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

[ourchair]

Somewhere else on the forums, someone made an observation that really struck me as insightful. He/She said something to the effect of:

Leaders confer opportunities to the other heroes.
Controllers deny the enemies of opportunity.

My understanding of that is that leaders incentivize actions through buffs. ("I want you to hit this, and if you do, it's an easy target/you'll deal more damage/get temporary hps.")

Meanwhile, the controllers are leaving the monsters flummoxed by robbing them of choices. ("no you can't do that, that, that or that. You can however, do this but only this.")

 

[DracoSuave]

What can contribute to the confusion is that other classes get access to controlling effects. This is why a blanket statement about effects doesn't work, however you try.

An example are immobilize, restrained, and prone effects. Often defenders and controllers will share these effects, and the difference makes it seem like the only difference is melee vs ranged.

But that difference is huge... tactically, the defender only uses those effects on adjacent creatures, thusly forcing those creatures to have only the option of attacking him. A controller is more flexible. He can immobilize a target adjacent to a defender to prevent it from attacking others, he can immobilize it adjacent to a striker to prevent it from escaping, he can immobilize it out in the middle of nowhere to prevent it from engaging the party at all.

Thne ability of controllers is subtle, and many parties simply don't have them because their effect isn't apparent. But when a party gets one in, it makes encounters a lot more manageable. Hordes of monsters don't surround the party, they get corralled into easy flanks to be taken care of. Artillery monsters find themselves in melee with that little extra bit of easy. Brutes find their ability to connect with low hp party members just a little harder. How does that lurker constantly end up stuck beside the defender?

 

[Kung Fu Ferret]

The Controller schtick is to screw up the DMs plans. This is done either by area attacks smoking minions and/or separating baddies and/or messing directly with the baddies' ability to efficiently attack the party via status effects.

Controllers are -awesome- when played by someone who understands them. If you try to be a single-target damage monkey you'll likely be disappointed.

Yet during our last session the player of our groups fighter chastised me for my Wizard not doing enough single target damage...

Of course in the same conversation he told every one defenses are best to be ignored.

 

[mneme]

This is kinda a derail, KFF. Happy to discuss it on its own thread.

 

[FireLance]

What can contribute to the confusion is that other classes get access to controlling effects. This is why a blanket statement about effects doesn't work, however you try.

I think that part of the reason is that there are almost no "pure role" classes. Almost every class has a minor (so to speak) in another role.

 

[DracoSuave]

I think that part of the reason is that there are almost no "pure role" classes. Almost every class has a minor (so to speak) in another role.

Partially, but no class sacrifices their primary role in order to attain their minor. And a secondary role is just supplimentary, it doesn't actually make one competent in that regard.

On top of that, secondary roles don't change the point, you could be a defender with a striker, leader, or controller secondary, and you'd still have access to immobilizes, prones, pulls, pushes, restrains, whatever, because those are all things that make you defend better.

Conditions that help you do your primary role better will always be in your class. It just happens that all conditions happen to help a controller do their role better at any range in any power, whereas other roles are more restricted in how and why they apply those effects.

As an example of cross-role conditions, look at marked. It's the primary tool of most non-essentials defenders. On top of this, many leaders get it, but that's because it's a tool to serve two different purpose. A defender has more ways to interact with marks, and more consistancy. A leader who happens to have a mark more intends it be used as a debuff, or to supplement the defender.

 

[knightofround]

Well the nice thing about 4E is that every class fills multiple roles.

Like a Monk is a striker first, controller second, defender third, and leader fourth.

And then there's extra stuff that can change your character's role such as race or build. For example, every Dragonborn is kinda controller-y because of the dragon breath ability.

If I had to narrow it down to 4 distinct sentences I'd use these:

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.

Although there's more to it that. Like:
- All Defenders are short range attackers
- All Defenders have a marking mechanic
- All Controllers are long range attackers
- All Controllers are glass cannons
- All Strikers have a way to get bonus damage on 1 attack/round
etc etc

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'm starting to wrap my head around this, but I'm also waffling on my controller gimmick.

Meh, whatever I pick I'm sure my friend'll be happy.

 

[Herschel]

Yet during our last session the player of our groups fighter chastised me for my Wizard not doing enough single target damage...

Of course in the same conversation he told every one defenses are best to be ignored.

Exactly, because he doesn't get the controller (which is a bit odd if he's a halfway decent defender).

 

[Quickleaf]

Well I played in a large party that had 3 controllers - Druid, Wizard, and Seeker/Ranger (me) - and boy we locked down the whole battlefield. We had a virgin DM running the game too ( he did great), and I warned him that our party was a DM's worst nightmare. Everyone said they were fine with 3 controllers, but come that third or fourth session boy did their tune change.

It was interesting to see how these 3 controllers played very differently.

The Wizard was all about mega forced movement, naturally into zones like stinking cloud. He put the enemies exactly where we wanted them, and had some killer combo area damage spells. It was glorious.

The Druid laid down entangling roots and pretty much had enemies swimming thru slowed, immobilized conditions, difficult terrain, and even more zones. Most enemies never reached her in any given battle.

Me (Seeker/Ranger hybrid), I excelled at single target control and spamming RBAs if enemies did X Y or Z. My RBAs were optimized enough to stand in for a weak striker. And my favorite part were the really unusual powers like Feyjump Shot which I used to teleport a squishy boss in between our defender and 2 strikers. The DM was pissed