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.
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.
I almost regret jumping in here, but the proposition here isn't simply that "wizards suck." It's that accordingly to role, they aren't all that great at controlling.
And that any definition of controlling, for almost anyone outside of WotC for a certain (bizarre) period of time, did not mean "king of damage."
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.
I said problems, it is more than just smudging roles.
Lets say a Ranger takes a "striker power" He is now doing double dipping and getting the bonus from both his class feature (hunters quarry) and the improved damage that the "Striker power" has. That is a balance issue.
It is also a balance issue the other way, if a controller trades out their "Controller power" for a power assumes the player has a class feature to fill the role, they take more of a penalty than they should.
It might have worked if all the classes were designed from the beginning with the idea that the powers should fill their roles. But things like hunters quarry and combat challenge create a disparity if the newer classes don't have them.
Lets say a Ranger takes a "striker power" He is now doing double dipping and getting the bonus from both his class feature (hunters quarry) and the improved damage that the "Striker power" has. That is a balance issue.
No it's not. Because he 1) Has to spend feats, and 2) he can only use that power once per encounter (or day), and 3) he is giving up one of his own striker powers for the other power. That's the balance. He's not Double the Striker, he's just swapped One Striker Power for Another Striker power.
Quote:
It is also a balance issue the other way, if a controller trades out their "Controller power" for a power assumes the player has a class feature to fill the role, they take more of a penalty than they should.
Which is like saying "A tactical warlord with a 10 Charisma chooses a Charisma based power. Therefore, the warlord gets nothing from the power. That's a balance issue."
I also put mroe stock in the designers than I do random people on the internet.
All Mearls said is that the at-will of the wizard aren't 'controlly' enough.
Whatever modification they do, it won't upgrade the damage and it won't quell the critics seen earlier in the thread about weak wizard who misses often and don't do enough damage.
If anything, the new 'at-will' (which I will welcome with open arms!) will just add more tactical complexity. The strong players of wizards will be stronger, the weak ones will be just as frustrated about low damage and whatnot.
Last edited by Mal Malenkirk; 17th December 2008 at 05:11 AM..
I almost regret jumping in here, but the proposition here isn't simply that "wizards suck." It's that accordingly to role, they aren't all that great at controlling.
That's the problem the designers see and I somewhat agree. As a wizard player I relish more opportunity to be an 'anti-leader'.
But what the average posters complains about has more to do with low damage, not hitting enough, feeling they don’t contribute enough etc.
Whatever your definition of controller is, wizard are extremely powerful and any fight with 4 or more enemies tend to be a lot easier with a wizard.
Last edited by Mal Malenkirk; 17th December 2008 at 05:15 AM..
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?
It isn't subpar as something you'd use once per combat. It is subpar when it is either you use Scorching Burst or X and your opponents are spread out. Something that opponents tend to do for fear of encounter powers.
The single target Wizard at-wills are reasonably solid, but they don't really exert a lot of control nor do they do great damage - and Wizards don't have a class feature that lets them boost the 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.
No, I have an 18 Str and he has an 18 int. I have twin bastard swords (+3 proficiency bonus). +4 Str +3 weapon prof==+7. +8 when we 'ding'.
Quote:
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.
That's nice, he's an 18 int, 10 Wis Half-elf, pumped Charisma to be the party diplomat. (I pumped mine for Intimidate, I'm a bad ass mofo). I think he's staff implement. At-wills are MM and Frost, Daily is Sleep/Acid Arrow, not sure about encounter.
Area spells are a problem due to close quarters/heavy melee party. Direct damage spells miss a lot. I can tell the player is getting frustrated.
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
What if one were to alter Scorching Burst as follows:
Damage: 1d6 fire damage (plus see effect)
Effect: Target takes additional fire damage equal to the caster's Intelligence modifier at the end of its next turn, unless it spends a move action to extinguish the flames, which is automatically successful with no saving throw needed. This damage persists indefinitely until the target spends the required move action to end it. Additional applications of this effect from multiple castings of Scorching Burst do not stack.
So, it does less damage than normal, IF the target chooses to sacrifice a move action on its next turn. Which makes it more controller-y. But if the target ignores it, and uses its actions normally, then it ends up doing the same damage as usual if it goes for one round, or more damage if the enemy continues to ignore it for several rounds.
Or the secondary fire damage could be based on Wisdom, or Dexterity, or a flat amount, or another 1D6, or whatever. I'm not sure what would be best.
Or maybe return the hit damage to 1D6+Int and just make the secondary damage 1 point per round. I dunno.
And should the effect happen only to those hit, or to everyone in the area? I'd think the latter would make it very potent, but maybe too powerful.
I'd like to see the wizard powers do less damage and more control stuff. This is the best thing I could think of to modify Scorching Burst with that goal in mind.
Any comments?
$
__________________
"I tore myself away from the safe comfort of certainties through my love for truth - and truth rewarded me."
- Simone de Beauvoir
No it's not. Because he 1) Has to spend feats, and 2) he can only use that power once per encounter (or day), and 3) he is giving up one of his own striker powers for the other power. That's the balance. He's not Double the Striker, he's just swapped One Striker Power for Another Striker power.
