Are Defenders melee Controllers?

[Tegu8788]

I've been thinking, and given the tactics involved and some of the mechanics, would it be fair to say that Defenders act like melee Controllers? Both try to control enemy movement and work to debuff and limit enemy options, creating catch-22s.

This train of thought made me wonder about the possibility of building a Controller that can survive in melee, or a Defender that can control at some range. Of course certain builds would fit better than others.

Opinions and thoughts appreciated as always.

[NecroRebel]

They're both "defensive"-type roles, but they're not really similar beyond that. A defender works by severely limiting a single target's options, especially in regards to what targets they can attack without being punished for it. A controller works by limiting multiple targets' options, mainly by limiting movement. There's some overlap, naturally, since removing mobility helps to limit target options, but for the most part they're quite different.

I think a melee-range Controller could be made, but it would mostly involve close bursts and blasts rather than melee attacks. Sort of like a dragon sorcerer, except with lower damage and more debuffs and zone effects attached to the breath attacks. A ranged Defender is also theoretically possible, but would involve making a mark on a single target and then debuffing just that target. Maybe like the Seeker, even, except with a marking feature; the main reason the Seeker doesn't make much of a Controller is because it's mostly single-target and doesn't have the movement-limiting effects that role should, but with changes it might be able to do Defending well.

[OracleofWuffing]

I've been thinking, and given the tactics involved and some of the mechanics, would it be fair to say that Defenders act like melee Controllers? Both try to control enemy movement and work to debuff and limit enemy options, creating catch-22s.
The big difference between a Defender and a Controller is that Defenders expect to be hit, a lot. Otherwise, yes, they share similar offensive tactics.


This train of thought made me wonder about the possibility of building a Controller that can survive in melee, or a Defender that can control at some range. Of course certain builds would fit better than others.
The defender that controls at range is likely the Swordmage, going Shielding Swordmage if you absolutely positively want to stay at range from your marks. Next up, I think would be a ranged Paladin, probably with some Warlock stuff inside.

[Kurald Galain]

Another difference is that defenders tend to focus on conditional effects ("don't attack my friends or I'll whack you") whereas controllers tend to focus on absolute effects ("you are blinded").

Controllers also have way more "toolbox" utilities, and tend to have much more multitarget effects than defenders do.

So no, I don't think defenders are at all melee controllers. You might as well call defenders conditional strikers, since most of them do a lot of damage if their conditions are met.

[Sol]

Defenders are absolutely a specialized subclassification of controllers.

A standard controller's job is to minion sweep and to deny enemy actions, resulting in the party taking less damage.

A defender's job is to limit enemies actions to two equally bad choices - attack someone else (with a penalty) and get punished for doing so; or attack the defender (with an even larger effective penalty due to their focus on high defenses), resulting in the party taking less damage.

Even when an enemy hits a defender, which, yes, will still occur often for all but the cheesiest of defender builds, the same value of damage is significantly less painful (in terms of %HP lost) than for, say, a rogue. Add to this a plethora of +defense and +THP items and utility powers, several more surges/day to spend, and a significantly reduced opportunity cost for using second wind (dealing massive damage is not your job), and most defender classes can build to be relatively leader-independent.

A monster attacking a well built defender is, in many cases, as good as stunned.

There is, obviously, a tipping point beyond which a defender has spent his resources and can no longer function as a damage sponge in the current encounter, but if the defender is well built, and the encounter drags on long enough to cause this, it's the strikers who need more optimization.

[Kurald Galain]

A standard controller's job is to minion sweep and to deny enemy actions, resulting in the party taking less damage.

A defender's job is to limit enemies actions to two equally bad choices - attack someone else (with a penalty) and get punished for doing so; or attack the defender (with an even larger effective penalty due to their focus on high defenses), resulting in the party taking less damage.

A striker's job is to kill the enemies as soon as possible, resulting in the party taking less damage.

A leader's job is to heal the party and/or give it bonuses and resistances, resulting in the party taking less damage.

[kyoryu]

They're sort of Controller-ish kinda.

Real Controllers tend to minion sweep, debuff, and change the battlefield in such a way to control the tactics of *all* of the enemies. Defenders usually focus on locking down a single enemy (or at least a small number).

They both focus on reducing enemy options, but that's about it for similarities.

[Zaq]

Basically, controllers and defenders say "no," while leaders and strikers say "yes." They're more closely related than the other roles, I think, but I also think they're distinct enough to warrant being separate.

But yeah, good defenders have a lot of control to them. Defenders who would rather do MOAR DAMAG than actually lock down the enemy tend to be bad defenders. Yes, I am judging.

