D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Am I the only one that thinks that class roles should be upheld primarily by class features instead of the classes powers? Putting them on the powers leads to all kinds of multiclassing problems.
__________________ If "A" is broken, that isn't a valid reason for "B" to be so, even if they vary in degree.
Tactician style Gamer, or so I have been told.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."-Albert Einstein
Having slept on this topic, I'm a little taken aback at the idea that scorching burst is a sub-par controller at-will.
When I first looked throught the PH, scorching burst stood out. Only area at will. Period. Twin Strike was often pointed out as being clearly superior to Sure Strike - but it only hit twice for 1[w] - Scorching burst might hit up to 9 targets, and still gets a primary stat bonus to damage. The other wizard at-wills are also unique in the PH. Cloud of Daggers creates a barrier, however minor (and inflicts auto damage that can kill a minion, even Reaping Strike doesn't do that). Thunderwave is the only close at-will in the PH, and pushes multiple targets multiple squares - Tide of Iron is recognized as a great fighter at will and it only pushes 1 target 1 square. Ray of Frost is the only at-will that inflicts the slowed condition. Magic Missle is useable as a basic attack, and has a very long range.
They're /all/ very strong at wills. Scorching Burst is the kind of thing you'd take as an encounter via dilitante or multiclassing and be happy with, because other classes don't even get a burst 1 among thier level 1 encounter attacks. And it's sub-par?
Then it's just a matter of being able to target folks. In KoSF we found that the large numbers of baddies were always available for flaming burst. Mix and match that with flaming sphere (which may be the best daily in the game) and the wizard cleans house. Toss in a fighter to keep people where you want them and you've got a LOT of damage.
Mark
My Int 20 wizard did great in KotS. Then we moved on to Thunderspire Labyrinth where:
- there are no minions, anywhere. At least that I've seen.
- Duergar are the main enemies for a lot of it. The designer who updated duergar to 4e decided it'd be a great idea to give them most of the resistances and immunities that the 3e version had. So they're immune to illusion ("Goodbye, Illusory Ambush!") and had 10 points of resistance to fire (Scorching Burst, Flaming Sphere) and poison ("I get stinking cloud! Isn't it great that the majority of our enemies are effectively immune to it?") There was a reason why they moved away from giving monsters whole lists of immunities and high resistances. A good reason.
There's also a strong DM input into how effective a wizard is. Our DM plays most monsters fairly intelligently, so once they realize we have a controller they only bunch up when they have to. A lot of the time I can hit maybe two enemies for 1d6+Int with Scorching Burst, and it really only starts to be very effective when I can get three.
Party wizard's magic missile +4 vs. Reflex, 2d4+4 damage.
My twin strike: +7 vs AC, twice, 1d10 damage.
I usually hit at least once, and while my average damage is lower, it's a lot more consistent. +4 vs. +7 is a really big difference at low levels, and Ref. defense isn't usually THAT much lower than Armor.
Yes it usually is 2 or 3 points lower 90% of the time which put it on par with your +7. On average it is 2.75 point lower than AC if you check every monster in the MM. We know that thanks to a very dedicated stat cruncher.
It is even more glaring when you use an attack that targets will since it is on average 3.31 points lower than AC.
My combat mage has 5 level of experience at this point; he has dealt the most total damage in every single encounter. I bothered to keep count a few time but it's not even close and rather annoying to the other player (''Look, I did twice as much damage as you!'').
The only times it won'be true is when we are facing solos or maybe a very small number of elite.
If the wizard in your party is useless, it's because a lot of poor decisions are being made, from character creation to tactics. And tactic wise, some of the poor decisions being made are bound to also be the responsibility of his team mates. Normally, allies play a vital role in setting up good kill zone. You can't just ignore your wizards in your decision making and hope he'll get a good clear shot at the melee when his turn come.
For example, my rogue ally always use that power that slide victims in way that position them in an area where I can blast as many BGs at the same time as possible. I return the favor by then blasting these people with effects that will allow the rogue to sneak attack on his turn. The fighter routinely joins the fun with Tide of iron and using covering attack to help me withdraw when I move in for a close blast. I usually get over 3 target with burning hand that way.
Last edited by Mal Malenkirk; 17th December 2008 at 03:30 AM..
I think it's interesting that the "Controller" in 4e is supposed to be what most would call a Debuffer in an MMORPG. This is a very useful role in a group (my ranger Daily which weakens a foe is extremely effective), but the wizard, currently, doesn't cut it. Since they seem to know this, it will be interesting to see if it's "fixed" in Arcane Power. (Is that before or after PHB2?)
