Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 3988251" data-attributes="member: 9053">I actually think this is a very good question so here you go:At launch, there will be fewer controller options than any other role, which means that if you're playing the controller you have fewer classes to choose from. The reason people complain about playing a cleric in previous editions is because you need someone who can heal, so in many games you get someone who feels they're "getting stuck playing the cleric."Having four roles that are expected to exist in a party in order for it to be effective in 4E, and having fewer classes in one of those roles means that people may very likely complain "great, I have to play the controller!"Will that actually be the case: do you really need a controller? I doubt it, just like I have played in campaigns where there wasn't a cleric that worked just fine. That doesn't mean people won't complain about it.Now the question is: are they right to? In this instance I think they are, but only to a modest extent. Both the "roles" and "power sources" are concepts that are new to D&D for 4E, and they're artificial constructs created to help define the roles that make playing 4E fun. In effect they're metagaming concepts.So when you create your metagame constructs, why not define them in such a way to make them applicable to all of the roles you expect people play in the game? I guess all of this is a longwinded way of saying, "since the concept of a controller is entirely artificial, why not define it so that all of the power sources can have one?"--Steve</blockquote>

Verification