Monsters: Controller vs Artillery. Which is which?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm running a Dark Sun campaign, and like to design "monsters". (Generally they're NPCs, but they usually use the monster rules.)

"Spellcasting NPCs" can run the gamut. The "human mage" from MM1 is considered artillery. It has two recharge/encounter abilities (what you would expect from a 4th-level controller, I suppose) but it just does area-of-effect damage. It doesn't have any debuffing effects. So I presume that's why it's artillery.

Some artillery have effects which target a defense (usually Reflex) rather than AC. Usually the attacks are 2 points lower (based on my unscientific survey) but sometimes have the same value.

A monster with several abilities that slide/stun/daze/push/pull/etc targets would be a controller. Controllers often have a small bonus (1 or 2 points) on attacks which attack a defense other than AC, but not always.

Sometimes the lines are blurred. If a monster has a regular ranged attack but a debuffing recharge ability, which is likely to be? If it has abilities to avoid melee attacks, it's probably going to be artillery, but plenty of artillery do not have such abilities. If it's a wizard (using abilities flavored like those in the PH1 or, I suppose, HoFK) it could be either, depending on build. (Control wizards compared to war wizards.)

Controllers have "generic" stats compared to other monsters. Normal hp (not high like brutes, not low like artillery) and normal AC. Artillery have fewer hit points and lose 2 points of AC. They also have weaker melee attacks. It's almost like, if you're designing a monster, and you can't decide, always go for controllers.

 

[fba827]

In the end, it comes down to "how does it feel" to you (as the DM designing it). Are you just putting him in there to damage the party and that's what you see his powers being used more for (and if he happens to deal one condition but it's not his focus or purpose then it's fine)... or is he there to make it easier for others to deal with him (via lowered defenses, conditions, walls, penalties, debuffs, etc)

As a litmus test, I could ask myself "Could someone with a bow and arrow replace the purpose and effects of this monster" - if so, it's more likely artillery. If it's doing a bit more magically-delicious stuff that you'd need a magical bow and arrow to pull off, then i put it in the controller category.

But, yeah, when in doubt for a wizard/mage-like caster monster, I do agree that controller is the safer/default/general category to stick it in since they often have riders which put it outside the "bow and arrow litmus test".

 

[DracoSuave]

Simply put, every monster has a job to do. If they have the job of piling damage onto players at range, single target OR AoE, they are artillery. If they have the job of making players less able to do what they need to do, or other non-damaging stuff, they're controllers.

It isn't enough they can attack from range; that's not the definition of artillery. Artillery hit HARD from range. So if they have a ranged attack but it's as powerful as a fairy's fart, that guy ain't artillery. And if it hits like you're throwing the earth at their face... they ARE artillery.

And if you can't tell because the long range doesn't hit that hard, but they don't do much in the way of support? That's a crappy monster that doesn't do its job well; why is he in this encounter?

Notice: This discussion has nothing to do with magic or nonmagic. 'Mundane' monsters can have controlling powers and fully be a controller (Picture a monster that uses a crossbow to shoot nets at people) and magic casting monsters can easily be artillery (If, say, they have fire bolts, fire breath, and omg meteor showerz as their powers.)

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The monster I had in mind has an AoE attack that does damage and pushes enemies (like Thunderwave). It has one encounter ability (pre-bloodied) that does high damage and another (only usable while bloodied) that debuffs. So it's sort of both.

I also have to wonder why controllers have better "base stats" than artillery (or the other way around).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I pretty much go with DS on that. There are times when a monster COULD be rated as either controller or artillery, but usually it should be fairly clear-cut. You could certainly stat out an NPC wizard either way depending on exactly how its powers work, but I would tend to pick one or the other role and pretty much build around that concept.

 

[malraux]

I also have to wonder why controllers have better "base stats" than artillery (or the other way around).

Controllers tend to be in your face monsters, so should have slightly better stats. An artillery monster's best defense is to be farther away so you can't engage it in combat.

 

[Aegeri]

Controllers tend to be in your face monsters, so should have slightly better stats. An artillery monster's best defense is to be farther away so you can't engage it in combat.

Plus artillery are the only monsters that gain a bonus to accuracy. Artillery can still be +6/+7 vs. AC and +4/+5 on attacks vs. NADs when using area/ranged attacks. Everything else is now +5 vs. AC and +3 vs. NADs. This means that you can really feel the accuracy difference in artillery compared to other monsters.

 

[Stalker0]

I feel your pain on this one. I commonly find artillery monsters to be more "controllerly" than controllers of the same level.

 

[Gort]

To be honest, player classes suffer from this as well. I've looked in vain for something that controllers can do that other classes can't. The only thing I could find in the original PHB was, "Controllers can do at-will area damage". But when the sorcerer was released, that went out the window.

I used to think maybe the controller's schtick was, "I cause more or better conditions than everyone else", but everyone causes conditions all the time, some of them absolutely crippling. Think about Anvil of Doom (fighter attack, stuns target) or that Paladin power that weakens enemies so they do half damage. And then, as though having lower damage than everyone else wasn't enough, and having no real role wasn't enough, they also decided to give controllers less HP than everyone else!

Controllers are definitely the worst player class types. Funnily enough, though, they make great monsters. I LOVE pulling the lightly-armoured rogue 3 squares into the middle of a pack of hobgoblins. Somehow, the controller monsters don't seem to lack for damage either.

 

[Jhaelen]

I feel your pain on this one. I commonly find artillery monsters to be more "controllerly" than controllers of the same level.

Maybe the name 'controller' doesn't describe particularly well what the monster's role should be?

Note that it's defined different from the pc role 'controller'. IIRC, it's a monster that can fight equally well in melee and ranged combat.