Role Features... Controller left out?

[Plane Sailing]

I think it should be some variant of the Arcane Implement Mastery feature. The ability to make your powers hit more often or last longer seems ideal and nearly essential for the controller roll.

Good catch - that seems like the best likely candidate for a general controller class feature.

Ta.

 

[keterys]

Actually, the leader role can also be stolen, to some degree. Consider the following power:

Bastion of Health Cleric Utility 6
Encounter
Minor Action Ranged 10
Effect: The target can spend a healing surge. Add your Charisma modifier to the hit points regained.

That is pretty close to healing word 1/encounter, even if you miss the extra d6. If you prefer multiclassing as a warlord, powers like Inspiring Reaction (utility 6) or Aid the Injured (utility 2) are reasonable inspiring word proxies.

To not nearly full effect - bastion provokes, inspiring reaction and Aid the Injured are both touch, none of them gain the additional (up to 6d6) kicker or as much range and an actual leader can have his cake _and_ eat it too.

Much like you can get some powers that mark, but you don't get combat superiority and challenge, or divine challenge, that make it really kick in. Even with the exact same power choices, an actual leader or defender _will_ be better at leading or defending (to use that Eternal Seeker test from earlier)

Thanks, Plane Sailing for helping me reword the question appropriately

I suspect that we've tapped this discussion for usefulness, but I'd really love to see what the next batch of controllers have for distinctive features.

 

[Kaffis]

What I meant was that If you look a many of the higher level fey warlock powers, they begin to literally embody the normal term of controller. Being able to mentally deny your enemy from taking actions and later on, to control them to make the actions you choose is the very definition of control.

The explanation of "Controller" in the phb differs from the general consensus of the term - I am just saying that the wizard's scope could have been a little deeper and more varied than all AOE powers - I have compared the 4e wizard and the 3.5 battlemage, and they seem strikingly similar.

Controller in the 4e parlance speaks to the ability to mitigate the efficacy of large groups. A wizard whose scope doesn't focus on "all AOE powers" becomes a striker.

Also, note that the designers have been free with their admission that individual classes broaden their scope beyond their primary role as a means to help differentiate multiple classes from the same role. Thus, yes, the warlock has some controller-lite aspects, the same way the fighter can threaten high damage in some scenarios, feeling more strikerish than, say, a paladin. But no matter how good the warlock is at applying status effects, the wizard is better, as it can apply that kind of hinderance to many foes at once; controlling the "shape" of the battlefield.

So, yes. Non-battlemagey 3.x wizards should probably look to warlock for the mechanical conversion of their abilities (though, granted, not so much the fluff derivation) in 4e. That's intentional, and reflective of what 4e considers control. 3.x can consider single target debilitation as control, because the primary 3.x encounter was "party vs. 1 or 2 big monsters." In 4e's "party vs. 8 monsters," dazing one guy isn't really controlling the fight.

 

[ravenight]

I think it should be some variant of the Arcane Implement Mastery feature. The ability to make your powers hit more often or last longer seems ideal and nearly essential for the controller roll.

This is probably correct, but I would also argue that the spellbook is a very important and controller-y class feature that is missed when you multiclass into wizard. Makes sense to me if the feature that controllers share is an ability to adapt their toolset to likely environment they are facing. In the case of the wizard, this takes the form of an arcane implement mastery (which you actually do get for multiclassing, and not in a limited way like you get with the other multiclass features) and a spellbook. In the case of an illusionist, it might be the same two features, or it might be an implement feature and an ability to shape illusions in different ways. In the case of a psionicist, it might be that you just get to know more powers, but use only a certain number of them.

The fighter's role in combat is to be sticky, the ranger's role is high damage to a single target, the cleric's role is defensive support (maximizing the party's ability to survive combat) - each of their class features help with that. The controller's role is offensive support - to maximize the party's ability to kill the enemies, either by softening them up with AoE damage, making them easier to damage with AoE terrain effects and other debuffs, or getting the party into better position to damage them. Some of the implements assist in that, but the spellbook makes it much more potent, if there's any way to anticipate the conditions or opponents to be faced.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think it should be some variant of the Arcane Implement Mastery feature. The ability to make your powers hit more often or last longer seems ideal and nearly essential for the controller roll.

Both wand and orb mastery are only 1/encounter and only affect one target/attack roll. These are clearly not features that help with the controller role, of which AoE attacks are supposed to be a big part.

The more I've been thinking about it, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that they really didn't know what they were doing when they made the Wizard. The "controller" role is the most poorly defined of the roles, IMO. All other classes have area attacks, many of which are superior in range, damage, or usability to Wizard spells. Every single cleric AoE spell, for example, hits only enemies, so they can freely blast away without fear of harming their friends. Wizards, on the other hand, have few such spells, and have to wait until level 21 to get Spell Accuracy (and have a really good Wis to benefit from it).