My initial impression, pre-release, of what they meant by controller was probably colored by the EQ / EQ2 Enchanter - Stuns, Mesmerize, Debuffs, Buffs, Aggro Control (directing monsters to attack different targets instead of the one p***ing them off) and Damage over Time. The EQ enchanter, for a player on the ball, was the traffic cop of combat: Stop, Go, Go faster, Go slower, Yield, Spin around and fall on your ass, etc.
I was a little surprised then to see what the Wizard became in the 1st PHB.
I was a little more surprised with the durations nerf (there aren't any durations, really, just a duration roll that has a 50-50 chance of ending an effect every six seconds.) Which is going to have an impact on any attempt to control anything.
I'm a lot more surprised that, more than 10 years after millions upon millions of gamers identified what a 'controller' should do in combat, Wizards of the Coast was toying with the idea that it meant "do damage to several targets at once." Aggro, or AI aggression, was the MMO's way of simulating what a DM would do if something kept wailing on a monster: have the monster prioritize targets according to who it sees as the biggest threat. Doing area damage when you're controlling is often a big no-no... you don't want to make combat harder to control by having everything p***ed off at the controller. Objectively, if you're a goblin, who do you want to hit: the heavily armored, hard to hit guy that took a swipe at your friend with a sword or the guy in a bathrobe that just hit you and five of your friends by making fire shoot up out of the ground? The existence of the Defender, to get targets off of people in bathrobes, suggested to me even more that controllers would be more "controlling" and less damaging.
I feel a little bit better that they acknowledge that their first attempt at the Controller role wasn't really very... controlling... although shockingly, controllers still don't seem to have as broad a range of effects as even the ancient (by today's standards) Enchanter in an early MMO from 10 years ago. Sure, there are lots of powers out there... doing very similar things.
I hope that they provide updated versions of the old At-Wills in Arcane Power (and the Wands that boost/emulate them.) It seems only fair that if they're going to change things up, it should be published in something a Wizard player is likely to own.
Am I the only one that thinks that class roles should be upheld primarily by class features instead of the classes powers? Putting them on the powers leads to all kinds of multiclassing problems.
So what if multi-classing causes you to muddle your role? You don't have to be fully defined by your role.
Besides, all builds have a sub-role. Paladins are defender/leaders. Several fighter builds are Defender/striker. Swordmages are Defender/Controller. So multi-classing only helps strengthen this a little bit.
If the wizard in your party is useless, it's because a lot of poor decisions are being made, from character creation to tactics. And tactic wise, some of the poor decisions being made are bound to also be the responsibility of his team mates. Normally, allies play a vital role in setting up good kill zone. You can't just ignore your wizards in your decision making and hope he'll get a good clear shot at the melee when his turn come.
Or, you know, he's fighting against a monster that his abilities attack the wrong defense.
He has Scorching Burst and Magic Missile? Well, we're fighting skirmishers and lurkers, who have fat Ref defenses. Sorry, wizard. Same with Ray of Frost or Thunderwave vs. Brutes (Fort is oft higher than AC). Unless the wizard has a 'paper rock scissors' choice for his powers, and is willing to just use the same powers over and over, picking the right enemy, he's not going to deliver.
Aside from one Dragon article, the Wizard has no early spells that go after Will.
If the argument is "Well the wizard is strong if you're built and played right", well then one could argue any class is strong when they're built and played right.
It also saddens me that they aren't sticking with the notion that a Controller is a "battlefield morpher", as someone else put it. Being able to summon up persistent zone effects, or sustainable zones, or anything else that says "Hey, if anyone walks over here, you are screwed" really jazzes me. I like being able to change the very field. I felt the Wiz didn't have enough of these, and now the designers are saying "That's not even their purpose any more" makes me a sad panda.
Party wizard's magic missile +4 vs. Reflex, 2d4+4 damage.
My twin strike: +7 vs AC, twice, 1d10 damage.
#1 a striker better be doing more damage to a single target.
#2 You have a 20 Dex, and the wiz has an 18 int? Ick.
If you both have the same attack stat, the wizard will be hitting with a single attack slightly more often than you (as someone else said, reflex is generally about 2.5 lower than AC).
Assume you both hit 50% of the time. He'll average 5 points of damage (2d4+5) and you will have 5.5 points. But with hunter's quarry you'll be doing a lot more.
When you toss in area attacks the wizard will rock. If your wiz has ray of frost and magic missile, they are going to be a sub-par striker. But MM, a burst and a blast (human) they will do quite well.
20 int, 13 wis, 13 con staff implement human works very well indeed.
