I still don't understand Controllers

[webrunner]

Why?

If there is a problem here, it is a game design problem, not a player choice problem.

A player should be able to choose any legal powers he wants and not be ostracized for his choices.

Seems more like a problem for you than him. The game is either balanced for those choices, or it is not. If not, it's a game design bug.

Not really, take a low-con fighter with a hammer and take only polearm-bonus powers. There are optimal and suboptimal choices based on the rest of a build, and that's not an error.

Try building an Avenger optimized for ranged damage, too. It's just not going to work as well, even though they do have ranged powers.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Where controllers shine is area effect

Not area of effect, say, a standard "area burst X within Y" damage power, but actually effecting the area.

Sustainable zones, walls, and conjurations (particularly occupying conjurations) create entire parts of the battlefield which the enemies wont want to be..

What, like consecrated ground (cleric), spiritual weapon (cleric), guardian of faith (cleric), Astral Defenders (cleric), Blade Barrier (cleric), Seal of Warding (cleric), Firestorm (cleric), Knight of glory (cleric), Astral Storm (cleric).

Cleric looks pretty shiny here

Cheers

 

[KarinsDad]

Not really, take a low-con fighter with a hammer and take only polearm-bonus powers. There are optimal and suboptimal choices based on the rest of a build, and that's not an error.

Try building an Avenger optimized for ranged damage, too. It's just not going to work as well, even though they do have ranged powers.

There are always better choices for all classes.

But my point is that if the sub-optimal choices are so bad that they are not playable, then it is a game design problem.

If on the other hand, another player or the DM does not like the player's choices for his PC because they are sub-optimal, then that is a problem with that player or DM. It is not a problem of the player who wants to play what he wants to play.

Every player should be entitled to create his PC the way he wants as long as it is legal for that gaming group.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Controllers are all about their Daylies, where as, in my experience, it is the Encounter powers which define most other roles.

Possibly, but I have to say I am eager to try out a Wizard specialized around Storm Pillar. I absolutely love that power, even though I take the strict interpretation that only voluntary movement counts as "entering". (Not to say that I would complain if the ruling goes the other way.)

I see a LOT of potential for shaping the battlefield with Storm Pillar. Blocking doorways completely, cutting off avenues of flanking or retreat. Only in wide-open fields will it be useless (or against critters with serious Lighting Resistance, I suppose.)

 

[im_robertb]

I occasionally play a wizard in LFR games. We were playing a level 3-4 module, and I was level 1.

Second Encounter: I get 2nd in initiative.
It's a reasonably large, square room, with the enemies at the far end. Between the two sides, against the right wall, is a large square trap - get close to it, you get zapped. There's only 3-4 squares of space next to the left wall to move past it. There's one melee enemy against the left wall at the other side of the room, another just a bit behind the trap, but near there. Behind the trap there are 4 minions.

The ranger goes first, twin strike, downs a minion.
Then I'm up.

Encounter Power: Grasping Shadows.
I caught 2 minions in the AoE and killed them (would've been 3 if not for the ranger). The last minion couldn't walk through the trap (he'd probably get killed), and couldn't walk through the zone I'd created (he'd certainly get killed), so he wasted his turn doing nothing.
I also caught the first of the melee guys, and fortunately scored a hit, slowing him.
Then I popped an Action Point and hit the remaining melee guy with Illusory Ambush, giving him -2 to attacks.
The fighter, went for this same enemy, giving him another -2 to attacks against anyone but the fighter.

When the first melee guy's turn came up, he couldn't move far enough to hit anyone, so he moved 2 squares forward and readied to hit anyone who came close (no one did).

The rogue looked at Mr. Marked, realized that if Mr. Marked made an OA, it would be at -4 to attack, and the fighter would then get a free melee basic attack against him. So the rogue walked right past him to flank.

Yes, my dice were rolling well. But as the lowest-level character, using an encounter power and an action point (into an at-will), I managed to:
-Kill 2 minions.
-Keep 1 minion and 1 real enemy out of the fight for the first round.
-Give the remaining enemy -2 to attack rolls.
-Help the rogue set up a flank.
-Deal a little damage to the real enemies.

