Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4592671" data-attributes="member: 710">Actually, in a way a Controller is a Defender and vice versa, but as you see, the most important difference is that the Defender makes himself a target, the Controller tries to make no one a target. Immobilize or Slow an enemy at range means making hard for him to attack anyone (if he's not using ranged attacks). Do the same in melee, and you're his next target. There are also things defenders are worse at then controllers - targeting multiple enemies at range, for example. The Fighter has a few abilities that give him limited range (Come and Get It!), but it ends up with him being adjacent to anyone he hit. Again, making himself a target.Defender and Controller similarity might be: It's a good idea to engage them. The difference is: It's easy to stay engaged with the Defender, but hard to engage the Controller. The Defender can survive being engaged, the Controller cannot. But this is very simple, and mostly applies to Fighter/Wizard as our archetypes for defender and controller. A Swordmage already acts differently - he will often try to get away from the opponent, and doesn't really want to be engaged.---A Striker that deals massive damage to have an opponent stop attacking a Controller might be "defending" him, but that doesn't mean a Striker is a Defender. He has not the hit points to keep "drawing aggro". That's exactly what happened if you let a Monk Full Attack in 3E - suddenly he becomes annyoing (well, if he manages to hit with his Flury of Misses), and his enemy might just drop him with his own full attack - or at least force him to run away. He can buy you some time, but he cannot sustain this position.</blockquote>

Verification