Why arn't Controllers Sexy

[Obryn]

Going back to the original question...

I think one thing that makes controllers less-than-sexy is their lack of a distinctive class feature that goes across power sources.

Defenders all have marking mechanics, and ways to enforce them. Leaders all have X/encounter heals, each with their own quirks. Strikers all have damage kickers of one kind or another.

Controllers don't have any of that. Their role is completely encompassed by their actual powers, which makes them a lot tougher to appreciate.

YMMV. Now feel free to go back to your Scorching Burst vs. Winged Horde nerdfight.

-O

 

[KarinsDad]

Losing the ability to take opportunity actions and flank is a hard control by your definition, particularly on certain enemies who might lose their entire shtick.

It does prevent Opportunity Attacks (which are out of turn opportunity actions), but those are typically rare in the game system shy of unusual events like a Rogue provoking an OA in order for the Fighter Combat Challenge to fire off. How many PCs purposely provoke OAs? And even in this case, the Wizard is actually doing a soft control on the Rogue (the Rogue's try to provoke an OA schtick is lost).

It is nowhere near the Hard Control ballpark of Stun, or Daze, or Knocked Prone and Slowed, or Walled off opponents. Granted, I put Slowed in there, but maybe I shouldn't. Slowed is more soft control than the hard control of Immobilized or Restrained, especially due to the weak Charging rules.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, I'd rate inability to:
opportunity attack
flank
grab

as stronger control than Slow. If you rate it as soft control, eh that's different. But really, it's still all control, however you try to shake it.

Anyhow, I've complained about the lack of controller features for a long time. Personally, I think I'd have preferred if there wasn't a controller role, and rather was an AoE role. Then you can have things like increased burst/blast size as a feature, selective shaping, extra targeting, etc.

 

[Felon]

I had the good fortune to skip straight the first page to here. I missed out on countless incisive commentaries, no doubt.

Going back to the original question...

I think one thing that makes controllers less-than-sexy is their lack of a distinctive class feature that goes across power sources.

Defenders all have marking mechanics, and ways to enforce them. Leaders all have X/encounter heals, each with their own quirks. Strikers all have damage kickers of one kind or another.

Controllers don't have any of that. Their role is completely encompassed by their actual powers, which makes them a lot tougher to appreciate.
-O

That is a big part of it. With classes from the other three roles, you get a feature that forms the axis of the class. Leader words, defender marking, striker attack boosts. With controllers, you get bad AC and HP and no discernible compensation.

Try hybriding into a controller and see what you get. Cantrips for the wizard. For the druid, a beast form that don't do nothing.

It also didn't help that controllers were all implement-users up until the seeker. It was evident to anyone but a WotC designer that weapons enjoyed some advantages over implements, and it was obvious to anyone with the possible exception of WotC designers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I'd rate inability to:
opportunity attack
flank
grab

as stronger control than Slow. If you rate it as soft control, eh that's different. But really, it's still all control, however you try to shake it.

Anyhow, I've complained about the lack of controller features for a long time. Personally, I think I'd have preferred if there wasn't a controller role, and rather was an AoE role. Then you can have things like increased burst/blast size as a feature, selective shaping, extra targeting, etc.

What would prevent those from being striker features?

Personally I think control has more to do with controlling the BATTLEFIELD than it does controlling the enemy directly. This is why I would classify powers like Storm Pillar and Cloud of Daggers as the most direct possible form of control, they create 'terrain' (admittedly CoD does a weak job of this, but SP is highly effective in this manner, making the target square totally impassible for a round).

It is this element of shaping the battlefield which is the true realm of the controller and which is almost entirely exclusive to them. In fact it is largely exclusive to the wizard. The druid can do a fair amount of it, the invoker not much, and the seeker has mostly weaker forms as well. Personally I think this more than anything else is what the designers have never figured out. Things like immobilizing your enemy certainly have a definite control aspect, but they are much closer to debuffing.

When you put up a Wall of Fire there's no doubt what sort of effect it is. Notice too there is a good reason why strong control is limited mostly to daily powers (and consequently the wizard is the absolute master of the daily). They are simply so devastatingly powerful that its almost impossible to make encounter or at-will versions. Real control wins battles hands down. Every great military mind in history has recognized the preeminence of shaping the battlefield to your own ends.

There are thus a few reasons why controllers don't get a lot of credit. It takes a lot of mental horsepower to make control work for you. You have to have a PLAN. You have to understand your side's strengths and the other sides weaknesses, or at least basic tactical principles, in order for the changes you make to the battlefield to mean any advantage for your forces. Then drop on top of that WotC doesn't particularly grasp this whole fact and you have consequently no general controller class feature and a lot of classes that are only marginally controllers at all. Every controller also necessarily needs a secondary function since the actual exertion of control is not something you usually constantly do on a round-by-round basis, so every controller has a strong secondary function (except wizards, which really are the true hard core controllers).

