I just finished reading the Races and Classes book last night*, and it occured to me that it would be interesting to see what roles are not currently utilized by power sources and vice versa since that will hint at upcoming classes we might be seeing.
So the roles that I saw described were:
- Defender - High HP, control over enemy movement in order to protect partymates
- Striker - can be broken down to ranged and melee, lots of damage to a single target, doesn't have the defense of a defender
- Controller - controls the battlefield either by doing damage to large numbers of creatures at once reducing total threats or by modifying the battlefield in ways advantageous to party.
- Leader - 'Heals' party members (either actual healing or allowing them to more efficiently tap into healing reserves), buff party, decent in HtoH combat as well.
In each of the above cases it might be possible to have a melee or ranged version of each as well. Not sure on some of them, but could be interesting... imagine a melee controller... hrmm...
As for power sources, this is kind of what I have gleaned so far:
- Martial (Melee) - This role uses weapon tricks and physical techniques to pull of their particular role in the group.
- Martial (Ranged) - This isn't actually seen that much, but is hinted at with the ranger as a ranged striker... basically filling a role with ranged physical weapons like bows.
- Divine - Accessing a gods power to fill your role in the group.
- Arcane - Accessing magical forces directly to fill your role in a group (can be taught or learn your powers in various ways)
- Nature - accessing the powers of and, well, nature of nature to fill your roll in the party. Doesn't look like this one will make an appearance in PHB I, but is certainly out there.
Alright... all that said I think it will be interesting see where there are holes in these combos and who is filling the existing slots (wethere actually announced for PHB I or not).
- Defender: Martial (Melee) - Fighter
- Defender: Martial (Ranged) - None. Could be interesting to have an archer of some sort capable to knocking back foes as they approach... not sure how this would work, but it intrigues me.
- Defender: Divine - Paladin. Uses various 'smites' rather than weapon tricks like the fighter.
- Defender: Arcane - I think this is where they are going with the Swordmage class but am not sure... could be there needs to be a melee and ranged striker designation rather than having it associated with Martial.
- Defender: Nature - Druid(?). Not sure here either... they mention the part of the druid they will focus on when they port it to 4E is its ability to shape change rather than as much on healing or spell casting since that is its unique identifier, but they don't really describe the role it will play. Could be a flexible one that can shift roles. If so, this role might be filled with a dedicated Nature Defender.
- Striker: Martial (Melee) - Rogue. May include the Swashbuckler at a later time as well, but they mentioned they gave some of their design intentions for the Swashbuckler to the Rogue, so who knows. Perhaps the Monk will fit here as well(?).
- Striker: Martial (Ranged) - Ranger or perhaps Scout. They mention that they still plan on having the Ranger have an option between focusing on either two-weapon melee or ranged combat so they might be flexible in the two Martial Striker roles. Might just have a new class called the Sniper here as well (conjecture).
- Striker: Divine - Not really a precident for this one... so it will be interesting what fills this role. I think it has a lot of potential.
- Striker: Arcane - Warlock. As mentioned above, if they make a distinction with ranged and melee here, the swordmage (or bladesinger or whatever) may fall into this category instead of defender.
- Striker: Nature - My guess is the Barbarian will fall here rather than as a Defender, but I can see that going either way. If not the Barbarian here, any idea what would fit this role? Could Druid again... depending on how it is done.
- Controller: Martial (Melee) - Not sure how I would make this one work, but I guess the closest existing analogue I can thin of would be the current spiked chain/tripper builds under 3.5.
- Controller: Martial (Ranged) - Again, not really an existing class for this role. I can see maybe an archer who focuses on number of shots for different targets rather than more damage with a single shot... or perhaps a large boulder throwing creature... not sure... ideas?
- Controller: Arcane - Wizard. Really the iconic controller and the class for which the role exists. I can see this being expanded with some of the previous specialist wizards as well, just adding flavor to the role. The Illusionist, Conjurer, etc.
- Controller: Divine - I can't think of a good existing class for this one either... but it could be a great spot for one. Perhaps a class that uses divine retribution (wrath of god) on lots of opponents as well as giving them all morale type penalties for daring to oppose their god.
- Controller: Nature - Not really a good one here either, but I envision heavy use of eathquakes or plants reaching out to grapple all in an area and constrict and use thorns and such to tear at others... or perhaps even a summoner here... not sure.
