I should make the subject line into a tag or a category or something.

What Do Leaders Want (May 10, 2013)

I’ve been thinking about the leader role since I wrote about it on Friday. I’ve been thinking about it a lot since I started playing a warlord almost a year ago. And I think I figured out one of the problems with my Action-Assertion role classification method.

I think I may have leaders and controllers transposed. See, the way I had figured it before, leaders were one of the more passive and indirect roles (due in part to the Problem With Healing), but what I’ve realized is that a leader aims to maximize his or her turn by utilizing the ally who is best suited to the task at hand.

Controllers by contrast, utilize their off-turn indirectly by damaging and de-buffing enemies. See, I figured out the defender well enough — maximizing the effectiveness of their Opportunity Attacks and whatnot, but the controller de-buffs to a purpose.

The basic choice every controller should be making on a turn-by-turn basis is “is my turn better spent dealing damage to a bunch of guys, or do I lock-down one guy?”

I think the passive, indirect option I was looking for all along really was in conditions and effects, it’s the reason for the debuffs that I was lacking before. A defender optimizes his off-turn by dealing damage where a controller optimizes his off-turn by preventing damage. Was that simple or obvious before? Maybe, maybe not.

For me, this was a journey to internalize the understanding of differences between leaders and controllers. The at-will effect every controller should possess first is damage. Then there are simple choices to make between forced movement, slow, knockdown, and daze. Ongoing damage is also another big deal.

Now I think I’m going to need to go back and look at some of the leaders and controllers I made before — the Captain, Jester, Incarnate, and Scourge, and see what I can’t do to make these classes “all they can be” based on what I now know.