Is Controller a Euphemism Too?

[IceFractal]

Now this is a case where I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, so if anyone has evidence to the contrary, bring it forward. However, I've been worrying about something lately.

In 4E, there are "Leader" classes. Now flavor-wise, they quite possibly do lead; but in terms of abilities, they're what most people would call "Support". But that doesn't sound very dynamic, so "Leader" it is.


So there I was, happily assuming that "Controller" meant what we call battlefield control in 3E, when it hit me. What if "Controller" is a euphemism too? For something like "area-effect damage dealer"? Or "damage dealer that also causes minor penalties".

I may be wrong - I hope so. But many of the playtest reports seem to only mention blasting type spells. And then there's the fact that battlefield control pretty much relies on taking people out of combat for a while, which might be on the "unfun" hitlist.


So, prove me wrong - please. Because it'll be a sad day when all a Wizard can "control" is where the fireball goes.

 

[Wepwawet]

Well...
It's battle control through area-effect blasts.
Feeling better?

I think it is really an euphemism. It would be bad for D&D to take the names used on World of Warcrat, right? So they came up with their own names... Which mean the same thing.
So yeah, a controller is the artillery guy with fireballs and area bursts and all that.
(You weren't expecting Move Earth or Control Weather at first level, where you?

EDIT: There's always Hold Person, Charm Moster and the like, if you prefer

 

[Ashardalon]

So there I was, happily assuming that "Controller" meant what we call battlefield control in 3E, when it hit me. What if "Controller" is a euphemism too? For something like "area-effect damage dealer"? Or "damage dealer that also causes minor penalties".

I may be wrong - I hope so. But many of the playtest reports seem to only mention blasting type spells. And then there's the fact that battlefield control pretty much relies on taking people out of combat for a while, which might be on the "unfun" hitlist.


So, prove me wrong - please. Because it'll be a sad day when all a Wizard can "control" is where the fireball goes.

Does this help? Or what about one of the first playtest reports where the wizard was pushing around enemies? Artillery is one kind of battlefield control, but obviously there are more ways, and the wizard has access to more than just artillery.

Of course, Wepwawet is right that one shouldn't exactly expect control weather scale effects at first level.

 

[The Merciful]

What if "Controller" is a euphemism too? For something like "area-effect damage dealer"? Or "damage dealer that also causes minor penalties".

No. I'm 99% sure the developers have specifically told us controllers shape the battlefield (Wall spells, Web, charms etc.). "Damage with side effects" is warlock, who is designated as a striker.

So don't aggro.

 

[erf_beto]

You weren't expecting Move Earth or Control Weather at first level, where you?

Well, assuming we'll still get these in 4E, entangle, grease, summon monster I, color spray, cause fear, obscuring mist, silent image, charm person, hypnotism... Most of them do not cause direct damage or force someone out of battle per se, they're all 1st level and quite controller-ish to me.

Of course, area damage will play a big part of the controller role, but thats only because the game focus on combat. I can only hope the other controller aspects are out of the playtest reports because they're not the ones KO'ing an enemy - thus going unnoticed.

 

[Wepwawet]

Of course, area damage will play a big part of the controller role, but thats only because the game focus on combat. I can only hope the other controller aspects are out of the playtest reports because they're not the ones KO'ing an enemy - thus going unnoticed.

Yes, that's true.
The wizards' spell list in 3e is quite complete and varied, probably they'll keep most of it.
There have always been many effects used to control the battle. It's just the tactics of the moment that decide you should use damage or other effects.
But explosions and high damage is the best for showing-off

 

[erf_beto]

But explosions and high damage is the best for showing-off

And it's cool™ too.

 

[Zurai]

I think it is really an euphemism. It would be bad for D&D to take the names used on World of Warcrat, right?

I really wish people would stop the "WoW is the devil behind everything in 4E that I don't like" crap.

For one thing, the controller role does not exist in WoW. There are three roles in WoW: Tank, Healer, and DPS. There are controller abilities, yes (sheep, freezing trap, etc) - but the primary roles of those characters are to deal damage or heal, not to control enemies. No one brings anyone to a party solely for their control abilities.

 

[KoshPWNZYou]

I really wish people would stop the "WoW is the devil behind everything in 4E that I don't like" crap.

For one thing, the controller role does not exist in WoW. There are three roles in WoW: Tank, Healer, and DPS. There are controller abilities, yes (sheep, freezing trap, etc) - but the primary roles of those characters are to deal damage or heal, not to control enemies. No one brings anyone to a party solely for their control abilities.

Dude, relax. No one has stated here that there is a WoW-inspired mechanic they don't like. The guy who was worried about the controller being a blaster didn't bring WoW into the discussion. The guy who mentioned WoW said he likes artillery spells. These WoW fights can easily be started by both camps.

As for the controller, I'm sure the PHB will include plenty of wizard spells that aren't damage oriented. That won't stop the players who only select the explosive ones ... but those guys have been around in every edition.