I can see that, but I don't see how a wizard misses all that often. He almost has to have a 20 int (both attack and def stat), so at 1st level you are +5 to attack vs. reflex. That's about the same as +8 vs. AC, which is about as good as anyone other than a rogue gets (+9 with 20 dex, fighters are MAD enough that they can't generally get the 20 str). If you take a tiefling you've got +6 to hit with flaming burst which _is_ as good as it gets.
For one thing, it's wrong to say "Oh, in order to be worth it, you have to have a 20 right off the bat." That's just bad design, considering you have to min-max immediately.
Secondly, that means that a standard array wizard (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) sucks, because he doesn't have 20; he can only has 18 with a racial.
I personally feel dirty if I start a game with 20 in a stat. I often prefer to pick a race with a +2 in my secondary stat, put the 14 in the secondary, and thus have 2 16s, rather than an 18 in the primary and a 14 in the secondary.
So what if multi-classing causes you to muddle your role? You don't have to be fully defined by your role.
Besides, all builds have a sub-role. Paladins are defender/leaders. Several fighter builds are Defender/striker. Swordmages are Defender/Controller. So multi-classing only helps strengthen this a little bit.
Interestingly, I think you can build a reasonable defender/controller out of a fighter starting around 10th level. A defender already has a good amount of control. Toss in area attacks (and fighters have a bunch of encounter/daily powers that are) and you can really dish out significant damage to lots of people and mess with them (marking, opportunity attacks, etc.)
Interestingly, I think you can build a reasonable defender/controller out of a fighter starting around 10th level. A defender already has a good amount of control. Toss in area attacks (and fighters have a bunch of encounter/daily powers that are) and you can really dish out significant damage to lots of people and mess with them (marking, opportunity attacks, etc.)
Natch. I meant the striker when it comes to the Two-weapon build; many of the powers that might favor that are more damage intensive. I get a similar vibe from the Bloodrage Vigor fighter.
Interestingly, I think you can build a reasonable defender/controller out of a fighter starting around 10th level. A defender already has a good amount of control. Toss in area attacks (and fighters have a bunch of encounter/daily powers that are) and you can really dish out significant damage to lots of people and mess with them (marking, opportunity attacks, etc.)
It's not just that you can build a better "controller" out of other classes. Honestly, I feel like a lot of classes have as much or more "control" than the Wizard without any tweaking on the player's part, now that they're finally going with the "control flow, pace and direction of the battle" definition rather than "control things by killing them."
Warlock's at-will either discourages a target from moving closer, makes the caster invisible to the target (so, ultimately, they will most likely choose another target) or discourages damage to the caster. Then, at that same level, their encounters either: slide, cause a penalty to a defense, a penalty to attack rolls, or give temporary hit points. Then, at that same level again, their dailies do even more sliding, immobilize, or cause damage over time.
And... when you do kill something, you can: modify a roll, teleport around the battlefield, or gain temporary hit points. And when you move, you're "fuzzy".
That's from the Striker, the role that is "kill things."
The Wizard, by comparison at the same level: does damage, does damage, does damage to several targets, does damage and pushes, punishes movement to one square, effectively, or slows. Then, at the same level, does damage in a blast, does damage and dazes, does damage in a what is effectively a burst, knocks prone, or weakens. Then, for dailies, does damage, does damage with a conjuration, does damage with a cloud, or makes things a little sleepy.
And... when you do kill something after doing all that damage, you get... nothing. When you move, your arcane power does... nothing. But you can make lights and little noises which aren't allowed to have combat effects, and once per encounter boost your attack, defense, or make it harder to resist what will most likely be an ongoing damage effect.
That's the "controller."
Weird.
I think I always understood that the arcane classes seemed bass ackwards in the PHB on some level. In most editions, they'd be my favorite class and almost every character would have some sort of arcane power. Suddenly, with 4e (when all we had was the core), all I was making were martial characters.
Wizards do need to be patched. They do have great at wills, but they care too much about damage and less about changing the rules of the battlefield.
Their at wills should make up for the fact that they are constantly squishy when they are hit, making them more vulnerable than other PC's when monsters get through the front line.
I think a better solution would be to give all wizards 1-2 extra at-wills, at their current power level with a big selection to choose from so all wizards don't feel the same.
This allows them to control battles by picking the perfect tool for the job. And give them an at will that punishes monsters for being too far apart - so monsters are never sure whether to bunch up or spread out. This recaptures the feel of "options" from previous editions, while still having far less baggage like the massive spell compendium.
Also feats should be available that really augment different wizard builds - at the moment their lack of arcane themed choices really sticks out.
Like for example a paragon feat that decreases casting time for all rituals by 1 step so
8hrs -> 1hr -> 30mins -> 10mins -> standard action, once ritual requirements are met (like getting mage hand to draw portal circles on the ground).
