The Controller Role Doesn't Exist

[Spatula]

Other than deciding how to play your class, what game effect does Role play anyways?

None. It's just a handy descriptor of "this is what this class was designed to accomplish in a group fight."

 

[Scribble]

Planar prisons seem more fitting for the repertoire of defender of a more supernatural persuasion, since tying up opponents is their specialty. Flying, being a form of mobility, should be the domain of the striker. Walls of fire I might give you, but is their really enough design space for a role that deals with them and their ilk?

And powers that allow one to cover their own ass should be meted out according to power source and not role, as whether one casts or does not cast seems to dictate who many fleshy bits one leaves exposed.

The role of controler seems more about changing the overall ways tactics can be used on the battlefield, rather then directly stopping/causing damage (which is a secondary effect.)

Like if your enemy's attack routine relies on the ability to fling his minions across the board to damage your as they explode...

A defender would cause the minions to have to damage him, or possibly block the damage it does. he still damages someone with he ability, or has the chance to sue it and possibly get past your defender.

A controller on teh other hand would cause an effect that actually removes your ability to use that tactic. (By putting upa wall or banishing your minions to another realm.) Now you have to completely change tactics, and rely on another ability/attack.

The controler works by changing overal tactics, defender works on a case by case basis.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Planar prisons seem more fitting for the repertoire of defender of a more supernatural persuasion, since tying up opponents is their specialty. Flying, being a form of mobility, should be the domain of the striker.

Actually, tying up foes and mobility aren't really the exclusive purview of any role, because roles are defined by the effect you have in combat, not specifically by how you achieve that effect.

Does tying up foes help you concentrate their attention on you? Does flying make you a better target? You're a defender (probably like the fighter)

Does tying up foes help you to directly damage them? Does flying help you get to an enemy to hurt them? You're probably a striker (kind of like the warlock).

Does tying up foes help you to dictate what actions they can take? Does flying make your targets unable to perform their most powerful manuevers? You're probably a controller (walls of vines and the like).

Does tying up foes help you enhance what your allies can do to them? Does flying help inspire your party to keep fighting? You're probably a leader.

1. There aren't many classes who can perform this role, i'm sure the druid will be a natural control, however in 3.5 the wizard was pretty much -the- controller, nothing else came close.

This isn't accurate. I'm sure there are MANY archetypes that can perform the role of a controller. I can probably think of a half-dozen just sitting here. They just didn't conciously choose to give us a second choice like they did with the leader.

2. It's more difficult to play, and extra controllers are generally superfluous. There won't be many encounters in the standard 5 player party that need 2 controllers. (the game is designed for 3x total defender/striker, 1 leader, 1 controller).

I highly doubt that this is accurate, too. The game is designed around a 5-person party with the 4 roles filled. What that 5th person does doesn't enter into the equasion, unless the 4e team WANTED to repeat 3e's mistake of a "required baseline" that ended up hosing characters who didn't conform. Since 4e has a stated goal of having less accidental suck, I'm sure they wouldn't too tightly design around what roles are filled. Heck, I'm sure a party can get on okay without a controller at all, but the absence will be notable (like a cleric-less party in 3e).

So it will be easy to pick up the controller and know how to use it. But how to use it most effectively might be harder.

I thought they were getting rid of "rules mastery" elements in 4e, too? Specifically because they increase the "LOL Newb!" factor.

 

[Kishin]

I think it's more likely that the people saying the controller doesn't exist don't know exactly what a controller does.

Yes, Virginia, there is a controller.

Controllers force the enemy to act in ways that they dictate, either directly (charms, illusions, shifts, paralysis, whatever) or indirectly (If he can hit area 4, we need to stay 5 squares apart. If he can hit a burst 3, we need to stay 4 squares away from him).

This is possibly the best and most concise description of the role I've seen, including developer explanations. Kudos.

I will take the ring to Mordor! Oh wait...wrong council...heh...

Ten points, sir.

 

[Scribble]

I thought they were getting rid of "rules mastery" elements in 4e, too? Specifically because they increase the "LOL Newb!" factor.

It wouldn't be much of a game if there wasn't some form of tactics involed.

There's a difference between tactics and "rules mastery."

tactics are the way you utilize powers and abilities to most effectively meet the challenge.

Rules mastery is the ability to dig through what appear to be good choices to find the ones that actually ARE good choices.


Rules mastery implies that some choices are just not that great/ useful no matter what.

Tactics implies that a power can be good or bad dependent upon how you use it.

 

[katahn]

While the OP's post is full of... well it isn't win, he does have something of a point.

A defender uses their special abilities to exert an influence over the actions of their enemies, all with an end in mind of making sure said enemy attacks them or at least cannot get past them and to the defender's allies. From a certain point of view, one could consider this to be a "limited toolset, melee-range controller."

