No controller? Efficient enough? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

No controller? Efficient enough?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
tennyjaden
Jun 26, 2011 4:35:36 Hello forums!

In my party we have currently a Warforged Warden, a Genasi Swordmage, a homebrew Striker class, the Shadow Weaver which leans a bit towards controller and a wilden Shaman. I don't really want to take up the last slot as a controller, do you think, I can do enough aoe damage and control with a monk, or should I go with a controller (Wizard, Mage, Druid would be my choice then). Can a monk controll enough to balance the lack of a controller. I know that probably a setup of 2 strikers is a bit too much but I don't know. What do you think?

Greetings,
Tenny
#2
DanTracker
Jun 26, 2011 8:08:46 well, with two defenders, a leader that has some defender-like potential, and a striker witha controller edge, I'd say you can feel free to choose anything. In fact, you may want to pull in a second striker (such as the monk) to support also.

As you consider that the Warden and Swordmage will be in melee frequently, you could easily enjoy a highly mobile striker to enhance their style.
#3
CorrinAvatan
Jul 23, 2011 14:26:37 Games without controllers are easily possible, just as are games without Strikers or Defenders (games without leaders suck, though, IMO).

If you only have 4 players, and they're all new, it might be good to have a controller. But if everyone is experienced players, you can easily get by without a controller.

Especially with two defenders, you practically have 2 monsters always controlled anyway.

In fact, now that I think about it, my game that ran for nearly two years never had a controller, and they did just fine.
#4
slobo777a
Jul 24, 2011 4:03:21 "Secondary Controller" also counts for a lot in my experience. For the group description, it seems you may well have a number of control-like abilities in the team already, so a dedicated controller isn't absolutely necessary.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 tennyjaden Jun 26, 2011 4:35:36	Hello forums! In my party we have currently a Warforged Warden, a Genasi Swordmage, a homebrew Striker class, the Shadow Weaver which leans a bit towards controller and a wilden Shaman. I don't really want to take up the last slot as a controller, do you think, I can do enough aoe damage and control with a monk, or should I go with a controller (Wizard, Mage, Druid would be my choice then). Can a monk controll enough to balance the lack of a controller. I know that probably a setup of 2 strikers is a bit too much but I don't know. What do you think? Greetings, Tenny
#2 DanTracker Jun 26, 2011 8:08:46	well, with two defenders, a leader that has some defender-like potential, and a striker witha controller edge, I'd say you can feel free to choose anything. In fact, you may want to pull in a second striker (such as the monk) to support also. As you consider that the Warden and Swordmage will be in melee frequently, you could easily enjoy a highly mobile striker to enhance their style.
#3 CorrinAvatan Jul 23, 2011 14:26:37	Games without controllers are easily possible, just as are games without Strikers or Defenders (games without leaders suck, though, IMO). If you only have 4 players, and they're all new, it might be good to have a controller. But if everyone is experienced players, you can easily get by without a controller. Especially with two defenders, you practically have 2 monsters always controlled anyway. In fact, now that I think about it, my game that ran for nearly two years never had a controller, and they did just fine.
#4 slobo777a Jul 24, 2011 4:03:21	"Secondary Controller" also counts for a lot in my experience. For the group description, it seems you may well have a number of control-like abilities in the team already, so a dedicated controller isn't absolutely necessary.