- Leader: Martial (Melee) - the Warlord is currently slated here.
- Leader: Martial (Ranged) - Not sure how this one would play out... shooting your own team mates with healing seems silly... ideas? Maybe shooting various flares and signals up to give buffs? I am sure someone creative could fill this slot with something interesting.
- Leader: Arcane - This definately seems the best role for a summoner to me. He could be pulling in more help at the same time as buffing his party AND the additional creatures he/she is introducing.
- Leader: Divine - Cleric is the quintessential Leader, so not much question there, but I think plenty of other existing classes will likely fall here as well.
- Leader: Nature - Not sure here... I can see something like a transmuter calling the nature of the elements to enhance the abilities of his party.
So what do you think? Does looking at it this way give you ideas for additional classes that might be fun to see in upcoming products?
Sean Mahoney
*(Before anyone jumps to harshly on me for dropping cash on it, I must say it was nice to read some of the thoughts of the designers to a much greater degree than we are hearing on the internet. That said I think it should have been released on DDI instead... would have made that much more successful than it is and we wouldn't be paying the price for this type of advertising... but that is neither here nor there)
|
I love the categorization of both role and source. It provides a framework to help develop meaningful classes. I can see the hazy outlines of the class that would fill each gap you had pointed out - needs more processor time.
BTW - I also bought Races & Classes, though i skipped the second book. R&C had some great insights on why the design team took the direction that it did. Good read.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Darn the Paizo boards for not letting me copy and respond to all of your well formatted posts.
I don't think there are two martial power sources. It doesn't make sense, particularly when that split could be made for all classes (e.g., the warlock is ranged whereas the rogue is melee).
The ranger will be a nature power source striker. The druid will therefore be either a leader or controller. Since C&R suggests that the druid will be built more around shapechanging than summoning, I would lean towards controller, albeit a controller that is very different from the wizard. The nature leader would most likely be built with a bunch of animal hangers-on. Barbarian will definitely be a defender, not a striker. C&R emphasized that rangers will be built for mobility and high damage, and even go so far as to say that ranger will be a striker. Plus, the barbarian has traditionally been one of the tanks; despite their higher movement, they generally stand there and fight. Their rage doesn't make them a good candidate for being a striker any more than the paladin's smite and war horse make him a good candidate for being a striker.
The monk, ninja, etc will probably run off a ki power source.
Unless they do something drastic with the sorcerer, we will most likely see overlap within a power source/role intersection. They describe the sorcerer as like a wizard, but with lingering effects (e.g., a sorc throws a cone of cold, he gets icy armor). This might make the class the sword mage, but that seems like a cop out on the concept. So, either the sorcerer will need to have a different power source (*shudder* dragon *shudder*) or it will overlap with the wizard. It could easily be a variant wizard (which is all it ever really was to begin with, in truth, if not in name).
Good call on the Ki Power... didn't think of that.
Your points are all well taken Sebastion.
As for responding to long posts... copy them into your buffer (alt+c) prior to hitting reply then you can more easily get the stuff you want.
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Good call on the Ki Power... didn't think of that.
Your points are all well taken Sebastion.
As for responding to long posts... copy them into your buffer (alt+c) prior to hitting reply then you can more easily get the stuff you want.
Sean Mahoney
I think you mean ctrl+c, but it strips out the formatting because it doesn't see the codes.
My other thought regarding power sources and roles is in regards to the additional PHBs. Here's my speculation:
PHBI - Has the martial, divine, and arcane power sources, but not all the power source role intersections. It's possible these may show up in a new PHB, but I think they'll make their appearance in the power source splat books along with any variant classes (e.g., the sorcerer).
PHBII - Will be nature, psionic, and maybe something else. It will be set up so that you could in theory play the game with just the PHBII. It will include new races oriented towards the various power sources (e.g., the gnome could be repositioned as a nature oriented race). The fluff of the book will tie the power sources together or at least provide a basic relationship between them (to the same extent the PHBI will probably explain how divine and arcane magic interact, or provides fighters with abilities to disrupt arcane spellcasting). All their spells/powers will be in the book.
PHBIII - Asian themed phb. I'd bet on ki and spirit as the relevant power sources. It will be loaded with asian themed races and have the asian weapons.
