Community

Jan 3, 2011 -- 6:38AM, TheyCallMeTomuReborn wrote:

It's not that it's a bad idea-it's that it's redundant.

The fact that the Wizard can be a functional class by using nothing but multi-target damage powers means that the concept of a character that deals damage to multiple targets is a controller concept. If the sorcerer does more damage to the same number of targets, he's just a more powerful controller. If he does more damage to less targets, then he's basically just a single target striker with some multi-target riders, or a limited use controller.

I like the idea of sorcerers as multi-target direct damage. I don't like the idea of using multi-target direct damage when controllers exist. Either get rid of the controller role, or get rid of the multi-target striker role.

multi-target damage is on the weak end of the control scale as far as controlling go (it punishes enemies for what might otherwise be optimal positioning).
On the striker scale the value is less than dealing the same total damage to a single target, but you get more total damage out of it and it is sometimes more and sometimes less valuable.

Until essentials came out, there was no class in 4e that wasn't designed to blend two roles, usually blending a fixed primary role with a choice of two secondary roles. Sorc is a Striker/Controller picking up primarily on AOE damage whereas Warlock is a Striker/Controller that picks up primarily control effects (debuffs, action prevention), and a damage focused Wizard is a Controller/Striker that can potentially rival sorcerers if they dump enough of their control aspect.

I will say, though, that we've come a long way. I remember the endless threads (longer than this by far!) about how unforgiveably weak Wizards were.

Jan 3, 2011 -- 12:22PM, erachima wrote:

-ish. The whining was rather hyperbolic due to how scaled down they were vs. previous incarnations.

The real issue with the Wizard was (and to an extent still is) that its value as a class is nearly all in its powers, and that's rather common among controllers due to the writers seemingly having a terrible time coming up with actual controller class features.

Aside from the hardcore stuff like Stun, control typically has to be done in the form of situational things, like prone, daze, and immobilize, whose effectiveness draws in part from having a variety of effects available. If you're going to have a variety of effects available, the natural place for that is in power selection.
Even Hunter has all their control sitting there in their pre-defined at-will collection.

Another part of it is that hard control like stun needs to be limited in how spammable it is. This is where Dishearten earns so much ire, because in epic it reaches levels that are the functional equivalent of "the target misses every attack it makes", yet can be spammed non-stop. So maybe a controller could get a control effect as a class feature at will if it's a weak enough control effect or on an encounter basis for something stronger, but control really thrives on having a good mix of situational powerful effects, as well as maybe some more universally useful effects.

Incidently I think Tome of Readiness is a really solid controller class feature, explicitly because it allows you to access a greater variety of powers with conditional effectiveness to chose the one most relevant to the moment you are actually in. Spellbook was a weak feature before they added things like Mnemonic Staff and Improved Tome of Readiness and the Refocus utility to give mid-encounter access to your backup spells. Now it can serve a role similar to Tome of Readiness.
Shaman has its spirit, which gives a lesser degree of zone-control including potentially blocking out a square entirely, helping you shape the battlefield to your advantage. I'll confess I'm not too familiar with Invoker, and Seeker's class features don't especially say 'controller' to me.

To be fair though, Ranger's strikerness comes almost entirely from Twin Strike and other powers that give them large numbers of attacks per round. Quarry is helpful at low heroic but becomes an afterthought as you go along, ever more so at high levels as more and more stacking bonuses apply to your multiple attacks. Warlocks get a small bump from curse as well, but get much of their damage output from attack powers, such as at-wills with secondary damage rolls and encounters that add int to damage. Clerics have healing word, sure, but they can get far more healing out of powers, including attack powers, or alternatively can bust out a ton of power bonuses for the party, or some nasty debuffs. Warlords are pretty much defined by their powers, especially at the table. So there's classes all over the spectrum that are defined mostly by their powers, even if they do have relevant class features.