Again, as far I can tell, this argument seems equivocal. It seems to go something like this:
"Because non-controllers are good at some function, they'll be more likely to use a daze to compliment that function than someone who isn't good at it. A controller won't concentrate on a particular function since he's not particularly good at one. He'll just be a floater with his daze power, doing whatever seems useful at the time."
That isn't at all what I said.
Alright, I'll use small words this time, for those who didn't actually -read- what I said.
This is an excellent example of our "don't be a dick" rule. If you write something and someone reading it is likely to think, "Hey, he's being a dick!", don't hit submit. It's mostly that simple.
Dracosuave, scale back the condescending sarcasm next time. Everyone else, please avoid writing this sort of a post yourself. PM me if this is at all unclear. ~ PCat
Bob fighter knock things prone.
Bob fighter only do it close to him,
Prone for Bob fighter only good to help keep enemy close to Bob.
Fish warlock knock things prone.
Fish warlock only does it after he one guy for lots of damage.
Prone for Fish is only good to keep a target he's concentrating his fire on from getting up and killing him.
Ellen bard knock things prone.
Ellen bard only knock things prone next to other person.
Prone for Ellen bard only good to help keep enemy close to Bob.
Smart Wizard knock things prone.
Smart Wizard can knock anyone prone he wants, and can knock people prone who enter certain squares, and adds dififcult terrain onto all that, and does so to multiple enemies at once.
Prone for the smart Wizard means he can do whatever he wants with it, keeping an enemy close to Bob, keeping an enemy -away- from Fish, delaying an enemy's approach so that the party can dispatch the guy Bob knocked down, taking less damage making the healing easier for Ellen...
THAT is what control means. It is taking the -restrictions- other roles have on the control they need to do, removing them, so that the wizard can cover any aspect of control needed by a party.
What you are saying is something like:
"Many characters have lay on hands and many buffs, so they are specialized in that, a Leader is just a floater in such party with such abilities, and does whatever seems useful at the time, because they have no perceived advantages."
Seems rediculous when you look at it that way. Controllers are not 'floaters.' Your interpretation makes no sense/
In other words, the presented argument is that a lack of advantages is advantageous.
Um... no.
All classes have some form of control, but they are far more limited in that regard in comparison to a controller.
So say this with me:
An argument presenting the idea of a lack of limitation is not the same thing as an argument presenting the idea of a lack of advantage.
One might even say those are polar opposite arguments.
In truth, a bard can use his arrow of cacophony to daze with the same freedom that the wizard uses his chill strike, and will be guided by the same imperative: to do whatever is most effective at winning the fight.
But can a bard set down a square that burns adjacent enemies, and gives a specific attack against one, doing both automatic damage and attack damage, thusly making enemies spread out to minimize the pain from said object?
Can a bard, who has movement AND thunder as one of their prime shticks, move everyone in a 3X3 square that he hits with a thunder attack? At-will?
Can a bard block squares of movement just because he -wants- to?
Bard control exists... but bard control is -nothing- compared to wizard control. Only a -fool- would claim otherwise.
Bard control is focused on one aspect of the game, and wizard control is not focused on any aspect of the game, but can be used for all aspects. The key here, is that the wizard's very GOOD at using it for anything he wants. The bard doing control to lead? Yeah, he's got a niche there. The wizard tries that? The bard's control is left in the dust.
