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="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4045368" data-attributes="member: 40961">Then what's all the debate about?  If you want to define "controller" so broadly that a rogue who chooses options that let him knock enemies senseless is labeled a controller, then you've already got a big pile of martial controllers to choose from.I haven't been responding to specific suggestions in a specific manner, because I believe that my general objections stands well enough on their own.  There aren't enough martial controller ideas to make a whole class.  Look at the examples people offer- one or two abilities that by their nature will need to be high level, or which are of questionable plausibility for a martial character, or are of questionable in game worth.Since I don't see enough design space available, I believe it is best to give those controller-ish abilities that DO make sense to pre existing classes.  Take the cavalry example- do you honestly believe that there is enough controller material available to make a cavalryman into a dedicated controller?  For that matter, do you really think there's enough material available to make a character class that focuses on riding a horse, even if we don't restrict it to controller abilities?  I doubt it.  Isn't it extremely likely that what you would get would be a defender (the cavalryman is most likely going to be good at slugging it out, and will have to default to that when not mounted) who happens to have a controller-ish ability or two, that he can use only in highly situational moments, ie, when mounted?  And finally, while something like a reverse warlord might be cool, wouldn't it be more cool if, rather than desperately attempting to fill a grid, we opened it up, added the arcane power source, merged the class with the hexblade, and increased the plausible ways in which the character could act like a controller by at least a factor of 10?Well, it certainly straddles the line between defender and controller.  That was the point.  I think its highly appropriate for a fighter, because it helps a fighter do what fighters do- get right in the middle of a bunch of enemies, and slug things out.  As for your assertions that fighters should have only abilities which focus on one foe rather than many, and that fighters should focus on bringing enemies towards them only, rather than having an ability or two to create room for the fighter once the enemies are there, I can say on this:  I will be highly, highly surprised if the fighter in the PHB matches your vision.  I predict that the fighter will have a great deal of abilities that focus on single foes and on bringing enemies close and holding them there, but that the fighter will ALSO have some abilities that focus on things counter to the stereotypical defender role- abilities that assist in combating mobs of weak foes, abilities that club enemies away from the fighter, and so forth.For the record, I also predict that the wizard, who's focus is on area of effect attacks, will also have some single target abilities.  And that warlords will have some abilities that do not require allies.  And so forth.I do not believe that class roles will be straight jackets.  I believe they will describe the "gist" of a character's battlefield role, not the totality of it.  I think there will be plenty of room for an ability like the example above, and I think that one or two controller-like abilities in an otherwise defender oriented class will add flavor, rather than cause problems.</blockquote>

Verification