Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Camelot" data-source="post: 5280961" data-attributes="member: 82617">I think you're on the right path, but interrupts and reactions isn't what defines a controller.&nbsp; There are two categories that define each class: how it interacts with enemies, and how it deals and heals damage.&nbsp; The damage part is easy.&nbsp;Defender: I deal moderate damage and heal or buff myself moderately.Leader: I deal moderate damage and heal or buff others moderately.Striker: I deal a lot of damage, but only to one enemy at a time.Controller: I deal a lot of damage, but spread out among a lot of enemies.&nbsp;How it interacts with enemies is the other defining characteristic.&nbsp;Defender: I draw enemies towards me.Leader: I keep enemies away from my allies.Striker: I get myself away from enemies.Controller: I keep enemies away from myself.&nbsp;If a class combines different aspects, that's where you get secondary roles.&nbsp; For example, a barbarian deals a lot of damage, usually to one target at a time (striker), but it definitely doesn't try to keep itself away from enemies, making it's secondary role play an important part in the tactics inherent to the build.&nbsp;Um, anyway, maybe I'm getting a little sidetracked.&nbsp; For a unifying controller feature, I'd stick with the slowing and immobilizing aspect but not tie it down to immediate actions.&nbsp; Maybe a controller (secondary leader) could have the following power:&nbsp;Minor Action - Ranged 5/10/15Target: One allyEffect: Slide the target 1 square.&nbsp;This controller would set up its allies with better attacking positions so that the enemies would be distracted by them and stay away from the controller, which is what controllers do.&nbsp;Thanks for starting this conversation, though.&nbsp; I just came up with all these ideas right now, and I like them.&nbsp; Of course, they're my opinions, not the beach mages'.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Camelot, post: 5280961, member: 82617"] I think you're on the right path, but interrupts and reactions isn't what defines a controller. There are two categories that define each class: how it interacts with enemies, and how it deals and heals damage. The damage part is easy. [B]Defender:[/B] I deal moderate damage and heal or buff myself moderately. [B]Leader:[/B] I deal moderate damage and heal or buff others moderately. [B]Striker:[/B] I deal a lot of damage, but only to one enemy at a time. [B]Controller:[/B] I deal a lot of damage, but spread out among a lot of enemies. How it interacts with enemies is the other defining characteristic. [B]Defender:[/B] I draw enemies towards me. [B]Leader:[/B] I keep enemies away from my allies. [B]Striker:[/B] I get myself away from enemies. [B]Controller:[/B] I keep enemies away from myself. If a class combines different aspects, that's where you get secondary roles. For example, a barbarian deals a lot of damage, usually to one target at a time (striker), but it definitely doesn't try to keep itself away from enemies, making it's secondary role play an important part in the tactics inherent to the build. Um, anyway, maybe I'm getting a little sidetracked. For a unifying controller feature, I'd stick with the slowing and immobilizing aspect but not tie it down to immediate actions. Maybe a controller (secondary leader) could have the following power: [B]Minor Action - Ranged[/B] 5/10/15 [B]Target:[/B] One ally [B]Effect:[/B] Slide the target 1 square. This controller would set up its allies with better attacking positions so that the enemies would be distracted by them and stay away from the controller, which is what controllers do. Thanks for starting this conversation, though. I just came up with all these ideas right now, and I like them. Of course, they're my opinions, not the beach mages'. [/QUOTE]

Verification