What makes a controller a controller?

[NMcCoy]

A controller, to me at least, is fundamentally about constraining the enemy's options. That can be "you take damage if you enter this area", it can be "ha, my party has resist 10 fire now", it can be "stay spread apart unless you want another Scorching Burst to your entire party", or it can be "you need to spend your turn crawling back out of that pit if you want to attack us".

(On the martial-controller note: with the right equipment, feats, and power choice, it's possible to build a very controllery Warlord.)

 

[Felon]

Now the Controller is basically the anti-leader. Where the leader offers powers that improve the plan of his allies, the controller takes apart the plan of the enemy.

Leaders do not simply buff allies. They also debuff enemies with the very same toolset as the controller.

 

[knightofround]

I think a big part of the headache comes from the controller role itself. There's really nothing that *only* a controller can do.

Strikers clearly dish out big numbers and effects.
Leaders clearly pass around big numbers and effects.
Defenders clearly take big numbers and effects.
Controllers clearly do....? Out of the 4 roles, they are the least obvious when they are missing.

In the core PHB controllers were rather unique in the sense they were the only ranged glass cannon. (tossing the juiceless bow rangers aside) So they were somewhat unique in the sense they played an "artillery" role.

But now there's more ranged non-controller classes, and if range is a sacrifice for squishiness, then its not really a controller thing anymore.

They should have just kept it to striker/leader/defender, sigh....

 

[knightofround]

A controller, to me at least, is fundamentally about constraining the enemy's options. That can be "you take damage if you enter this area", it can be "ha, my party has resist 10 fire now", it can be "stay spread apart unless you want another Scorching Burst to your entire party", or it can be "you need to spend your turn crawling back out of that pit if you want to attack us".

(On the martial-controller note: with the right equipment, feats, and power choice, it's possible to build a very controllery Warlord.)

The thing is, if its about constraining the enemies options...well, the most effective way to constrain actions is to kill them (striker).

Or, you can make your party kill better by either debuffing the enemy or buffing the party (leader).

Or, you can whip out some nifty toys to keep the enemy's actions focused on you (defender).

I think the last part of your quote is very telling because, now that I think about it, pretty much every class can make themselves more controller-y with build options.

But not every class can make themselves into a Leader, Striker, and Defender...

Bah...this thread is making me pessimistic...somebody pick me up!

 

[Tony Vargas]

Lately I've been taking my own stab at making a Martial Controller, and the biggest thing I'm struggling with is figuring out how to make the class "feel" like a controller.

Cool, join the club!

No, really, there's a group on the wizard's community:

The Martial Controller Underground

I've written up a list of controller attributes, please speak up if you see something missing or if one attribute has much greater/less importance than the others.

1. Multi target attack powers are low damage, but have large areas of effect

It seems to be a common attribute of all controllers that they not only have larger AEs, they also have at-will AEs. So a controller can generally belt out an area or close attack every round. Area at wills are rare outside the controller role (the Sorcerer being an exception, for instance).

2. Single target attack powers are low damage, but often inflict status ailments, forced movement, "until end of turn", or "save ends" effects

3. Attack powers are usually far-ranged (10+ squares)

That's not a huge part of it. Strikers can have long range powers, too. Leaders tend to have shorter ranged powers, and defenders, also, if they have many ranged powers at all.

4. Very powerful utility compared to other classes

I think varied and situtational is more the key here than powerful. Controllers seem to have the greatest breadth of abilities, with more - and more situational - options. Rituals play a significant part in this, with all but one controller class getting them automatically.

5. Can create zones or alter terrain for encounter duration

The durration isn't critical to the role, but creating zones or otherwise altering the battlefield is definitely part of the role. A Martial Controller might 'alter the battlefield' with his mere presence, via threatening reach, intimidation, or masterful tactics, for instance. Or, he might actually take advantage of or alter the terrain - probably with a 'reveal' rather than a conjuration. A caster could make a real or illusory pit apear out of nowhere, for instance, a martial character would have to actually dig a pit or conceal an existing one - but he might do it 'off screen' (that is, without having to declare that he's done so until he uses the power).

6. Powers often force the enemy to do things they'd otherwise rather not do (exit a zone, provoke an OA, attack a particular target, etc). As such they are often keyed to "end of enemy's turn" instead of "start of enemy's turn".

Most powers are keyed to the user's own turn, rather than the enemies, and I hadn't noticed the controller's being very different. The controller has a lot of (save ends) effects that are mechanically keyed to the end of the target's turn, of course.

7. Stats are fragile, low HP/defenses/healing surges

Yes, the controller is generally fragile. The Druid is less so, but /all/ the Primal classes are a little tougher than normal. Controller powers can help the controller defend himself, though. When you can daze/stun, imobilize/slow, create cover/concealment, etc you can keep enemies from atting you as often or as successfully.


Another thing about controllers is that the support for their role is mostly in their powers, not so much in their class features. Combine that with thier relative fragility, and controller powers can be a bit better than those of other roles at the same level. That doesn't mean you have to take that same aproach, though. Existing controllers are almost entirely ranged and almost entirely power-based, but, you could create a martial controller who is primarily melee oriented and who has class features that support his role.

 

[Victim]

Leaders do not simply buff allies. They also debuff enemies with the very same toolset as the controller.

By the same token, powers like Rain of Blood can offer more attack or damage bonuses than leader powers. Our Invoker had much better buffs than our laser type cleric (who had area stuff and healing).

But you're right to a point; the PHB 1 WIS cleric options are very strongly controller. Especially with pre-nerf Solar Wrath.

