn't going to do fighting lines a lot of favors, as it can't simply stand still and act the eye of the storm, as the fighter and warden can, but if an effective party can be built around the swordmage as a primary Defender, one can be built around this, too.