 

[DracoSuave]

You mean a class that can offer a choice between going prone or massive damage isn't a hard controller? (invoker)

A class that can, at will, create a zone of area enemies cannot leave or get knocked prone isn't a hard controller? (druid, grasping tide is amazing)

A class that has, as a feature, push anyone without an attack roll as a FREE ACTION encounter power isn't a hard controller? (psion)

That's the problem with features based analysis, is that it doesn't include the powers, and any analysis of any class in the game that stops before you get to Level 1 At-Wills is an absolute travesty of an analysis.

And how do you quantify 'control' as a class feature? How do you quantify the secondary effects of powers? And how does 'you can push an enemy targetted by your encounter/daily powers' not qualify as such a feature?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sorry, you were responding to me? I never said any class WASN'T a controller, I just pointed out that wizards have a level of control that is only rarely at best matched by other controller classes.

You mean a class that can offer a choice between going prone or massive damage isn't a hard controller? (invoker)

No, I wouldn't consider that hard control for a number of reasons, and many people wouldn't consider it strictly control at all (though I think they're rather extreme). The enemy has the choices here and its not clear its a catch 22. I can give my boss suggestions, that doesn't mean I control him. Neither is the invoker in this case controlling the enemy in the strict sense. In fact in this case wouldn't the power really be essentially equivalent to 'do a whole bunch of damage' since the enemy can CHOOSE if its advantageous to him to fall prone instead, the best case is they take the damage.

A class that can, at will, create a zone of area enemies cannot leave or get knocked prone isn't a hard controller? (druid, grasping tide is amazing)

As I said above, other classes don't totally LACK control, and druids surely come in second behind wizards overall, so yeah, its control, though again not as strong a form as Storm Pillar which can totally SEAL an opening with the enemy granted no choices about it.

A class that has, as a feature, push anyone without an attack roll as a FREE ACTION encounter power isn't a hard controller? (psion)

I call that a VERY weak form of control indeed. You can do it once per encounter (or a few times at higher levels, but its too expensive to spam). It doesn't stop the enemy from doing what they want to do in general and has a minimal impact on an opponent's choices. In fact I am labeling it control more for a lack of a better description than anything else.

That's the problem with features based analysis, is that it doesn't include the powers, and any analysis of any class in the game that stops before you get to Level 1 At-Wills is an absolute travesty of an analysis.

And how do you quantify 'control' as a class feature? How do you quantify the secondary effects of powers? And how does 'you can push an enemy targetted by your encounter/daily powers' not qualify as such a feature?

I think I defined it pretty well and not in terms of anything in particular except generally the way various powers work. I stated a principle. Given that I was talking about a concept, 'Controller', I think its perfectly valid to have an abstract analysis and its not worthless at all nor a travesty. It just such abstract analysis and the power of abstract thinking that makes human intellect powerful to start with.

 

[DracoSuave]

Sorry, you were responding to me? I never said any class WASN'T a controller, I just pointed out that wizards have a level of control that is only rarely at best matched by other controller classes.

Frankly then, you're not -trying-.

Astral Wind is a Thunderwave that adds in a damage element if they move towards you...

How is this any different than Storm Pillar which only -disuades- an enemy from -entering- a number of spaces using the same idea of damage?

If Storm Pillar is control, Astral Wind is just as good, if not better, because the enemy still took damage.

Grasping Tide actually can -stop- movement.

No, I wouldn't consider that hard control for a number of reasons, and many people wouldn't consider it strictly control at all (though I think they're rather extreme). The enemy has the choices here and its not clear its a catch 22. I can give my boss suggestions, that doesn't mean I control him. Neither is the invoker in this case controlling the enemy in the strict sense. In fact in this case wouldn't the power really be essentially equivalent to 'do a whole bunch of damage' since the enemy can CHOOSE if its advantageous to him to fall prone instead, the best case is they take the damage.[/qiote]

I suppose, but you consider Storm Pillar to be great control and isn't that the exact same thing?

As I said above, other classes don't totally LACK control, and druids surely come in second behind wizards overall, so yeah, its control, though again not as strong a form as Storm Pillar which can totally SEAL an opening with the enemy granted no choices about it.

It can seal a 5' square opening. That's not great levels of control. In very specific encounters it can be very powerful; but such encounters aren't common.

