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: 4041677" data-attributes="member: 32536">I hope you don't mind if I snip the rest for simplicity's sake...What you are doing is exactly the logical trap that I said should be avoided: using an overly limited definition of Controller based solely on the first implementation of a Controller, the Wizard.More specifically, you are defining a Controller based on how the method the class goes about being a Controller, rather than the end state. For example, you seem to think that a controller needs to be a ranged fighter. However, there are both ranged and melee Strikers already, and I can easily imagine the existence of a ranged Defender (though not necessarily a Martial one). The only reason a Controller needs to be ranged is if you want the Controller to be more wizard-like.Anyways, of all the things you list, the only ones necessary to a Controller are hampering foes and being able to affect multiple targets. Manipulating terrain is merely an means to that end. Area-effect blasts are merely a means to that end. Ranged attacks are merely a means to that end. And you admit yourself that being able to attack multiple targets is a good alternative to normal area of effect (and this isn't even discussing logical Martial AoE moves, like the cavalry charges/trample attacks I discussed earlier on this page of the thread). I also should mention that I see no problem with a Martial character who can hamper foes at range, with a good thrown weapon or bowshot, or even a Warlord-style inspiration/taunt effect.Finally, one of your important categories, helping allies, is the domain of Leaders, not Controllers, and since there is a Martial Leader already, I see no reason that should be a stumbling block for a Martial Controller. Your example, Fly, is more based on the idea that Controllers should be Wizards (3E Wizards, even) than a pure concept of what a Controller needs to be.I guess, as an alternative way of arguing things based on other elements in this thread...I don't agree that a swashbuckler should necessarily be a Striker just because he dances around the battlefield like a Rogue might. Warlocks and Rangers are Strikers also, but there is no reason to believe that they dance around the battlefield dodging attacks. Dodging around the battlefield is the method a Rogue uses to achieve the ultimate aim of focusing attacks against a single foe, and is not necessary for a Striker or limited to being a Striker ability. Meanwhile, a character can logically use such agility to function as a Defender, Controller, or even Leader, so there is no need to associate such abilities with only Strikers. When a person argues that agile characters must be strikers, that is only because they are thinking that all Strikers should be Rogue-like and that everything Rogue-like should be a Striker. It is a line of thought born from the old "default party" mentality being carried over to 4E rather than a logical deduction from the Roles themselves.</blockquote>

Verification