The Controller Role Doesn't Exist

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

True enough, but there were never a lot of people complaining that you had to have a wizard, even back in 2e when there wasn't an effective substitue for one. The problem with requiring a cleric was that lots of people don't want to play clerics, something filling the clerics role (at least as a healer) is pretty much required, and nothing in 3.x really substitutes well for them. Whereas most groups have someone who wants to play the wizard most of the time.

It is strange, but it's true. I don't think we would have trouble finding someone playing a Wizard in our group, but a Cleric, no, that's rarely a favored choice. Something must be fundamentally wrong with a class that doesn't get played despite being arguably one of the most powerful in 3E.

 

[Alkiera]

It is strange, but it's true. I don't think we would have trouble finding someone playing a Wizard in our group, but a Cleric, no, that's rarely a favored choice. Something must be fundamentally wrong with a class that doesn't get played despite being arguably one of the most powerful in 3E.

I think the 'problem' is twofold; the first issue is perception, as lots of people seem to think that all clerics do is follow the party and cast cure X wounds spells. The second issue is player desires. If your players want to play the 'wade in and bloody my blade' type, or the 'powerful arcanist' type, or the 'skilled sneak thief' type, they aren't going to choose a cleric.

Add on top the view of religion in the modern world, possible ethical issues with deities, etc, and players often look for something else to play.

All this despite the cleric being the most numerically overpowered base class in the game, with the only real competition coming from the druid, and the artificer from Eberron coming in a near third. Ironically, none of these are particularly popular classes; it's been stated that the reason for druid/cleric power levels being what they are is due to them being under-played... a reward, if you will, for playing the class no one else wants to play. Goes back to some of the 'rules mastery' arguments, too.

 

[DandD]

It is strange, but it's true. I don't think we would have trouble finding someone playing a Wizard in our group, but a Cleric, no, that's rarely a favored choice. Something must be fundamentally wrong with a class that doesn't get played despite being arguably one of the most powerful in 3E.

The problem is, although the 3.X-cleric gets all the cool stuff, in the end, he's still meant to only use heal-spells, which is why he can convert all his prepared spells spontaneously. But whenever the cleric-player dares not to heal the characters of his friends, he'll get accused of lack of teamplay, attempts to hog the spot-light in combat, and doing things he wasn't supposed to do. As the 4th edition designers recognized it, it's all about the action economy. All your faboulus super-powers mean nothing if all you have to use are the cure whatever-wounds and Heal, and you can only do it once per round anyway, in most combats that only last 2-3 rounds max, nonetheless.

 

[Banshee16]

My main issue with the Wizard being the only one is because they spent so much time and effort and space making sure that each party didn't need a Cleric to be its most effective at launch...only to turn around and make the Wizard "necessary" for a party (since it is the only class which fills a role -- just like the cleric in earlier editions). So that's (a) a bit of 4e schizophrenia for you, and (b) not really fixing a problem they set out to fix.

Well, I can't say that I'm a huge fan of everything I've been reading about 4E, but I can say that your concerns might not be an issue with the wizard.

I'm pretty sure that they made the Cleric a class that a party can do without *because* it's often been the one class that has been the hardest to find a player to play, while at the same time, being the one that no class can do without. Thus, they had the challenge of either trying to make the class more exciting, or making it less necessary. They tried to make it more exciting in 3E, so they weren't walking first aid kits, but it's hard to do that without also making them completely unbalanced against the other classes (kind of what happened in 3E)..

Wizards, on the other hand, have no issues with popularity. There's usually someone who wants to play one in the group. Thus making the wizard a necessary character might not be as much of an issue.

That's just my guess, of course.

Banshee

 

[WhatGravitas]

If your players want to play the 'wade in and bloody my blade' type, or the 'powerful arcanist' type, or the 'skilled sneak thief' type, they aren't going to choose a cleric.

This. The cleric isn't a very popular fantasy archetype, esp. not the D&D incarnation - it's a D&D thing. Books more often feature warriors, mages, or sneaky scoundrels. For me, the D&D cleric was the first time I encountered the idea of divine spell casters with battle magic. Add in the "I walk around in heavy armour"... well, most books treat magic as magic, without such distinctions.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Torchlyte]

It always seemed to me like putting the Wizard alone in a Controller role was to help Wizard players feel better about getting nerfed into the ground. I have no problem with that of course, but people get melodramatic on Gleemax about it.

Basically, I don't think a group with two strikers and no controller would be at an actual disadvantage.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It always seemed to me like putting the Wizard alone in a Controller role was to help Wizard players feel better about getting nerfed into the ground. I have no problem with that of course, but people get melodramatic on Gleemax about it.

Basically, I don't think a group with two strikers and no controller would be at an actual disadvantage.

I do not have an opinion on the alleged nerfing in 4e.

3e Wizards were already nerfed with respect to damage dealing, as HPs of all characters/monsters were boosted high while damage dealt by spells crept up only a little.

I come from the POV that a 3e Wizard should mostly throw down wall-like spells once the fighting begins.

In my mind that is how to control the battlefield.

I think people are confusing the Controller role with the verb "control". I see a Controller as any character which is highly efficient against >3 enemies while often less than impressive against <3 enemies.

When you are fighting one powerful enemy, it is almost a sacred cow (much to my chagrin) that the Wizard may not do much. That is true for all editions of D&D to date.

That brings us to your second point.

Yes, good teamwork and multiple Strikers is probably a pretty good substitute for a Controller. Sometimes 2 Archers is as good or better than 1 Archer + 1 Wizard. Always has been the case. Focusing party firepower and annihilating an enemy before he blinks is extremely efficient in a way that Fireballs have difficulty competing with.

My guess is the Real Controller is not going to be any variation of a Generalist Wizard. Consider how efficient an Illusionist of Enchanter could be in this role?

 

[Leatherhead]

This. The cleric isn't a very popular fantasy archetype, esp. not the D&D incarnation - it's a D&D thing. Books more often feature warriors, mages, or sneaky scoundrels. For me, the D&D cleric was the first time I encountered the idea of divine spell casters with battle magic. Add in the "I walk around in heavy armour"... well, most books treat magic as magic, without such distinctions.

Cheers, LT.

I dissagree, a servant of the gods with divine powers is popular. What isn't popular is being a "healbot."

 

[I'm A Banana]

It is strange, but it's true. I don't think we would have trouble finding someone playing a Wizard in our group, but a Cleric, no, that's rarely a favored choice. Something must be fundamentally wrong with a class that doesn't get played despite being arguably one of the most powerful in 3E.

Part of this is that Wizards, in all editions so far, have been very "special," not to mention often quite powerful. People lept at the chance to play a wizard because it is a personal psychological reward from throwing around buckets o' d6's in a Fireball spell.

The reward for playing other classes was....sometimes esoteric at best. This is especially notable on the cleric, who spent most of his actions helping other people.

This is no longer true in 4e. In the early days, I think we'll have some carry-over, but I think you'll find more people, in the end, interested in the Warlock than were ever interested in the Wizard.

But regardless of my opinion of public perception, the fact remains that a wizard is as required in 4e as a cleric was in 3e, and that this is a problem for the same reason: not everyone wants to have to have a wizard in their party, okay?

But they are.

That will irk me until I see more controllers.

 

[Torchlyte]

But regardless of my opinion of public perception, the fact remains that a wizard is as required in 4e as a cleric was in 3e, and that this is a problem for the same reason: not everyone wants to have to have a wizard in their party, okay?

But they are.

Evidence?