But not every class can make themselves into a Leader, Striker, and Defender...

It seems like most classes can make themselves into a striker via feats and item choices. The more static bonuses you can pile on, the less a damage kicker actually matters. And with stuff like Dual Implements and Elemental Empowerment, wizards can get pretty significant damage bonuses.

 

[igniz13]

As presented, this is pretty much a non sequitor. Anyone who dazes will apply that power for one of these reasons, or with some other intent entirely (e.g. for putting distance between themselves and the target). Intentions are amorphous things.

True, a rogue is by design less likely to daze a target so that it has a harder time ignoring him than a fighter is, but then again so is a controller.

I should've stated that the Controller uses daze to help other's with their role rather than to perform in that capacity themselves.

i.e. the Wizard dazes so an enemy has a harder time ignoring the defender, so the striker can hurt that target or to help the group attack against that target.

A cleric tosses out Fire Storm (a 5d10 area burst 5 enemies-only attack that creates a zone that damages enemies for the rest of the encounter) and both the wizard and sorcerer's jaws drop. Then he shoots some 5d10 reliable laser beam that makes us even more aghast that we're not looking at an isolated incident of one OTT power.

Well here we can acknowledge that the Cleric has some controller like powers, but this power doesn't control the enemy. It just hurts them. All this does is encourage enemies to move out of an area.

It's also one daily power that the Cleric may not take as it's not a strong leader power. It's also made more powerful if a controller throws a control power on top of it that makes it harder for the enemy to escape, but the cleric isn't providing that, the controller is.

The others are throwing out their respective roles on a more frequent basis than the odd Daily power that isn't really a solid control power.

My Cleric has an enemy only close burst 8, that's not a controller power, that's a minion wiper that does nothing to support my role besides guiding peoples actions away from dealing with minions (because they're all dead).

I create a hybrid barbarian/paladin, and come to realize that without Howling Strike, the barbarian doesn't bring any extra damage to the build.

Strikers aren't just DPS, they're mobility and targeting, though if you throw in Rages, Rampage and other class benefits, then the Striker elements will fit. Throw on feats and you'v got even more potential.

 

[DracoSuave]

As presented, this is pretty much a non sequitor. Anyone who dazes will apply that power for one of these reasons, or with some other intent entirely (e.g. for putting distance between themselves and the target). Intentions are amorphous things.

Intention is -very- important when intention translates into design, and design translates into execution.

If you can daze in one of 8 squares, or only an enemy adjecent to an ally, then your daze... by sheer necessity, will be best applied fulfilling your role.

Controllers, however, simply daze anyone and anywhere they want to... they don't have any considerations of roll in mind, so they can daze someone adjacent to the defender, or in charge range of the leader, or whatever.

Many of the conditions work differently based on whether it is melee or ranged. Prone at melee is movement prevention. Prone at ranged is -action- prevention.

 

[Fluxx]

They should have just kept it to striker/leader/defender, sigh....

I think having a controller role is a good idea but they should have done it right.
- The role needs something only they can do - again I mention the Wizzard Utility 2 'Mystical Debris' - this should have been a role-featuer like the '... word' is for leader. Each class can have its own variation - unpassable squares, squares which give conditions if you anter them, squares which pull/push enemies in a defined radius,...
- Giving out good classfeatures. Good examples are
** Orb-wizzard: perhaps a bit strong but a good controll-feature - everey class can dish out conditions but the conditions from a controller really heart
** Bloodbond-Seeker: perhaps a bit weak but push + slow is good controll
** Preservation-Invoker: Making sure you can place your area attacks at good places strengthens the controll (ignore the channel divinity for this example as it is not much about controll)
** Malediction-Invoker: forced movement to enemies is straight controll. (ok one square is perhaps a bit weak but therefor the malediction invoker has a controllery channel divinity)

In addition controllers should have very low damage but they should have the really ugly conditions a few levels earlier than other roles (why does a rogue as a striker need area blind at lvl 1?)


You want to make a martial controller? I suppose melee, but not a defender without mark!?
Firts thing is he should be able to react very flexible and act wherever he is needed. So
- take the monk for its movementmodes (or give him one good movementmode as classfeature and others per feat/utility)
- take the centered breath class feature but without the damage part - just the forced movement
- take away the unarmored defense but give him the shadow walk feature from the warlock - so he wants to be mobile and move around
- give him a ability to make an adjacent square damaging/difficult terrain either as minor action or free 1/round
- give him some good opportunity attacks - slow/stop movement/knock prone

combined with some controllery powers he will do his job fine. He is melee but he is neither a defender nor a striker but better in controll than all strikers or defenders.

 

[Felon]

Well here we can acknowledge that the Cleric has some controller like powers, but this power doesn't control the enemy. It just hurts them. All this does is encourage enemies to move out of an area.

It's also one daily power that the Cleric may not take as it's not a strong leader power. It's also made more powerful if a controller throws a control power on top of it that makes it harder for the enemy to escape, but the cleric isn't providing that, the controller is.

The others are throwing out their respective roles on a more frequent basis than the odd Daily power that isn't really a solid control power.

My Cleric has an enemy only close burst 8, that's not a controller power, that's a minion wiper that does nothing to support my role besides guiding peoples actions away from dealing with minions (because they're all dead).

This entire series of statements is curious to me. Setting up a zone of auto-damage that encourages enemies to move out of an area is a form of control. Minion wiping is a form of control. Dropping some direct damage is a form of control.

How could anyone assert otherwise? This sentiment is perfectly evident in controller class design. Plenty of controller powers do nothing more than direct damage. Fireball, for instance.