I call that a VERY weak form of control indeed. You can do it once per encounter (or a few times at higher levels, but its too expensive to spam). It doesn't stop the enemy from doing what they want to do in general and has a minimal impact on an opponent's choices. In fact I am labeling it control more for a lack of a better description than anything else.

If the ability said, instead 'Invalidate a melee attack' would you consider it control?

I would.

'The monster targets you with his claw swipe.'
'Forceful push.'
'The monster cannot finish its action.'

This is one of the -easiest- things you can do with a push 1 as a free action.

I think I defined it pretty well and not in terms of anything in particular except generally the way various powers work. I stated a principle. Given that I was talking about a concept, 'Controller', I think its perfectly valid to have an abstract analysis and its not worthless at all nor a travesty. It just such abstract analysis and the power of abstract thinking that makes human intellect powerful to start with.

I think that stating it's a problem that controllers don't have a single defining feature that unifies the role is a bit of a mistatement of the problem.

The thing is, 'control' involves a lot more than simple action denial, or what have you. It -is- an abstract concept, and it's not like damage, marking, or healing in that you can make it a single mechanic. That's actually part of the allure of the controller. I mean, is it a problem? Well a problem implies there's some form of solution. Fact is, you can't quantify control with a single mechanic (nor should you) so you can't have a single mechanic unified across all controller roles.

It's not possible.

The question this is, can each controller be built in such a way that they can have a great effect on the battlefield? Yes.

Can each controller exert their control on the battlefield without being a collection of 'I Win' buttons? Yes.

Do they have powers that allow them to dabble in other roles should they choose to be less 'controllery'? Yes.

Every controller class can be built to exert control, and every controller class can be built to do other stuff if they so choose. This is not a failure of the controller role or the controller class... It's like saying rogues are a failure as a striker because they have some blinding powers, or that paladins are a failure as a defender because they have some buffs and healing powers.

That argument is nonsense. Sure, not -every- power is hard control. Not every power SHOULD be. But every controller has options to give them control at varying levels at every level of the game. And they can dabble. That's GOOD design.

 

[KarinsDad]

Personally I think control has more to do with controlling the BATTLEFIELD than it does controlling the enemy directly. This is why I would classify powers like Storm Pillar and Cloud of Daggers as the most direct possible form of control, they create 'terrain' (admittedly CoD does a weak job of this, but SP is highly effective in this manner, making the target square totally impassible for a round).
.

I'd agree with this more if we were still using the 1/2/1/2 movement rules or using hexes.

But as is, the main time that terrain control works well is in smaller areas. This is also true of Defenders to some extent. If possible, the monsters can just avoid this stuff and still get across the battlefield fairly quick.

In fact, I'm convinced that the REASON WotC started adding so many terrain features to their adventures and talking it up so much is because of the 1/2/1/2 movement rule change. It used to be that a small amount of terrain was slightly problematic. Now, a DM who doesn't often put in terrain features is looked down upon as a DM who doesn't know what he is doing.

Don't get me wrong. Battlefield control is cool. It's just somewhat more difficult to pull off in 4E because movement is super easy (e.g. even Slow is mostly a joke) and area effects are small. As one example, in 3E my Web spell was slightly less than 8x8. In 4E, it's 5x5.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

DS, I wasn't actually saying that I have any problem at all with controllers or that they should be changed in any way. Some players have trouble grasping the concepts. What I AM saying is that the UNIQUE feature of controllers is being able to shape the 'terrain' of the battlefield itself. Of course some other classes get a taste of this now and then as well, but its really pretty much owned by the full time controllers, and especially the wizard.

Just because Storm Pillar is a WEAK battlefield modifying effect is not important to the argument. Of course its weak, its an at-will. It denies 1 square for 1 round, which is actually about the weakest it could be and still do anything. The damage it (potentially) does is really gravy in those terms and just makes it useful as a damage dealing spell and amplifies the effect a bit.

As for other effects on enemies. I would NOT call 'enemy choice' effects CONTROL. They don't force anything to happen. The best ones give the enemy 2 bad choices, but frankly the majority of such powers are crappy. This is a problem with the seeker, who has tons of crappy powers that AT BEST do some striker level damage and otherwise allow the enemy to choose some other effect instead if it suites them. There are about a dozen threads over on the WotC boards discussing how worthless this whole concept is tactically. It sure isn't control in most cases.

MANY powers possessed by controllers when you analyze them are really debuffs at heart. I don't disagree that shoving the enemy around the battlefield or restricting their movements or attacks have no element of control but notice that leaders have plenty of these powers as well, they really aren't a signature of controllers.