Martial Controllers

[knightofround]

Well, nobody can really agree what a controller is anyways. From just a few weeks ago: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/285363-what-makes-controller-controller.html

Some think it needs to be a ranged unit. Some think they need to create zones/modify terrain. Some think they need to inflict status effects more than damage. Some think they need to be AoE. Some think their powers need to directly effect the actions that NPCs take. Some think they need to be a "toolbox" and be able to fill in whatever the group is missing. Some think that they're like a ranged defender. Some think they need to be fragile. Some think they should be immediate interrupt/reaction based. Some think they should have strong utility.

Unfortunately, much of the stuff listed above does not vibe very well with the martial power source....which is more melee with mobility. Primal is about melee with survivability, Arcane is about ranged combat, Divine is kind of a hybrid; with a little bit of everything, Psionics is about flexibility.

Bow-based Rangers are off as far as the martial power source goes imo; the Seeker is what bow rangers (as a controller) always should've been.

 

[Aegeri]

If there is one topic in 4E that needs to be taken out back and shot, it's if we should have a Martial Controller to fill the grid.

 

[MarkB]

The Warlord is also pretty controllery.

I was really hoping that the Monk would turn out to be a high-mobility melee martial controller. As it worked out, about the only part of that we got was the high mobility.

 

[Klaus]

At the end of the day, the truth is that every Martial class (Fighter, Warlord, Ranger and Rogue) can be built with some "controllery" capability (Scattering Volley, Come And Get It, Blinding Barrage, just to name a few powers). We might not have a pure Martial controller, but with the right choices, we don't miss one.

 

[RangerWickett]

Yeah, you don't need the technical term 'controller.' Just make a beast ranger archer, pick (or create) some beast powers that let you screw with enemies' movements or make area attacks at a distance, and see if you can find a bow at will that inflicts a condition of some sort.

Or, like Claudio suggests, stick a knight on a horse.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

A "de-buffer" rogue wouldn't be a controller, he'd be a Leader. The Leader helps the party by either improving the PCs or applying de-buffs/penalties on single opponents.

An archer or a rider would be good controllers, one at range, the other in close combat.

So the debuffer rogue, who puts debuffs on multiple enemies at once, repeatedly, is a controller? Cause if not, that means my buddy's wrath invoker is a leader, too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The Martial Controller is not forgotten.

The Martial Controller Underground

 

[Klaus]

So the debuffer rogue, who puts debuffs on multiple enemies at once, repeatedly, is a controller? Cause if not, that means my buddy's wrath invoker is a leader, too.

Notice how I said "single opponents".

Controllers tend to work on crowd... er... control.

 

[igniz13]

Alright,

1) Wanting to play a martial controller is not necessarily about Grid Filling, it's about play style. Think about it. Controllers play differently to all other roles. There is no martial equivalent

2) The Seeker is not even vaguely suitable, Martial controllers wouldn't have their ranged attacks suddenly transform in mid-air and a large number of attacks just aren't suitable for the Martial power source. Not to mention the flavour of the class and it's features and themes being entirely wrong and limiting.

3) Although the Martial classes have some control in their design and powers, they do not have at-will control nore do they have control built in as part of their class design.

Sure you can build a char with aoe and some dehibilitations, but that does not make you a controller.

 

[webrunner]

I always thought something like "Trapper" would be a great martial controller, using things like nets, setting down Traps, and such.