Being able to bust out funky portals and random stuff mid-combat that other PC's can shove bad guys through would make the wizard feel like a wizard again.
An example using the current rules: Making a sturdy airtight coffin that shuts and locks itself when slammed shut, then summoning it mid combat with leomunds secret chest, pushing a bad guy in, slamming the lid shut and teleporting it away back to its secret 20ft under the ground burial location is the kind of stuff that makes for a memorable fight. As long as it isn't save or die, and the bad guys have defences that have to be overcome for big ideas like this to work, the class would get its mojo back.
And people who love straight blaster wizards should have feats to make them more of an arcane striker too. The best thing is that feats allow the whole class to be patched with more options - more at wills, more control riders on at wills, whatever.
Aside from one Dragon article, the Wizard has no early spells that go after Will.
No monster I know of has both great reflex and fortitude so you are all right just with the starting powers, just switching between the two. Just make sure to grab something that targets will in your other powers.
That being said, guilty as charged, I do recommend taking a rock-paper-scissor approach to my at-will. Scorching Burts (reflex), Thunderwave (fort) and Illusory ambush (will).
Quote:
If the argument is "Well the wizard is strong if you're built and played right", well then one could argue any class is strong when they're built and played right.
Whi isn't a counterargument, isn't it? People are saying that wizards suck and all I'm saying is they are top earners in a solid party.
Whi isn't a counterargument, isn't it? People are saying that wizards suck and all I'm saying is they are top earners in a solid party.
What you're saying is that in your anecdotal experience, wizards rock, and others are saying in their anecdotal experience, wizards blow.
Unless something can be provided that's more 'well what I've seen', nothing's gunna get done.
Hell, back in the 3e days, you could say 'Bards suck' and I could counter 'yeah well you've just never built a good bard'. Which means that it is POSSIBLE the bard might not suck, if one jumped through all the hoops and bothered to do their homework. But to easily fudge a class doesn't speak well for the class. If it takes someone to build it excellently, then it's really only a class for excellent builders, then isn't it? That's not good design.
#2 You have a 20 Dex, and the wiz has an 18 int? Ick.
I disagree with that. 18 int is plenty at level 1. You can go for 20 and it pays off in offense but there is a cost. For example; your suggested build won't qualify for spell penetration which is a biggie.
What you're saying is that in your anecdotal experience, wizards rock, and others are saying in their anecdotal experience, wizards blow.
Unless something can be provided that's more 'well what I've seen', nothing's gunna get done.
Hardly.
The proposition is that wizard sucks.
The fact that several players have made their wizards the king of damage proves that they can be made to work and suggest that when they don't it's because of factor external to the class; the players.
It's like having a bunch of drivers saying that a car sucks. When other drivers come along and win races with that car, it proves that it's not the car that has performance problems, it is the previous drivers.
Quote:
Hell, back in the 3e days, you could say 'Bards suck' and I could counter 'yeah well you've just never built a good bard'. Which means that it is POSSIBLE the bard might not suck, if one jumped through all the hoops and bothered to do their homework. But to easily fudge a class doesn't speak well for the class. If it takes someone to build it excellently, then it's really only a class for excellent builders, then isn't it? That's not good design.
It is a hell of a lot less hassle making a top notch wizard in 4e then it was in 3e. Took me a good 15 minute for the first level. For the most part, a monkey can spot the really bad choices and for the rest you can swap out something each level as you tweak yourself to greatness.
As I keep saying, most of it is team work anyway. If the team works well, the synergy is great.
4e isn't really about maxing the character, it's about maxing the team. It's the tactics that are a bit more challenging. Which is why it's fun.
And it's a constant evolution. You see a fight going on and you realize that it would be nice if you could have stunned that damn acrher for just one round and if you could have pushed that brute two squares back so he was caught in the fireball that torched 5 other monsters. And as you think about those things, some players will realize that they could do this that if they switch power x for power y next level. And the team becomes even better.
My party has a bunch of these tactics down pat by now and each level opens new option. Weee!
Last edited by Mal Malenkirk; 17th December 2008 at 04:55 AM..
The fact that several players have made their wizards the king of damage proves that they can be made to work and suggest that when they don't it's because of factor external to the class; the players.
It's like having a bunch of drivers saying that a car sucks. When other drivers come along and win races with that car, it proves that it's not the car that has performance problems, it is the previous drivers.
It doesn't prove anything. Just because the driver won with the car doesn't mean that the car performs well. IT could mean that the other racers suck. It could mean that the driver of the car was lucky.
The only thing it proves is that doesn't happen 100% of the time.
I also put mroe stock in the designers than I do random people on the internet.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