Anyway, that's my guess. Each PHB will essentially be a stand alone beast and the various splat books will build upon them. However, one thing I don't like about this model is that it leaves the initial classes unsupported after the first year. I think that's highly unlikely, but am not sure if the PHB will be where those classes get their additional support.
I think you mean ctrl+c, but it strips out the formatting because it doesn't see the codes.
Pfft... ctrl... alt... same thing... <feels dumb>
My other thought regarding power sources and roles is in regards to the additional PHBs. Here's my speculation:
<lots of good speculation>
Wow... I think that is very good speculation. I think it would be right in line with what we have heard so far. It would also provide the differentiation between the PHB series and splatbooks (wether they be based on power or role or race or whatever).
I wouldn't be real happy about buying the base combat (and what not) rules over and over again... but I can see this as way they could move forward.
Sean Mahoney
Just to throw my two cents into the discussion.
There has been talk that each of the specialist wizards will appear in future books and/or magazines.
While I would say they would for sure be arcane, the different specialists may take up different roles in the party.
A druid could easily fit into the nature striker role, or defender, but I am with the previous poster. I believe the barbarian will be the 1st nature defender. Since they stated they looked it as the druid equivalent to a paladin for the cleric.
I have been looking at the cleric as a ranged divine leader, which could be totally off base, but it would open up the melee divine leader for the druid.
Leader: Arcane - This definately seems the best role for a summoner to me. He could be pulling in more help at the same time as buffing his party AND the additional creatures he/she is introducing.
My guess: Bard.
EDIT: What we know of the Warlord and the Cleric is that they are buff/healing classes. Bard fits the bill.
I have been looking at the cleric as a ranged divine leader, which could be totally off base, but it would open up the melee divine leader for the druid.
The more I think about it, the more I think Sebastion might be right that I am offbase with with melee/ranged distinctions. They seem to play a part, but I am not sure where that distinction really fits in.
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A druid could easily fit into the nature striker role, or defender, but I am with the previous poster. I believe the barbarian will be the 1st nature defender. Since they stated they looked it as the druid equivalent to a paladin for the cleric.
I missed that reference. Is that in the description of the druid in R&C?
I agree though, the druid could really go anywhere because the 3e class is such a powerhouse. It's only if you assume one class per slot, assign the barbarian to defender and the ranger to striker that you get to having the druid be either a controller or leader. If any of those assumptions are wrong, everything goes up in the air.
I have been looking at the cleric as a ranged divine leader, which could be totally off base, but it would open up the melee divine leader for the druid.
I think the druid has to be off a nature power source and not a divine power source.
Leader: Arcane - This definately seems the best role for a summoner to me. He could be pulling in more help at the same time as buffing his party AND the additional creatures he/she is introducing.My guess: Bard.
Good call. I should of thought of that one. Definately fits.
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Leader: Arcane - This definately seems the best role for a summoner to me. He could be pulling in more help at the same time as buffing his party AND the additional creatures he/she is introducing.My guess: Bard.
I think that's probably right, though for a while, I was parsing out the fact that the bard makes deals with other planar entities as indicating a different power source. However, the flavor of the warlock is almost the exact same, so the bard must operate off of an arcane power source as well.
I would agree, but ultimately they will probably branch into melee and ranged for the same type of role/power.
Beguiler could be a melee arcane controller, since some of its bonuses you got when flanking.
Bard is also my vote for arcane leader.
They also stated some are mixtures of more than 1 power, for example the paladin may pull from the divine power source (smites, healing), and martial for its melee based skills, like its challenge ability. That was recently mentioned in a play test report.
I missed that reference. Is that in the description of the druid in R&C?
It was mentioned in passing, yeah. Though as you know there wasn't a whole lot on the druid.
I agree though, the druid could really go anywhere because the 3e class is such a powerhouse. It's only if you assume one class per slot, assign the barbarian to defender and the ranger to striker that you get to having the druid be either a controller or leader. If any of those assumptions are wrong, everything goes up in the air.
I am actually somewhat intrigued with the idea of the druid being flexible in what role it can slide into based on what form it is in. They definately state that the current thinking is that they will focus on the shapechanging capabilities, and if they have the role change with shape that would mean that Druid would replace Bard as the ultimate "fifth" party member.
Speaking of parties with more than 4 members... do you think these roles will push additional members into the roles of striker rather than just whatever else they want?
I think the druid has to be off a nature power source and not a divine power source.
