So, What's the Controller's 'Thing'?

[DracoSuave]

1. Strikers focus on single target damage and debuffs.
2. Leaders focus on healing and buffing allies.
3. Defenders focus on taking the enemy's attention and surviving.
4. Controllers focus on multiple target damage and debuffs.

The problem with these generalizations is that leaders also debuff as much as controllers, tho for different purposes.

As well, many controller builds focus on single target, and they take it on themselves to make sure that single target's where the party wants it to be.

Basically, a controller ensures battle happens when and how the party wants it. There's often more monsters than party members, and it's impossible (and often fatally foolhardy) for a defender to cover them all. Basically, look at how your combats run. Do they tend to have monsters going willy nilly, often slipping in to flank characters that are out on their own? Or do they tend to have monsters in specific kill zones, with party members who require safety in safety? The difference is control. The controller makes it easier to manage monsters, rather than have the party be managed by monsters.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

There are also classes that are kind of outliers on their roles. For example, the Sorceror dishes out damage, but (for the most part) not to single targets. Even so, its definitely a striker, not a controller - while its single target damage is pretty bad for a striker, its atilities attack fewer targets than most controllers, but for a lot harder. As well, its multi target spells don't have much in the way of status effects.

 

[Felon]

The problem with these generalizations is that leaders also debuff as much as controllers, tho for different purposes.

For that matter, many strikers and defenders have a sizable assortment of debuffs at their disposal.

This is an inevitable outocme of 4e's (initial) design, where building a class means coming up with, what, sixty or seventy powers distributed over thirty levels? And they're each supposed to be distinct from each other while also avoiding role overlap? Seems unlikely.

Other roles have some insulation from such intrusions by their class features, which give them an edge above and beyond their powers. This insulation isn't always adequate, as I've certainly seen fighters that can outdamage many a striker. However, controllers have the rawest deal as they, for the most part, lack a control class feature that ensures that they can "out-control" a leader or other role. To add insult to injury, they are generally saddled with bad AC and hit points around.

Basically, a controller ensures battle happens when and how the party wants it. There's often more monsters than party members, and it's impossible (and often fatally foolhardy) for a defender to cover them all. Basically, look at how your combats run. Do they tend to have monsters going willy nilly, often slipping in to flank characters that are out on their own? Or do they tend to have monsters in specific kill zones, with party members who require safety in safety? The difference is control. The controller makes it easier to manage monsters, rather than have the party be managed by monsters.

Well, are we talking about how it is, or how it should be?

As it is, the controller is just inchoate hodgepodge of powers that mostly daze and immobilize.

What should a controller be? My thought on the matter is this: a leader should be the guy who manages all the party's internal resoureces. This covers hit points, attacks, and defenses, among other things. The controller's domain should be over elements of the game that's extenral to the party, and this does not just mean "control" in the MMO notion of "crowd control" (dazing and immobilizing). Control can also be stuff like helping the party overcome an environmental hassle like a chasm or energy barrier.

Now, controllers can do some stuff like that. Most of them get free Ritual Casting, which is a step in the right direction. And wizards get the spellbook class feature. Beyond that though, the 4e approach to power allotment is pretty parsimonious. Sure, a controller might have a power that lets them create a bridge, but they need to have picked it, and if they picked it, that's locked in place until they can respec it out. A controller needs to be able to have the right tool for the right job, and I think that's not very well realized.

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, are we talking about how it is, or how it should be?

As it is, the controller is just inchoate hodgepodge of powers that mostly daze and immobilize.

Funny how dazing and immobilizing actually work wonders in preventing enemies from going and doing whatever it is they want to do.

If there's a brute, and I immobilize him five squares away from the party, great news, he's out of the fight completely. He isn't running around back to flank or charging the leader. If used properly, immobilize does EXACTLY what I describe.

Dazed is very similiar, when used properly, it does exactly what I describe. Daze a foe, everyone moves one square out, and the enemy can move a square or do nothing. That monster is out of the fight.

It's not the specific effects controllers get, it's their ability to leverage them that other roles don't have.

 

[SSquirrel]

We just started a Revenge of the Giants campaign w/all new characters. I ended up creating 5 of the 6 characters people are playing. I had created a Wizard who used an orb to change all damage to psychic and picked up the Psychic Lock feat. This let me switch from playing a Bard (a lot of his powers were attack debuffs) to playing a Halfling Daggermaster Rogue, who has a ton of status effects he can hand out too. The idea of a psychic fireball that clears out minions and does large damage to a big group and then drops a -2 attack penalty on everyone just makes me smile

Leaders have lots of debuffs, but Wizards have things like Twist of Space that carry those as well. There is a lot of flexibility and overlap in roles in 4E. As far as lowbie Wizard abilities, definitely hand out Beguiling Strands. Party friendly minion clearer w/a solid push, even if they don't boost Wisdom makes it superior to Thunderwave in my book, no matter how much I like Thunderwave.

 

[Felon]

Funny how dazing and immobilizing actually work wonders in preventing enemies from going and doing whatever it is they want to do.

I take it that this is an attempt at ridicule, but there is not a lot that's funny or clever about taking a large-concept post and then trimming it down to something that you can throw a facile response at.