[Tvtyrant]

Basically, controllers and defenders say "no," while leaders and strikers say "yes." They're more closely related than the other roles, I think, but I also think they're distinct enough to warrant being separate.

But yeah, good defenders have a lot of control to them. Defenders who would rather do MOAR DAMAG than actually lock down the enemy tend to be bad defenders. Yes, I am judging.

I have read that you need to do considerable damage as a defender to convince the enemy that ignoring you is unwise though. Like a Fighter's mark is useless if the enemy can safely walk away.

[Zaq]

I have read that you need to do considerable damage as a defender to convince the enemy that ignoring you is unwise though. Like a Fighter's mark is useless if the enemy can safely walk away.

That's one way of doing it. Or, to use the Fighter example, you could be a Brawler, thereby simply not giving them a choice. A fearsomely damaging mark punishment is soft control done right, but it's still soft control, since it gives them the option to disobey.

[Kurald Galain]

I have read that you need to do considerable damage as a defender to convince the enemy that ignoring you is unwise though. Like a Fighter's mark is useless if the enemy can safely walk away.

True. This is especially a problem for PHB-only paladins. Some players strongly feel that a marked enemy must attack whoever marked it, but that's not actually RAW.

[kyoryu]

True. This is especially a problem for PHB-only paladins. Some players strongly feel that a marked enemy must attack whoever marked it, but that's not actually RAW.

Yup. I've also seen advice to the extent that not only should you be able to punish mark violations effectively, but in fact that you shouldn't raise your armor *too* high. Your job is to be a more attractive target than the alternatives. If you're not an attractive target due to either lack of punishment, or lack of ability to get hurt, then the DM *should* have the enemy attack the other target.

[Tvtyrant]

Yup. I've also seen advice to the extent that not only should you be able to punish mark violations effectively, but in fact that you shouldn't raise your armor *too* high. Your job is to be a more attractive target than the alternatives. If you're not an attractive target due to either lack of punishment, or lack of ability to get hurt, then the DM *should* have the enemy attack the other target.

How would the enemy know what your armor was? I could see arguing that after missing a few times they would get there, but they shouldn't know off of the bat.

[OracleofWuffing]

How would the enemy know what your armor was? I could see arguing that after missing a few times they would get there, but they shouldn't know off of the bat.
Generally speaking, they observe the material that makes up the clothes you're wearing. Cloth armor, being made of woven fabric, typically has a visibly different texture than Plate armor, which is typically made of a bunch of big hard objects. Similarly, Chainmail usually involves a frequent visible interlocking pattern of chain links. Shields may also be strong tells, when applicable.

[Ashdate]

As a DM I tend to play marks depending on intelligence. A low intelligence monster isn't probably going to ignore a mark. A moderately intelligent one might if he rolls well and still misses. There could be other edge cases (a leader might instruct his guys to target someone for instance) but that should be an exception, not a rule, in my opinion.

If you wouldn't punish a striker for being "too good" at striking or a leader for being "too good" at healing, then I think you shouldn't punish a defender for being "too good" at reducing the damage the party takes (whether to himself or in general).

[kyoryu]

If you wouldn't punish a striker for being "too good" at striking or a leader for being "too good" at healing, then I think you shouldn't punish a defender for being "too good" at reducing the damage the party takes (whether to himself or in general).

Sure I do. If dealing with intelligent enemies, they prioritize targets effectively. So the striker that's chewing them up, or the healer that's keeping everyone alive will get some special love. I find 4e works best if you play the monsters effectively and not stupidly.

And a crazy-AC defender with no mark punishing ability just ain't a prioritized target.

[cupkeyk]

In my experience a great spear / pole arm fighter gives up some DPR in favor of prone/+immobilized effects such that they are actually melee controllers. Deciding between Feyslaughter or Githyanki Silver allows you to shut down teleporters OR spam Psychic Lock (which is more fun virth a vicious mocker bard in the party)

[Sol]

A striker's job is to kill the enemies as soon as possible, resulting in the party taking less damage.

A leader's job is to heal the party and/or give it bonuses and resistances, resulting in the party taking less damage.

That's a fair point, but what I meant is similar to how Zaq phrased it.

Controllers and defenders, via their actions, both shape what actions are available, attractive, and unattractive to team monster. It is their job to remove or hinder as many of the attractive options (like swarming the clothies) as possible.

re: playing monsters, I don't think it's fair to say globally that dumb monsters will blindly obey defenders while smart ones might more carefully weigh their options. Sufficiently dumb monsters may well not understand or care that the defender will punish them, but that doesn't mean they should ignore him, run past, and eat the cleric. Oozes and rodents and zombies should, generally, attack whatever is in their way.