Spot on.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Turns out I have much more to say about this than I expected. One other thought I had is that there may be sub-power sources within each power source. So, Arcane might have a sub-source of extraplanar, which is where the warlock and the bard get their abilities. Then you might have a dragon sub-source, which is where sorcerers get their abilities. They'd still fall under the umbrella of arcane, just like wizards, sorcerers, and bards do, but that would allow for a lot more overlap.
...though for a while, I was parsing out the fact that the bard makes deals with other planar entities as indicating a different power source.
I must of missed that! The bard makes deals with Planar entities?!?
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Speaking of parties with more than 4 members... do you think these roles will push additional members into the roles of striker rather than just whatever else they want?
I thought I remembered in the discussion of the warlock that once you had the 4 bases covered, an additional striker or defender is the most useful. That was one reason they gave for putting the warlock in the PHBI - to add another arcane class and to add another striker.
You are correct in the nature power source. However the druid may come from both. The barbarian being the druid's paladin, was noted in the R&C in the barbarian section I believe. My brother and I both have seen the reference and it was official, but I do not remember exactly where it was at.
Are any of you going to play 4th edition when it comes out? I already have two seperate play groups set up waiting to play. I have been slotted to be the leader in both, so I am going to play a dwarf warlord and a cleric of some kind. It is very possible that I will try the goblin from the monster manual.
Beguiler could be a melee arcane controller, since some of its bonuses you got when flanking.
Good call, I could see that. I wonder if the Beguiler would pull from another power source rather than arcane though. I get the feeling (and have no factual evidence to back it up) that enchantment type spells will go over into Psionics, so I could see beguiler moving to that camp, but still in the melee controller category(?).
They also stated some are mixtures of more than 1 power, for example the paladin may pull from the divine power source (smites, healing), and martial for its melee based skills, like its challenge ability. That was recently mentioned in a play test report.
This is a good point... it also opens up more and more options for classes and ideas, which is a good thing. Interesting...
Sean Mahoney
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You are correct in the nature power source. However the druid may come from both. The barbarian being the druid's paladin, was noted in the R&C in the barbarian section I believe. My brother and I both have seen the reference and it was official, but I do not remember exactly where it was at.
Ah, okay. I misread your post - I thought you were saying that the druid was the nature paladin.
Are any of you going to play 4th edition when it comes out? I already have two seperate play groups set up waiting to play. I have been slotted to be the leader in both, so I am going to play a dwarf warlord and a cleric of some kind. It is very possible that I will try the goblin from the monster manual.
There are a lot of threads about that question, not all of them friendly places to be. You may want to take a look, but bring flame retardent. I intend to give it a shot, and I like a great deal of what I hear.
I would agree with a striker being a big help as number 5 man, but you can never go wrong with more control or healing.
Then you might have a dragon sub-source, which is where sorcerers get their abilities.
If Warlock and their multiple sources of pacts are any indication, I think they will likely say that sorcerers can get their powers from a variety of ancient lineages. That choice might even have mechanical distinctions in the class.
Dragon sorcerers getting feats trees or powers that make them more dragonlike (though you would have to be careful on how this interacts with Dragonborn so they aren't getting the same overlapping powers and therefor are steered away from the class).
Fey sorcerers get feats trees and powers from their heritage. etc., etc.
Sean Mahoney
The more I think about it, the more I think Sebastion might be right
Don't say that. Look at how big his head is already in his avatar. :P
Seriously though, what you worked out with Sebastian's and DMcCoy's additions sounds like its very workable. I too purchased Races and Classes (cheaply on Amazon), but I didn't go into working out which class would go where.
Good call, I could see that. I wonder if the Beguiler would pull from another power source rather than arcane though. I get the feeling (and have no factual evidence to back it up) that enchantment type spells will go over into Psionics, so I could see beguiler moving to that camp, but still in the melee controller category(?).
I bet you are right in the enchantment, and I remember one of the wizards guys stating that the bulk of mind control effects are going to the psions.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If Warlock and their multiple sources of pacts are any indication, I think they will likely say that sorcerers can get their powers from a variety of ancient lineages. That choice might even have mechanical distinctions in the class.Dragon sorcerers getting feats trees or powers that make them more dragonlike (though you would have to be careful on how this interacts with Dragonborn so they aren't getting the same overlapping powers and therefor are steered away from the class).