Also, many Wizard spells are single target. Is a Wizard that takes several of these spells effectively gimping himself at his role? It's not like a Warlock or Ranger that take an AoE attack become a less effective striker, or a Cleric that takes an AoE spell becomes a less effective leader. The strikers' curse/quarry abilities will still ensure that they do good damage to single targets even when using AoE attacks. But a Wizard that takes single target spells arguably becomes a much less effective controller. Really, a Wizard that specializes in such spells is just a gimp striker. Sure, some of these spells have debuffs, but then, so do the Warlock, Ranger, Rogue, etc powers.

Wizards just seem to be in a strange limbo with a poorly defined role. The end result of this lack of focus and direction is that they end up getting outshined by other classes, not only in their supposed role, but in general. They don't do the most damage. Heck, their damage is often the weakest of ANY class. They don't have the best AoE spells by any means. And they don't have the best zones or debuffs either (with the exception of Sleep, probably the best "controller" spell they have, and ironically it's at level 1).

I think the answer to this is to greatly improve the arcane implement mastery features with house rules. For example, maybe wand mastery gives bonus damage to any area affect attack at a range, staff mastery gives a bonus to any close area attack, and orbs give a penalty to monster saves. Rather than being 1/encounter, they could be any time you attack with that kind of implement. I'd also make Spell Accuracy either a class feature, or available at much lower levels. Some may cry "overpowered" at this, but I don't think so. In my experience, Wizards are horribly underpowered, and it will take something like this to make them balanced.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think part of the problem with powers here is that people are looking at dailies and saying "those define the class". That's not really true. It's the encounter and at-will powers that define a class.

The top level wizard encounter powers are a large powerful aoe spell and two "the foe is out of the fight for a round" spells.

The top level cleric encounter powers are a small, weak aoe with healing, an extremely lame melee strike, a weak melee strike with healing and a single-target weak damage spell with penalties applied.

That said, I really don't know what they were thinking with astral storm (compared with the equivalent level wizard dailies).

Also - what IS the defining striker feature? That they cause a little bit of extra damage? The warlock and ranger are only really adding 13.5 damage to each of their attacks. If their encounter and at-will powers were as non-damaging as those of the cleric, they would be far from top-dog damage dealers.

Then lets take a look at some of the warrior stuff - he's giving himself regeneration left right and centre - isn't healing a leader's role?

etc etc.

If powers come out that blur the lines between roles sufficiently, the roles will be blurred, and class features won't stop that.

 

[keterys]

Wizards get dailies other than Legion's Hold at 29?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So:
Strikers get bonus damage (Quarry, Curse, SA)
Defenders get marking and associated bonuses (divine challenge, combat superiority, etc)
Leaders get healing and buffs (inspiring, healing word, commander, etc)

What do controllers get?

The defining abilities of the controller are area damage and condition-inflicting or barrier-creating powers. There's actually a little overlap between Controllers and Defenders, since both are good at erasing minions and slowing advancing enemies (just in very different ways).

The Orb & Wand implements each enhance one of those areas. The Wand gives you a hit bonus, so you affect more enemies you cast in your area spells, the Orb makes condition-inflicting spells 'stick' longer. The wizards other features do seem to be more about keeping a bit of the old Wizard book-learn'n feel than it's controller role, though.

 

[keterys]

The Wand gives you a hit bonus, so you affect more enemies you cast in your area spells, the Orb makes condition-inflicting spells 'stick' longer.

Those only apply to a single roll/enemy per encounter - so, they don't help your area nor do they help your 'spells' stick longer. Singular in both cases.

Orb of Imposition is very powerful. Poor staff wizards, of course, get no controller abilities at all. Wand of Accuracy isn't a 'controller' aspect, it's just a generic bonus (any more than the fighter's +1 attack is a controller bonus anyhow)

I think the wizard lost his abilities so he could have legacy stuff. I'm not sure how I feel about that, especially since they put actual controller abilities in feats. If he'd had spell accuracy and spell focus as part of the class I'd never have posted this... I'm trying to figure out how I feel about, say, reducing the power of spellbook and cantrips to make room for hte two feats, then letting you spend two feats to get back whatever is taken out from the above.

But, I don't plan on changing the wizard so I'm not worried about it - I do, otoh, plan on making at least one controller class, so that at least lets me think some on balance for it.

 

[Archus]

That said, I really don't know what they were thinking with astral storm (compared with the equivalent level wizard dailies).

The Cleric's Astral Storm and Fire Storm compared to the Wizards Meteor Storm and Cloudkill plus the many Cleric AoEs that target only enemies are what really bother me. Those powers outclass the Wizards in just about every way.

I don't think I've seen anything in the Wizards playbook that even comes close to sustaining an effect that damages only enemies around the party like a Cleric can with Astral and Fire Storm.

As a Wizard I'd be tempted to multiclasss to cleric just to get the better abilities that really should be my shtick.

This does uphold the long tradition of the Cleric making the right choices being the better Wizard with the bonus of better hit points, armor, and the ability to heal.

Still Legion's Hold looks cool and I like Cantrips and Rituals enough to still want to play a Wizard.