D&D 4E Rambling thoughts about D&D 4th Edition

[b_took]

One of the things that did hold it down was their uncertainty with regard to the controller role. Had they been dedicated to making it multi-targeting or debuffing, aspects of those wouldn't be so uniformly spread throughout most of the PHB classes, and it would instead be baked into explicit mechanics rather than implied or indirect ones.

Incidentally, I've fallen in love with the idea of a polearm-focused Martial Controller. It's brilliant.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Yes. “Control” is a rider on almost every power. (In fact, on too many powers.) “Control” is not a Role.

 

[Staffan]

Yes. “Control” is a rider on almost every power. (In fact, on too many powers.) “Control” is not a Role.

I suspect that when designing 4e, they desperately wanted each of the roles to match one of the classic four classes. The MMO trinity of tank/healer/damage was pretty easy to map onto fighter/cleric/rogue (even if they don't quite work the same in the TTRPG medium), but that didn't leave any for the wizard so they invented the controller that sort of fit but not really. And I also suspect that they didn't want to make the wizard a striker because they wanted to include the warlock and given their previous focus on damage that was kind of reserved – plus, you already had two martial strikers, so adding two arcane strikers as well would be weird.

Hmm. Given that one of the big criticisms levied against early 4e was "Where did the bard go?", I wonder if 4e would have been better received if the warlock had been replaced with the bard and the wizard given a more pure striker role.

 

[b_took]

Treantmonk's three roles, I believe, were the big stupid fighter, the glass cannon, and God.

His theory was that with 4E, they split up the God role into Leader and Controller.

Now that I think about it, perhaps the real problem was that when they were translating the Wizard to 4E, they stumbled over the fact that the Wizard in previous editions was his spells. He had nothing outside of them. So they put the mechanics in the spells directly.

I'm also thinking now that there were two leaders in the PHB (Cleric, Warlord), two Defenders (Fighter, Paladin), one Controller (Wizard), and three strikers (Rogue, Warlock, Ranger). The Ranger might have worked well as a Melee Controller with two-weapon close bursts, reactions and interrupts, as well as a Ranged Controller with arrows providing suppressing fire, etc. Makes me wonder if the Ranger started out as a martial controller (which would have provided two classes for each role) and then got shunted sideways when they couldn't figure out what they were doing with the role.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For this reason, I tend to think of the Defender as a special case of the Controller. When there used to be threads calling for martial controllers, my first though was always it's called the Fighter.

Yeah, I get why folks have this particular belief but don't personally share it myself. Fully agreed that they share a lot--but so do Controller and Leader, since both are about force-multiplying and positioning. And likewise Defender and Striker share a lot, there's a reason we got a hybrid Striker/Defender Barbarian variant, even if I don't personally like that particular design concept.

Personally, I see it as the difference between covering fire and diversionary tactics. The two have a lot in common. Both are about manipulating enemy focus, both involve surveying the battlefield, predicting enemy behavior, and (very importantly) not overdoing it and causing a different problem in the doing. Yet despite their many similarities, they really are distinct skills. One is "you cannot ignore me." The other is "you can't focus on what you want to."

So when those folks are asking for this, they want the "diversionary tactics" Martial, because yes, we do have a "covering fire" Martial, but that's not quite the same thing.

 

[pemerton]

One is "you cannot ignore me." The other is "you can't focus on what you want to."

I think that slow, immobilisation, prone and forced movement tend to blur this distinction.

 

[b_took]

Yes. “Control” is a rider on almost every power. (In fact, on too many powers.) “Control” is not a Role.

How would you categorize the more common riders by role?

I think, for example, that a penalty to the target's defenses, though a debuff, would not count as control because it doesn't directly impede the enemy's ability to do things, but rather makes allies more capable of hitting, and is therefore more of a leader style rider.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. “Control” is a rider on almost every power. (In fact, on too many powers.) “Control” is not a Role.

On the one hand, we could have a discussion about whether or not this is entirely accurate. A Striker is not solely a Striker because they have a feature which increases their damage output. (After all, Avenger is a Striker that increases accuracy rather than damage per se.) A Leader is not a Leader solely because they get a 2/enc heal with extra fluff effects. There is more to a role than just basal class features--power design also matters and is spread throughout a class.

But I think the more interesting discussion to be had is: If "Controller" isn't a role, what would make it a role?

What feature or function would do the trick? Leader and Defender teach us that the feature doesn't have to be totally unique per class, since all Leaders get a basic heal (the difference being its rider effects), and all Defenders get a marking power/feature and a way to punish disobedience but often in highly divergent ways (e.g. consider how Swordmage plays with the formula).

It's all well and good to sit back and declare the Controller pointless because its role isn't reinforced by a clear "Controller feature" like the other three roles. I think it's much more fruitful, albeit much more difficult, to come up with something that WOULD let Controller stand on its own as a distinct role.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The challenge in defining a special "controller" ability that is similar generic like the Defender's mark, Striker's damage buff or Leader's healing ability is that controlling is about restricting the enemies choices and punish them if they do stuff you don't want. But there are a lot of choices enemies could make, and a lot of stuff you might not want them to do.

If you want them to group together, you throw a fireball. If you don't want them to approach an Artillery-type character, you put a zone or wall between them and their target. But how can you "generalize" this for a class?

I guess the best thing you could do is give them something to add or interact with control effects of powers maybe?

Lasting Control
When using an encounter or daily power that slows, immobilizes, dazes, stuns or dominates, the condition gains the aftereffect: "The target is weakened until the end of its next turn."

Punishing Control
When using an encounter or daily power that creates a burst or blast that deals damage, you create a zone of exclusion or imprisonment inside the power's area that lasts until the end of your next turn.

• Exclusion: If an enemy enters the zone or ends its turn there, it takes 5 (10/15) damage of the type dealt by the original attack.
• Imprisonment: If an enemy leaves the zone, it takes 5 (10/15) damage of the type dealt by the original attack.

 

[b_took]

I would even contest the punishing aspect. If they're still doing what they want, even at a cost, you're not controlling.