Fey sorcerers get feats trees and powers from their heritage. etc., etc.
Sean Mahoney
That's a good point. In any event, I wouldn't be surprised to see sub-power sources.
Are any of you going to play 4th edition when it comes out? I already have two seperate play groups set up waiting to play. I have been slotted to be the leader in both, so I am going to play a dwarf warlord and a cleric of some kind. It is very possible that I will try the goblin from the monster manual.
Well, I think I could commit to buying the first three core books at this point, but I will want to have really read and understood them prior to deciding on any further purchases.
As for actually playing it, I think it is very likely that I will run a one-off adventure using it for my group in between adventures in the campaign we are in at the time (likely to still be the SCAP at that point). However, I am not sure we will be moved to convert the whole campaign or even have our next campaign be 4E. See, the thing is it will have to be an EXTREME improvement over 3.5 to make me want to skip the stories/campaigns that Paizo has put out as APs. I am very much still wanting to run Age of Worms, Savage Tide and Rise of the Runelords (and I am sure Curse of the Crimson Throne will be great too). So I think as a base for our group it might be a while before making the switch.
(On the other hand, there is no way I can keep up with the pace that Pathfinder is coming out, so I just may need to get over this need to play them all and just be content to have read some of them... or find sponser who will allow me to quit my job and RP full time... yeah, right...)
All that said, I really like some of the design ideas that I am hearing from 4E... they are really growing on me.
Sean Mahoney
Are any of you going to play 4th edition when it comes out? I already have two seperate play groups set up waiting to play. I have been slotted to be the leader in both, so I am going to play a dwarf warlord and a cleric of some kind. It is very possible that I will try the goblin from the monster manual.
I intend to purchase the 3 core books and introduce it to my group. We'll go from there as to what we do. If it's truly as good as they say it is then we might switch mid-campaign, though I don't know how easy that would be (party is currently 5th level, and includes a monk). If it's good, but not good enough to switch mid-campaign then it might be awhile before we play with it as the campaign I'm running has a lot of wind still left in its sails.
In Worlds & Monsters, they mention that "Shadow" will be an additional power source, something necromancers and other suitably dark characters draw their powers from.
As for an Arcane Defender or a Martial Controller, I could see the Hexblade work in either of those roles. It's kind of a fine line, and with the Warlock having gained the Hexblade's "Curse" feature, I think it's a bit unlikely unfortunately.
I don't suspect that there will be a Core set of books for Asian style classes and characters. I don't think it would get adequate support. I get the feeling we'll see the return of the Monk in the PHB II and that's about it.
One gripe I have about the classes chosen for the PHB I is that there's, I feel, a bit of an overemphasis on Strikers, and not enough love elsewhere.
Currently there are 2 Leaders (Cleric (Divine) and Warlord (Martial)), 2 Defenders (Fighter (Martial) and Paladin (Divine)), 3 Strikers (Rogue (Martial), Ranger (Martial) and Warlock (Arcane)) and only 1 Controller (Wizard (Arcane)).
I really wish we'd seen another controller rather than an additional striker, perhaps looking at the Ranger as the Martial Controller (performing all manner of arrow related wonders as mentioned above). I suppose you need more options for Strikers since it's going to be a very common class, but I don't like that it's still maintaining the mentality of "The party will have a wizard, definitely."
Having played games with three people where no one wanted to play a Wizard was rough, particularly because we played pre-written modules and sometimes the challenges would be unduly difficult for the party to overcome.
I don't think Ranger is going to be in the PHBI. He's clearly an ideal candidate for the Nature power source and the write-up in R&C indicates that he is not completely finished yet.
I had thought I heard Rangers were definitely in. Also, where exactly is the reference to this Nature power source coming from? I don't recall seeing anything about it previously.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I don't think Ranger is going to be in the PHBI. He's clearly an ideal candidate for the Nature power source and the write-up in R&C indicates that he is not completely finished yet.I had thought I heard Rangers were definitely in. Also, where exactly is the reference to this Nature power source coming from? I don't recall seeing anything about it previously.
I think it is in R&C. Also, the article about the new FR mentions the 'Primal' power source, which is likely the nature power source. I can't think of any other direct references to the power source, but it is heavily implied in the Ranger/Druid/Barbarian write-ups in R&C.