All without putting myself at any risk. I really like Illusory Ambush, actually, because after I gave that enemy -2 to attack rolls, the fighter marked him, and the warlock ran up with his concealment from Shadow Walk. That puts him at:
-2 to attack vs. the fighter
-6 to attack vs. the warlock
-4 to attack vs. anyone else

I think being a controller works a lot better with smart allies. Hooray teamwork!

 

[webrunner]

There are always better choices for all classes.

But my point is that if the sub-optimal choices are so bad that they are not playable, then it is a game design problem.

If on the other hand, another player or the DM does not like the player's choices for his PC because they are sub-optimal, then that is a problem with that player or DM. It is not a problem of the player who wants to play what he wants to play.

Every player should be entitled to create his PC the way he wants as long as it is legal for that gaming group.

Wizards do have single-target damage powers. They're there as a choice to add on to your existing powers, so that you aren't screwed when you need to use single-target damage. But if you go with ONLY single target damage powers, then you're picking a build your role isn't designed for.. it can be viable, but playing Sorceror or Warlock in this case would be a better choice.

As for area of effect damage, if you're using AOE powers and you're complaining your single target damage isn't beating a ranger's, then you really need to look at what you're doing with your powers.. against groups of enemies you are going to outdamage the ranger.

 

[chronoplasm]

OK, so I think I have an idea. Thanks to ShallowThoughts from indie-rpgs.com.

In 2nd edition D&D, spells were arranged in the following categories:

Offensive One: Deal damage directly to your opponent.
Offensive Two: Effect a change such that your team is better able to damage your opponent (e.g. buff spells)
Defensive One: Make it harder for your opponent to cause damage (e.g. Touch of Fatigue)
Defensive Two: Make it harder for you to be damaged
Reconnaissance: Learn more about the combat situation to make better decisions
Miscellaneous: non-combat spells

Here's how I think these line up with the 4E roles:

Defender: O1, D1/D2 (mark opponents to make it harder for them to deal damage to allies, heavy armor prevents them from hitting you)
Striker: O1, D2 (deal heavy damage, and avoid attacks from opponents via stealth, mobility, and range)
Controller: O2, D1 (debuff the defenses and attacks of enemies)
Leader: O2, D2 (buff the attacks and defenses of allies)

OK, so the way I see it, area attacks are not the focus of Controllers, but merely a tool at their disposal. Controllers should instead focus on debuffs to lower enemy defenses and action denial to prevent them from attacking. O2, D1.

 

[Lauberfen]

I agree that controllers are not necessarily about area attacks- having the wizard as the only controller has distorted how they are seen.

I think controllers are about control, which can be broken down into 3 areas- debuffs, area effects and movement.

It comes down to making the monsters do what you want.

Druids are probably the best example- move monsters around, put down walls of flame, or force them to move or attack.

 

[KarinsDad]

Wizards do have single-target damage powers. They're there as a choice to add on to your existing powers, so that you aren't screwed when you need to use single-target damage. But if you go with ONLY single target damage powers, then you're picking a build your role isn't designed for.. it can be viable, but playing Sorceror or Warlock in this case would be a better choice.

As for area of effect damage, if you're using AOE powers and you're complaining your single target damage isn't beating a ranger's, then you really need to look at what you're doing with your powers.. against groups of enemies you are going to outdamage the ranger.

You appear to be discussing something different then what I replied to.

I was talking about a Wizard who concentrates more on damage than on control. That does not infer that the Wizard is concentrating solely on single target damage spells or that he is complaining that his single target damage isn't beating a Rangers. I'm not quite sure where you got that from what I said or from what mach1.9 said.

 

[Hereticus]

I think the Wiz player in my campaign would cry if he couldn't do fireball.....but (as you said) stinking cloud is so much better!

My favorite daily is Bigby's Icy Grasp.

In my opinion the fifth level dailies are better than the ninth level dailies.