I disagree. Feats aren't that costly, and a character can only acquire so many useful feats anyway. For clarity, the Ranger is just giving up a power, not a "striker power" that has the "striker bonus" incorporated into the power, so there is a net gain.
Quote:
Which is like saying "A tactical warlord with a 10 Charisma chooses a Charisma based power. Therefore, the warlord gets nothing from the power. That's a balance issue."
Not at all. The Warlord has class features that let her act like a leader. There is a baseline that she cannot drop below thanks to the safety net that class features provide. If that was not the case, then swapping out a to a power they cannot make use of would prevent them from doing their job completely, which is a balance issue, and the problem with relying on powers to perform roles instead of class features.
Last edited by Leatherhead; 17th December 2008 at 08:28 AM..
Reason: Consistency and spelling
Damage: 1d6 fire damage (plus see effect) Effect: Target takes additional fire damage equal to the caster's Intelligence modifier at the end of its next turn, unless it spends a move action to extinguish the flames, which is automatically successful with no saving throw needed. This damage persists indefinitely until the target spends the required move action to end it. Additional applications of this effect from multiple castings of Scorching Burst do not stack.
I disagree. Feats aren't that costly, and a character can only acquire so many useful feats anyway. For clarity, the Ranger is just giving up a power, not a "striker power" that has the "striker bonus" incorporated into the power, so there is a net gain.
Not at all. The Warlord has class features that let her act like a leader. There is a baseline that she cannot drop below thanks to the safety net that class features provide. If that was not the case, then swapping out a to a power they cannot make use of would prevent them from doing their job completely, which is a balance issue, and the problem with relying on powers to perform roles instead of class features.
However, a Warlord does not have -only- class features that make him able to lead. The Warlord's leadery potential is decided by his power selection, his class features simply round that out.
Wizards have to be able to affect the challenge ahead of them. As a result, they get -their- class feature which is their versatility, the ability to swap dailies. Compare to Druids, whose class feature is the extra at-will and the ability to swap in and out of melee pretty much whenever they want.
The Controller class features are geared around -versatility- which is the best compliment to controlling abilities.
Are you really saying that wizards have no place in an urban campaign?
That one of the most classic FRP roles doesn't have any place in a classic FRP situation?
FWIW, it was an urban setting with small, tight spaces and little room for maneuverability.
__________________ "If you map Pokemon to cyberpunk themes and assume the bright and shiny veneer of the show and games is simply what the megacorps want you to see, it's a perfect fit. Genetically engineered monsters, some of them of human-level sentience, engage in brutal pit fights at the behest of malnourished vagabond adolescants while shadowy corporations operate in the background and superficially cheerful female nurse clones (or androids) tend to the every need of monster and trainer alike..."
- MoogleEmpMog
FWIW, it was an urban setting with small, tight spaces and little room for maneuverability.
Which is most of them.
I admit, we do need to work on tacticals. In our last game, in a mansion, we spread out to look for a room and so triggered several encounters, and we had people running around from room to room instead of focus firing. In most cases, though, if the wizard had a clear shot at the target, someone else was also nearby. There was a lot of opening, closing, and locking doors, and while there was a nice open area for a fight, it was being covered by a (regenerating) archer on a balcony we couldn't reach. The two ranged characters were both "squishy" and didn't want to expose themselves to artillery fire, and the rest of us were fighting in narrow hallways and small rooms. The large, open, rooms had no monsters in them.
Other fights have been in crowded bars, narrow alleys, and sewers. In most cases, it takes a round to close the distance and then it's melee-on-melee, with magic missile being the only spell the wizard can bring to bear with any effectiveness. We should be "dinging" next game, and we'll see if additional feats/utility help.
__________________ Post-Gencon Update! Breakfast Crunch!Daily (Weekdays) useful stuff for your RPG needs! This week is Zombie Week! You can has feed! LizardGames, now in easy-to-read Feed form! Do you have mad 133t Joomla and CSS skills? Do you want to do unpaid work on a site hardly anyone knows exists? If so, email me! (Hey, I'm honest, at least...)
My observation of the games that I've been DMing is that fighters have far and away the biggest effect in terms of controlling the battlefield (players currently level 5). It is the fighters that dominate where things move and whether or not they can move. Mobility of most of the foes to date has been primarily affected by the fighters, via their "stop you on an OA" rule and their "free smack if you are marked and attempt to shift or hit someone else".
Wizards haven't had any effect on controlling the battlefield at all. They typically just do a little bit of damage to 1 or 2 people each round.
Cheers
__________________ Plane Sailing
(Enworld Admin)
If you need to email me click here
"It makes as much sense as having Batman kill his parents and then go on to fight mutants from another dimension." - Rykion
There was a lot of opening, closing, and locking doors
And did the Wizard remember to use his Mage Hand cantrip for opening and closing doors, drawing and withdrawning curtains and shutters on windows, move furniture out of the way of friends and into the way of enemies etc. etc.
Are you really saying that wizards have no place in an urban campaign?
That one of the most classic FRP roles doesn't have any place in a classic FRP situation?
If the classic FRP situation is only made of 30x30ft rooms and 5ft alleyways, probably it does not. If you're careful enough to design some encounters in larger rooms, halls and palaces, probably it does.
Just the mounted paladin, another of the big fantasy archetypes, is fairly restricted in dungeons, which is another classic FRP situation.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