I think it is in R&C. Also, the article about the new FR mentions the 'Primal' power source, which is likely the nature power source. I can't think of any other direct references to the power source, but it is heavily implied in the Ranger/Druid/Barbarian write-ups in R&C.
Yea, calling whatever Barbarian/Druid work off of has been shorthand called the nature power source. Primal sounds right. The description of the druid that I've heard thus far (about how they're going to be more feral) fits with "Primal" more then "Nature" Nature conjures up images in American minds of touchy, feely, tree-hugger types, which doesn't appeal to the Right Wing Republican types (Yes, I am over generalizing, but this is how a marketting person would think). Primal would appeal more towards those that like "cool powers" and "strategic options", aka men.
New female RPGers tend to play things like the 3.5 druid. A more feral druid does not sound like it would appeal to the same audiance as the 3.5 version did. But it does sound like it would appeal more towards those that like battlefield combat.
*Sigh*
|
|
New female RPGers tend to play things like the 3.5 druid. A more feral druid does not sound like it would appeal to the same audiance as the 3.5 version did.
You must know different 'female RPGers' gamers than I do. 'More feral' sounds like nail on head to me. :)
Standard dialogue from the girl gamer in our group, "Aaah! I keel you!" She's calmed down a lot and doesn't flail her arms around and knock stuff over as much...
Remember, never raise your hand to a woman. It leaves your groin unprotected!
New female RPGers tend to play things like the 3.5 druid. A more feral druid does not sound like it would appeal to the same audiance as the 3.5 version did.You must know different 'female RPGers' gamers than I do. 'More feral' sounds like nail on head to me. :)
Standard dialogue from the girl gamer in our group, "Aaah! I keel you!"
That's the difference. Oh, I've met my share of female Goth Vampire LARPers, SCAers, female minis gamers and so on and they're as "violent" if not more so then men. But generally females just getting into gaming tend to prefer things like Rogue, Druid, Sorcerer, bard, sometimes cleric etc.
I play alot with 4 different girls, and they wouldnt touch a magic user with a ten foot pole in most cases. Hard core fighters almost 100% of the time. One likes to play a paladin, but doesnt use the spells at all. I think she just likes to lord over people.
They are so feral they even keep track of kills to one up each other.
My wife played a feral halfling dual wielding dagger fighter, she was always dirty and nasty. She treated that little girl like Captain Kirk, kill it or sleep with it.
|
|
My favorite girl-gamer scene, back in college.
DM: "The last guard drops, bleeding out."
Girl gamer: "I stop to bandage him so he doesn't bleed to death."
Boy gamers: "We charge into the next room!"
<fighty mcfight for a few rounds, goes badly for the PCs>
DM: "You can hear the guys in the next room, fighting a new group of guards. It sounds kinda like they're getting their @$$es handed to them..."
Girl gamer: "Fine, I go help them." <pause> "Crap, he might get up again and attack us from behind..." <slits the throat of the guy she was just bandaging and charges to save the day>
So are you saying that if I want to play a wizard I'm automatically in the Controller-arcane role? Or is it just better at it? I understand that they have always been suited to it, but I have played my share of unconventional wizards and they are fun. I hope it doesn't remove the variety that 3.5 has.
So are you saying that if I want to play a wizard I'm automatically in the Controller-arcane role?
It means that the combat abilities of the class will be designed with that role in mind. (There will be non-combat stuff too, like knowledge skills or rituals that were former long term defensive stuff and divinations, they just aren't relevant to a combat role, so they aren't part of this discussion)
Of course, that said, you could do the controller role in a lot of ways. One person might be big on direct damage spells and the wizard will have plenty of them, they will just focus on spreading damage across multiple targets (taking out groups of smaller creatures and softening up the enemy as a whole... since 4E will feature more groups of enemies in combat this is even more useful than in previous versions of the game). Things like your classic Fireball and Lightning Bolts fit into this category.
Another wizard might want to use wall spells, grease and black tentacles to control the battle field, splitting up the enemy and making them easier for his group to pick off.
And probably more...
But if you want to play the guy who dishes out the most damage to a single creature, you want to play a striker... like a warlock or a rogue.
Sean Mahoney
The monk, ninja, etc will probably run off a ki power source.
The more I think about it, the more this sounds right. I'd venture a guess that assassin, samari, We Jen (or whatever that class called) would as well.