If there's one thing that makes D&D 4e tedious, it's the abundance of action-denying effects being tossed out. There's not much in the way of an epic battle to pass down when your opponents with all those exotic, deadly abilities are turned into neutered punching bags. Basing a goodly portion of a party role around it is pure folly. MMO's started figuring this out a year or two ago, and with the more recent approach to monster design (notably solos), it seems that D&D's designers have come to understand it as well.

And that's a good thing. There's a lot more interesting concepts of control that can be explored than flat-out denying actions.

If there's a brute, and I immobilize him five squares away from the party, great news, he's out of the fight completely. He isn't running around back to flank or charging the leader. If used properly, immobilize does EXACTLY what I describe.

Dazed is very similiar, when used properly, it does exactly what I describe. Daze a foe, everyone moves one square out, and the enemy can move a square or do nothing. That monster is out of the fight.

It's not the specific effects controllers get, it's their ability to leverage them that other roles don't have.

This is a perennial thread topics that crop up a couple of times a year at least, and someone always tries to proffer the same vague generalization that controllers have some power to leverage debuffs that other characters with those debuffs don't have. It's a claim that's never backed up very well.

 

[DracoSuave]

This is a perennial thread topics that crop up a couple of times a year at least, and someone always tries to proffer the same vague generalization that controllers have some power to leverage debuffs that other characters with those debuffs don't have. It's a claim that's never backed up very well.

If you cannot see the difference between (as an example) an at-will ranged slow and an encounter melee-range slow and how the former is simply more flexible and has more tactical possibilities than the latter, than I doubt you'd accept any argument.

I understand the belief there needs to be a control-feature that defines controllers, however the fact is, control being what it is, it's not something you can encapsulate with a singular feature and go 'That is control, right there!'

Controllers are not a beginner's class, they're for tacticians to use properly, and require forethought in building above and beyond 'take feats that make my damage/healing/defenses bigger!' It can't be that simple, they are complicated by their nature.

Not to mention, controller classes are internally prone to distinct methods and strategies of control. Look at the mage, which in RoFL offers three distinct strategies for control: debuffing, damage bursts, and positional. All three of those are definitive controllers, doing what they do in a manner defenders, strikers, and leaders simply cannot approach. Yet there can be no one single class feature that makes all of them work. It's not feasible.

It's pretty cut and dry why controllers have better ability to leverage effects: A warlord, for example, can do great at positioning. However, the warlord doesn't do great at positioning the enemy; an enchanter however can position all the things. A fighter can be effective at preventing the movement of enemies adjacent to him, however a controller can immobilize all the things.

When you have more available targets, and more available effects, you are more flexible and more able to enact those effects. It's not rocket surgery to figure out.

 

[Felon]

If you cannot see the difference between (as an example) an at-will ranged slow and an encounter melee-range slow and how the former is simply more flexible and has more tactical possibilities than the latter, than I doubt you'd accept any argument.

I don't want to restate my whole stance about action-denial, so I'll just say that while there is enough of those shenanigans going around that a nuanced improvement in debuff-slinging simply isn't needed and generally isn't notwworthy.

Controllers are not a beginner's class, they're for tacticians to use properly, and require forethought in building above and beyond 'take feats that make my damage/healing/defenses bigger!' It can't be that simple, they are complicated by their nature.

I agree with some of what you say, but from my take on playing 4e, tossing out copious amounts of crippling status effects like daze and blind has turned out to be the path of least resistance. Building a sorcerer that can devastate the enemy faster than they can wipe me out using pure damage and assiduously avoiding status effects has proved a greater and deeper challenge than my fellow players' endless juggling tactics.

Not that there's actually a controller in the party, mind you, but a paladin, a rogue, a fighter, and a cleric can dish out debuffs galore.

 

[DracoSuave]

Not that there's actually a controller in the party, mind you, but a paladin, a rogue, a fighter, and a cleric can dish out debuffs galore.

And there's nothing wrong with that playstyle.

There's also nothing wrong with having a dedicated controller. D&D is not an MMO, it's a tabletop rpg. If some class or game element isn't fun at your table, you have the choice not to play it.

However, just because one person does not find that class or role entertaining or fun doesn't mean that there aren't players out there who relish the concept and role, or parties that relish the tactic.

Your group doesn't need it because it has control covered through multiplication of secondary roles. That's great. That doesn't mean the role isn't good for the game, it just means it isn't good for your group.

noted the irony of using the sorcerer, being a secondary controller of the aoeburst variety

 

[ourchair]

However, just because one person does not find that class or role entertaining or fun doesn't mean that there aren't players out there who relish the concept and role, or parties that relish the tactic.

Exactly.

My first times playing D&D4E, let alone any system other than Star Wars: SAGA Edition, I played defenders exclusively. Why? Because they are the classes that have a moderate probability of allowing you to do something while waiting for your turn to come up. For those who hate "Turn Turtles" that's a real blessing.

For me, controllers are the natural step above defenders. You're not waiting for the right 'trigger' like some Pavlovian dog, but rather, you're spending the entire round thinking.

You're trying to figure out how to shape the grid to your party's advantage, or make your enemies vulnerable to their specialties. ("No, you're staying next to the fighter, and you will grant combat advantage to the rogue and you cannot target the cleric. Sorry!")

One thing I don't understand though, is that The Undying Debate About Controllers always seems to imply that the rest of the roles are easy to lock down and figure out, when in fact they are more diverse than they look and the diversity of their class features makes them just as 'power-defined' as controllers.