Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4041602" data-attributes="member: 32536">Well, let me demonstrate my logic a bit, then.If a Martial Controller is impossible, but Psionics, Divine, and Shadow-based Controllers are possible, then what exactly are these kinds of Controllers? If there can't be a Martial Controller because there is no way for a Martial character to emulate certain kinds of effects, then every Controller has to emulate those kinds of effects, and thus has to end up looking very similar. It is the same problem as last time around, where the Psion was just a repackaged Wizard under a new name.Let me explain this from a different angle... (I apologize if the following examples are flawed, but I don't know the rules yet, after all)Striker is a good role because there are many ways for a character to be a Striker. Rogues are melee focused, rely on hitting an enemy who is off balance, and sneaking through enemy lines to reach their target. Rangers use ranged attacks, and can hit distant enemies accurately while staying out of harm's way. Both are very different, but they both fill the role of quickly doing a lot of damage to single enemy targets.Leader is a good role because there are many ways for a character to be a Leader. Warlords enable their allies to perform more actions, while Clerics are stronger at healing and buffing directly.But so far, Controllers seem to just be... Wizards. Controllers do Wizardly things, and those that do Wizardly things are Controllers. I don't think it has to be this way, but this is the only way that would deny the existence of a Martial Controller. As such, it does not have the flexibility of being a Striker or Leader, which have very different interpretations, so it is not as good of a role. However, if you look deeper at the role system, this is not the necessary state.These are my conceptions of the most important aspects of the different roles:A Defender is a character who protects allies. It tries to reach the state where every enemy is hurting the Defender, and no enemy is hurting any allies.A Striker is a character who harms enemies. It tries to reach the state where all enemies are dead.A Leader is a character who enables offense. It tries to reach the state where all allies are in top condition and free to attack, and can attack at greater than 100% normal ability.A Controller is a character who enables defense. It tries to reach the state where enemies can no longer attack, and no enemy can attack at normal ability.Within this context, I don't see how a Martial Controller is impossible. After all, the basic state of "tripping" an enemy is a Controller action, not a Defender action. It reduces the enemy's capability to attack anyone, much like a Wall of Fire or Wave of Fatigue would, rather than encourage an enemy to attack the user, like Grappling or a Knight's Challenge does. Every time a PC trips an enemy, the PC is functioning more like a Controller than a Defender. A PC who can trip every enemy in a 20 ft radius and keep them down (a build I saw someone try to make to 3E) is a Controller.If you say that a Martial Controller is impossible, then the definition of Controller is artificially reduced to be more limited than the definitions of other roles. In this case, the only choice is to make every Controller look more like the original Controller (the Wizard), because the Wizard has become the defining factor rather than the Role. You would be judging Controller classes by how they resemble the Wizard rather than how they fill the abstract role itself.I know this is a bit wordy and repetitive, but I at this point I think someone needs to justify the claim that Martial Controllers can't exist and still have non-Wizard-like classes be possible for me to believe such an idea.</blockquote>

Verification