[Tegu8788]

That's a lot of good input, and opinions, thanks. I've seen a lot of people ask about a martial controller, and I figured it would more likely be a melee one, and I was curious if a fighter with a polearm could function as one, with some other tricks. I had thought of the higher defenses and health as an alternate to creating a zone, and as was said, attacking a defender is often the same as being dazed. I do agree though, that the number of targets is much more limited for a defender than a controller, as are the types of effects.

And my 2cp on Marks, I'd have my monsters varying depending not only on the monster's intelligence, but also the nature of the mark. If a fighter uses his mark a couple times, the damage he causes is obvious, and they'd learn not to disobey it. A paladin or swordmage, if they role-play it as a declaration, then the monster would certainly know it was marked, whether or not it understands it is another matter.

[ChaosOS]

On the topic of martial controller: In addition to the polearm mastery, throw in some sonic stuff. Disorienting shouts, blood-curdling battle cries, getting to the front of the buffet line. Basically make him a whirlwind of steel that blocks every maneuver and just makes the enemies want to cry in the corner


On the topic of "When to ignore marks as a DM": The way I do it is obvious threats. For example, one encounter the rogue won initiative, dove into the middle of Team Monster (A bunch of slavers in a Dark Sun campaign), and then dropped their leader (an elite controller) in one turn by burning an action point (Gogo crits on sneak attack). Team monster then proceeds to ignore the marks of the minotaur battlemind, because although he might be big, he's not the one who messed with their boss (Yes, occasionally I do have team monster surrender once the leader is dead. This encounter was one I had decided they have a fierce loyalty to their leader that is genuine). Didn't matter that mind spike was doing some decentish damage, that rogue was gonna die. (We finished the encounter with him down two death saves and at -11 HP [first level rogue, 24 HP max])

TL; DR Strikers that are dumb and try to nova on the leader ASAP face consequences of focus fire.

[Epinephrine]

Defenders are absolutely a specialized subclassification of controllers.

Exactly how I feel, often exerting a "soft" control, punishing violation rather than outright preventing attacks.

[Tvtyrant]

Generally speaking, they observe the material that makes up the clothes you're wearing. Cloth armor, being made of woven fabric, typically has a visibly different texture than Plate armor, which is typically made of a bunch of big hard objects. Similarly, Chainmail usually involves a frequent visible interlocking pattern of chain links. Shields may also be strong tells, when applicable.

But. But. Tabards! You just simply wear a lot of clothes over your armor so they cannot tell!

[OracleofWuffing]

Well, yeah, sure, if you want to be practical about it.:smalltongue:

In that case, they go by whoever appears to have the largest shoulders.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, yeah, sure, if you want to be practical about it.:smalltongue:

In that case, they go by whoever appears to have the largest shoulders.

Poor Warden, it isn't his fault he turns into a tree.

[Tegu8788]

There is a magic armor that turns plate into cloth and back as a minor action I beileve, could help with that. As for shoulders, I had a group with a Minotaur cleric and a gnome Swordmage. Armor and size were misleading. It was pretty fun.

How would a fighter|warlord work for a melee controller? You'd have the marking potentional, warlord moving allies to block movement, polearm cheese, defenses to negate most attacks. I'm not super fluent in withers actual powers, just roles. Not ideal, but it could work better than the seeker possibly?

[Kurald Galain]

How would a fighter|warlord work for a melee controller?
That depends on whether you define control as "area attacks", "status debuffs", "action denial" or something else. In any case, yes, it would work better than a seeker.

The main drawback of a fighter hybrid is that it is unable to mark on its basic attacks. Also, a fighter does polearm cheese just fine all by itself, without needing a warlord half.

[Tegu8788]

My thought for the warlord bit would be to give some more control, using allies to hamper enemies. It's just about the softest of control, but as someone once said, dead is a pretty serious condition. I'm pretty sure there are a few fighter or warlord powers that attack multiple enemies. Mark is, has been said, a pretty weak debuff, but it's something. Proning is good, and, so is dead. Action denial, well, ignoring the mark does interrupt. Allies attacking better can do some denial I'd wager.

Like I said, I don't know powers, just features really. If warlord mc, or half-elf is better, then so be it. I'd wager there's a theme out there somewhere that has some melee controlling powers. Maybe a flail type weapon. I'd wager that a number of items would also be helpful.