The defender is a controller that sacrifices range of control (melee only) and scope of control (only blocks movement or imposing penalties for attacking other targets) in order to gain superior defenses (armor, hit points, and healing surges). Alternatively a controller is a defender that sacrifices their superior defenses to get a much wider array of control options that can be used at range.

Of course, if we are to look at the controller and defender from these angles we have to consider that they are both really variations on the leader. The leader enhances their party's chance of survival in certain ways (via buffs and heals) while the controller/defender (confender? deftroller?) enhance survivability by making sure enemies are directing their attacks in ways that are as harmless to the majority as possible. In essence, we can look at controllers who cause attacks to never happen to be engaging in a form of "proactive healing" - since clearly damage that hasn't happened is functionally identical to damage that happens and is then immediately fully healed.

When you really think about it though, controller, leader, and defender are really all variations on strikers. A striker, by causing massive damage and quick deaths among the enemy, could be said to be controlling what an enemy can do. Furthermore, since a dead enemy cannot harm their party, a striker is clearly also implementing a variant defender tactic and engaging in proactive healing (ie. damage not done is damage that doesn't need to be healed).

So respectfully I submit that WotC immediately stop lying to us about combat roles and come clean in admitting there...

<Highlander>

CAN BE ONLY ONE!

</Highlander>

 

[Moon-Lancer]

The Controller exists. I've got some minor issues with the Wizard being the only one at launch, but it's there, and it's distinct.

They should have replaced warlock with druid and made the druid a controller with plant, stone, and wind shaping spells. d&d i feel always benefited from archetypes and symmetry. I think having 3 strikers was a mistake.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This isn't accurate. I'm sure there are MANY archetypes that can perform the role of a controller. I can probably think of a half-dozen just sitting here.

What if you where, say, sitting on Queen Elizabeth Throne? Would you come up with more or with less archetypes?

I thought they were getting rid of "rules mastery" elements in 4e, too? Specifically because they increase the "LOL Newb!" factor.

Current theory probably looks like this:
I think group synergy is the new rules mastery that you can achieve in 4E. You won't be able to build a useless character, but you can still play him like one. Or you can optimize the teamwork.
If the Controller affects more targets then any other class, it makes sense to reason that the potential for synergies are even higher, and mastering them is possible. Time will tell if it's really true.


But, Kamikaze Midget, could you please stop defending and soundly explaining 4E design concepts? I had already filed you under 4E hater, and my drawer only really supports two files. I don't want to create a file for some "likes some, dislikes other"-. I am a software developer, I only support the binary system.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rules mastery implies that some choices are just not that great/ useful no matter what.

Tactics implies that a power can be good or bad dependent upon how you use it.

Same Stuff, Different Description.

Tactics can only come from mastery of the rules -- knowing how they interact and how what you can do affects them. This mastery is acquired mostly through familiarity -- reading the rules, delving into them, finding out the different fiddly bits you can tweak in combat.

Its not about being designed to be less effective in the first place, its about how a character becomes more effective by learning what they're capable of.

If tactics are frequently rewarded, then to remain challenging to those who use great tactics, you will need to have more powerful challenges.

These more powerful challenges will hose anyone who DOESN'T use these advanced tactics.

Leading to "LOL Newb!" and "Accidental Suck."

If Controllers are somehow "more tactical" than other roles, they require more rules mastery to use effectively, and thus, against challenges that are actually a challenge for anyone with that rules mastery, someone who doesn't have that rules mastery will be at a disadvantage. And people generally don't play games where they are made to feel dumb and ineffective for very long.

And if that's one of the reasons that they only included one controller in the PH, then 4e has kind of catastrophically failed to address one of the major issues with 3e.

Note that I don't think that's the reason.

I think the reason has more to do with them conciously making an alternative to the Cleric, but being so myopically focused on that, they didn't think to provide an alternative to the Wizard, because another one of their doctrines was not to conciously fill every power source/role match-up, but to instead let those chips fall as they may.

In short, I think whoever released the "Give me an alternative to the Cleric in 4e!" memo completely missed the fact that its a potential problem with all the roles, not just the leader.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

They should have replaced warlock with druid and made the druid a controller with plant, stone, and wind shaping spells. d&d i feel always benefited from archetypes and symmetry. I think having 3 strikers was a mistake.

I disagree on the symmetry as a universally good idea. It can be overdone (Great Wheel/Alignment symmetry).

But I would have preferred a second Controller class, too. In this case, it is nice if one has two options for every role. (I'd hate if we only had the Cleric as a Leader, because I never really liked playing Clerics, but Warlords sound awesome!)

I think the Warlock was first conceived as a kind of Controller, and then they figured out it was better suited as a Striker (possibly also to separate it more of the Wizard). But since they devoted most of their development to this class already, it was to late to move to another class.