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

[zakael19]

Maybe it's a split between controlling terrain/battlefield vs controlling individual or grouped targets?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

No, I don't think control must be absolute. But it needs to change the "math" of your choices - so that whatever would be the best option normally comes with additional cost that might not make worth doing anymore.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Isn't that how Defenders work, though? And why people see Defender and Controller as so similar?

"No matter what you choose, you suffer" seems to be a valid approach.

 

[b_took]

I've heard it distinguished as "hard" and "soft" control.

And that is how Defenders work, and should be considered the functional difference between the roles -- a Defender will punish you for taking an action, but a Controller will prevent you from taking an action.

Edit: To further elucidate, the Wizard's plethora of AoE in the PHB was presumably Control simply because it punished enemies for being too close together -- but does anybody really consider the PHB Fireball spell to be Control, or a comparable choice next to Web or Sleep?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've heard it distinguished as "hard" and "soft" control.

And that is how Defenders work, and should be considered the functional difference between the roles -- a Defender will punish you for taking an action, but a Controller will prevent you from taking an action.

The problem is, if you hard-deny all forms of soft control, then about half the Controller's stuff goes out the window too. Zones are no longer acceptable, because a zone is merely a punishment for entering it, excluding minions, and thus leaves a choice. Repositioning is no longer acceptable, because that's merely temporarily denying the ability to be located where they wish to be--they can choose to move back, or not. Summons and conjurations are right out, since those are even softer than soft control. Etc.

Further, Defenders also have "hard control" powers, like the Brawling Fighter who can lock down an enemy by effectively choke-slamming them and then dragging them around the battlefield. So I'm not even really sure this distinction works the way you want it to, where Controllers always do hard control and never soft, and Defenders always do soft control and never hard. Both partake of both, but with different focuses, for different reasons, at different times. Just as every Striker needs either mobility or personal defenses/beefiness in order to survive in the line of fire, even though defenses and beefiness are a Defender thing. The roles are not, and probably should not be, so rigidly siloed that shared mechanical expressions cannot occur.

Edit: To further elucidate, the Wizard's plethora of AoE in the PHB was presumably Control simply because it punished enemies for being too close together -- but does anybody really consider the PHB Fireball spell to be Control, or a comparable choice next to Web or Sleep?

Well IMO that's the problem of the pre-4e Wizard's specialization being "literally anything magic except straight-up healing". But Controller AoE powers very frequently deal minimum damage, which makes them useful for minion-clearing and triggering effects that depend on certain kinds of stuff. It's part of why the Invoker's (generally) party-friendly powers have an advantage over the Wizard's (generally) party-unfriendly ones, as there's a risk-reward trade-off, where Invokers do less damage and have a smidge of buffing/aiding, while Wizards do more damage but have to either very carefully position their effects or accept friendly fire.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Obviously, different classes have abilities and powers that exert some kind of control, or does extra damage, etc. These aren't exclusive to one kind of class or another; they're just ones that do it better or more focused. Like Clerics are typically better healers, rogues are better damage dealers, etc.

Maybe "Controller" isn't about lock down, or movement restriction, or some specific effect people think is identity. Maybe it's about area control, being to affect multiple targets at range with these effects or damage. Strikers focus on single targets. Defenders handle close targets. Leaders focus on the party to help them do their things. These shouldn't be hard-coded into class or role structures. They're just expressions of ideas of what was implied and intended to provide framework for typically inferred concepts, not straightjacket rules.

 

[b_took]

@EzekielRaiden

That is what ended up happening, to be sure.

I think the original design intent is closer to what I've described. Most of the options for Fighters/Paladins in the PHB fall under the heading of "Soft" control.

I also agree that strict pigeonholing is detrimental. I don't think that should make roles bleed into one another, though -- I rather liked the idea that Arcane classes had some Controller in them or that Divine classes had some Leader in them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Soft or hard control isn't the distinguishing aspect. The distinguishing aspect IMO is that Defender "control" is always about controlling the enemy to make it a more attractive choice to go after the defender than anyone else, but the Defender is the toughest guy in the party and can probably still take it best.

A defender tends to immobilize or slow enemies and so on that are close to him, gives penalties and punishment for going someone other than him, or use other control abilities to get them close to him. He has abilities to reduce damage or recover from damage and be a generally hard target to hit, but will not often use his control abilities to deny attacks entirely.

The Controller will immobilize, slow or knock prone a melee enemy far away so it can't attack anyone, for example. They might slide/push/pull an enemy into dangerous terrain (sometimes, that "dangerous terrain" might be the defender or the center of the melee party members, but it's not the controller itself usually), or away from their allies. It will stun, daze or knock prone ranged enemies so they have a tougher time attacking and maneuvering into neat, safe positions, force enemies to scatter so they can't focus their attack so easily and so on.

 

[Nightfly]

Does anybody really consider the PHB Fireball spell to be Control, or a comparable choice next to Web or Sleep?

Not exactly, but multi-target damage is definitely in the control sphere. A wizard will never compete with a barbarian for damage against a single boss, but against a swarm of minions, the wizard is much more valuable, at least for the first round or two. This is in keeping with other editions of D&D, even though those didn't have minions. When I played Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, my wizard did more damage in a round with fireball than the rest of my party combined. All this is as it should be.

I don't actually have a problem with the "controller" role being more loosely defined. Although I like the 4e roles a lot, I always found them a bit too rigid. So I actually like things being more vague, especially for controllers. "Controller" is the most advanced role so it makes sense it's also the most subtle.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not exactly, but multi-target damage is definitely in the control sphere. A wizard will never compete with a barbarian for damage against a single boss, but against a swarm of minions, the wizard is much more valuable, at least for the first round or two. This is in keeping with other editions of D&D, even though those didn't have minions. When I played Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, my wizard did more damage in a round with fireball than the rest of my party combined. All this is as it should be.

I don't actually have a problem with the "controller" role being more loosely defined. Although I like the 4e roles a lot, I always found them a bit too rigid. So I actually like things being more vague, especially for controllers. "Controller" is the most advanced role so it makes sense it's also the most subtle.

I hear this sentiment a lot, that the roles are "rigid". Would you be willing to say what elements contribute to that feeling? I understand that feelings can't be debated, but this specific one always deeply confuses me, because my understanding of the roles is that they do only the following things:

• Give a baseline competence with a specific task (e.g. Leaders get a "<Supporting> Word" variant)
• Set the loose category of HP, AC, and defenses a character will have (e.g. Defenders are innately beefy/high-AC, Controllers are innately fragile/low-AC)
• Very loosely guide power design (e.g. Strikers will tend to pick from powers that do more damage, Leaders will tend to pick from powers that can trigger saves or ally attacks, while vice-versa is uncommon)

Which...all of those things correctly describe every edition of D&D. Hence my deep and abiding confusion here. As far as I can tell, the only things that changed were that they got rid of a la carte multiclassing, and they actually gave the roles meaningful definition, so while you could choose not to use your resources, you couldn't create a character that was inherently incompetent...which doesn't sound like a bad thing to me!