Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5588073" data-attributes="member: 71571">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.</blockquote>

Verification