Playing without a Controller - feasible?

[Knuddelbaer]

Hello!

One of my players wants to ditch his eladrin psion, because he finds the class quite boring. I am totally fine with that, but I am afraid that one problem could arise: The party roles could become "unbalanced", since he wants to play a dwarf ranger. The party would then look like this:

2 Defenders (battlemind, paladin)
1 Leader (ardent)
3 Strikers (warlock, monk, ranger)
0 Controllers

I am not inclined to tell a player "No!" unless he presents a fishy rule interpretation and I don't want to discourage this particular player since he is quite new to 4E.

The questions where I ask for advice now, since I cannot clearly gauge the impact on out game, is this: Is it ok for a party to have 0 Controllers or do I have to worry that they get totally overrun and swarmed in an encounter? Beaten to pulp by the next solo? Has someone had experience with that? Or should I rather present alternatives to him to keep all the roles filled?

I generally do not feel bad about dishing out a lot of damage and the presence of 3 Strikers encourages me even more. But since we have had several close encounters so far I am afraid that the whole battle can go down south if we lack the debuffs and AoEs the psion provided.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I always used lots of minions when I had controllers. I tended not to use as many when the party didn't have a controller.

You may have to build encounters slightly different, but the added damage from the 3rd striker will help solo encounters, even minus the debuffs.

 

[riotshieldnation]

I think your party will be fine. Remember that party power doesn't scale linearly with amount of members. New synergies will emerge, and six people will still be plenty powerful.

 

[gideonpepys]

There is no need for a controller in a party. They are very helpful, but not necessary, and are really best in the hands of an experienced player, or one who enjoys tactical gameplay.

Having three strikers will really help with any 'combat grind' you may experience as you level up. Before the change you had a monk and a warlock, neither of which focus on very high damage, so ranger is the perfect choice. Also:

Warlocks are a very controllery class, and can impose a lot of cool conditions.

Monks, with the right at-wills can clear minions just as quickly as controllers, using their bursts and blasts. (In fact they can drop one per round for free with flurry of blows.)

Your party will be just fine without a psion and your strikers won't step on each others' toes.

 

[Blue]

There is no need for a controller in a party. They are very helpful, but not necessary, and are really best in the hands of an experienced player, or one who enjoys tactical gameplay.

In several of the groups I'm in the controller is considered the "extra". They'd rather have another striker than a controller, and none of the groups started with a controller. These play just fine. In one the DM plans that we don't have a controller, adjusts the mix some. In the other we have a sorcerer who helps for minion control and we aim for "dead is the ultimate status effect".

However, in another group, our controller is MVP more often than anyone else. Decent built, great player. And this is in a game with (until recently) only four players, one of each role, and all good characters and great players, so there's a lot of competition for that.

You can easily play with an extra striker instead of a controller. It will make some things harder and some things easier, but it's definitely workable.

 

[OnlineDM]

If you're going to be missing one role, controller is the one to miss in my opinion. Side benefit: Especially at higher levels, controllers can really slow down combat with all of their conditions to track, so switching out a controller for a striker will probably make combat go faster.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I've had a player who had bad experiences with both a wizard and a psion, but I don't blame the classes, or at least not the former. I think players see the coolness of the daily powers (for the wizard) and ignore the encounter powers, which are actually pretty powerful too.

Since you have two defenders, though, you probably won't miss a controller. IME, a controller does something similar to a defender, locking down enemies at a distance rather than a single enemy close up.

 

[Rune]

Hello!

One of my players wants to ditch his eladrin psion, because he finds the class quite boring. I am totally fine with that, but I am afraid that one problem could arise: The party roles could become "unbalanced", since he wants to play a dwarf ranger. The party would then look like this:

2 Defenders (battlemind, paladin)
1 Leader (ardent)
3 Strikers (warlock, monk, ranger)
0 Controllers

I am not inclined to tell a player "No!" unless he presents a fishy rule interpretation and I don't want to discourage this particular player since he is quite new to 4E.

The questions where I ask for advice now, since I cannot clearly gauge the impact on out game, is this: Is it ok for a party to have 0 Controllers or do I have to worry that they get totally overrun and swarmed in an encounter? Beaten to pulp by the next solo? Has someone had experience with that? Or should I rather present alternatives to him to keep all the roles filled?

I generally do not feel bad about dishing out a lot of damage and the presence of 3 Strikers encourages me even more. But since we have had several close encounters so far I am afraid that the whole battle can go down south if we lack the debuffs and AoEs the psion provided.

Most of the games I've played in and DM'ed for 4e have not had a controller in the party. As has been said before, go a little lighter on minions and you should be okay.

That said, I'd be a little more worried about having only one leader in so large a party (particularly since half the party are glass-cannons). That said, as long as the party is good at focus-fire, it's probably not much of a concern, especially if the paladin has lay on hands (and is willing to use it--I played in a game where the paladin would only heal himself!).

 

[Fakegoatee]

The party in my H1-E3 campaign is about to hit 29th level, having started at 1st. They haven't had any trouble with this lineup:

Cleric (multiclass Invoker for Rebuke Undead and one epic level Invoker power)
Hybrid Paladin/Ranger multiclass bard
2 fighters
1 Ranger

They don't have a controller, but they have amazing synergy. The Rangers specialize in interrupts. The Cleric specializes in dazes, vulnerability, and an extremely powerful Turn Undead boosted with feats and items. The fighters use Come and Get It and Warrior's Urging to bring the battle to them and lock down the enemy. All but the fighters have astronomical initiative, the party is stealthy, and they work very hard to get surprise rounds as much as possible.

The net effect of it is that, by the time a monster gets its first turn, it's often bloodied and dazed or immobilized, unable to reach the archer ranger it really wants to kill. Mantle of Unity has, by then, given the whole party nigh unhittable defenses. If a monster attacks, it's punished by interrupts from the rangers. Then the fighters reel the monsters in and lock them down. If a monster gets a second turn, it's probably still dazed and almost certainly vulnerable to radiant damage, which everyone can cash in on.

I know it's partly because of bad encounter design in the mods we're playing (and yes, I've converted everything to MM3 math), but I'm often surprised the players enjoy it, it's so easy for them.

They definitely get by without a controller, but they have also paid a lot of attention to priorities to make up for the lack:

- Get a surprise round. It's almost as good as having all the monsters start stunned.
- Have high initiative. Going first is huge, and in combination w a surprise round it IS as good as having the monsters start stunned.
- Let the leader concentrate on damage buffing and whatever control is possible, especially removing actions from the bad guys. Remember: prone, immobilized, and forced movement can have the effect of removing actions when done right.
- Ranged strikers with interrupt attacks!
- Defenders can execute short range, short duration battlefield control. But with surprise, high initiative, and interrupts, that's plenty.

The party does have weaknesses. It's harder for them when they aren't fighting demons/undead, but "harder" means that the Paladin/Ranger might get bloodied or go unconscious and the fight might go 3 or 4 rounds.

 

[Vael]

Considering the Warlock and Monk in your party, they both offer some control options, so it shouldn't be too bad. The party will just have to play smart.