Secondary ability benefits - why the wizard inconsistency?

Scholar & Brutalman · Jul 11, 2008

Plane Sailing said:
Wizard (both Wis)
2 at will
0 encounter
0 daily.

Actually there's a third Wizard power: Confusion Lvl 27 Enc. The victim can move a number of squares equal to the caster's Wis mod. So there's Wisdom again.

Now the Rogue, Warlock and Warlord totals are inflated slightly by having some benefits which only apply to certain builds,

This is another disparity that's been puzzling me. Why do only those classes have such significant build effects?

It is strange. It is almost as if the wizard powers were written by someone who "didn't get the memo" about including secondary ability benefits in a certain number of powers!

My guess is that various classes were designed and developed by different people, and that this carried right through to the end.

Kzach · Jul 11, 2008

I think this was entirely on purpose and is part and parcel of the controller role mechanic.

It makes sense that their powers aren't based on one particular ability to boost it and that different 'builds' don't overly affect the classes role. You'll notice that few wizard spells don't have secondary effects. The only difference, therefore, is that the secondary effects aren't modified by an ability score.

To me, this gels with the whole concept of them being a controller.

erik_the_guy · Jul 11, 2008

Starbuck_II said:
Dude, you can't actually choose not to affect allies unless the power says Enemies/foes. If it says Targets or Creatures, than that includes Allies.
So yes, you just blasted your allies (damage and pushing).

He doesn't have to push the allies, PHB, page 285

Distance in Squares: The power you’re using specifies
how many squares you can move a target. You
can choose to move the target fewer squares or not
to move it at all. You can’t move the target vertically.

Of course, the allies are damaged.

Goumindong · Jul 11, 2008

Rith the Wanderer said:
You can always choose to not push a hit target or push a target less than the specified distance. They would still take the damage, yes, but I think he knew that.

Exactly, for the low low cost of 1d6+int you can move all friendlies and enemies in the blast 0-6 squares.

Its really quite handy for moving friendlies into flanking and separating enemies from their friends.

Its especially good if your friends get resistance gear against thunder damage.

E.G. Suppose we had the llikely unlikely arrangement of
P=player, Number=Enemy, Letters=Friendly, W= Wall of Something Painful

Code:

.W.3.W.
.WWWWW.
.......
..B2...
.......
..A.1..
...P...

I could thunderwave the 9 squares in front of me and achieve the following result if i were able to Push 4

Code:

...2...
.W.3.W.
.WWWWW.
.......
..B1A..
.......
.......
...P...

Both the friendlies would take 1d6+int, enemies 1 and 2 would take 1d6+int, and enemy two would take damage from the wall of something painful. While enemies 2 and 3 would need to cross or go around the wall, and likely be blocked from line of sight. Enemy 1 would be flanked by the friendlies A and B. Enemy 2 could be placed in such a way that it was closer to the defender and less likely to get back around the wall to take action(and if/when it did it would have to contend with the defender or lose more actions). If i did not hit the friendlies i would be unable to move an enemy into flanking and would be forced to push them both into the wall of something painful, which may or may not deal more damage than the flanking friendlies.

This is assuming everything hits.

The fact that Thunderwave is low damage actually increases its utility as a control power. Thunderlance is just terrible compared to it.

ED: What it would look like not hitting the friendlies which is probably not quite as tactically sound a position, because 3 and 2 can move to flank easier.

Code:

...2...
.W.3.W.
.WW1WW.
.......
..B....
.......
..A....
...P...

ED: as well, if there happened to be a real wall(X) on one side of that pointy wall, you could move your defender to this point here, so long as the defender was B

Code:

B...2..X
..W.3.WX
..WW1WWX
.......X
.......X
.......X
...A...X
....P..X

KarinsDad · Jul 11, 2008

I knew there was a reason I gave my Wizard Int 20.

Goumindong said:
I noticed this as well. But i am not sure of a way to rectify it.

Why does it need to be rectified?

Wizards get the crappiest hit points in the game.
Wizards are tied for the fewest healing surges in the game.
Wizards do not even get the best control spells in the game.
And although their AC is ok due to Int, they have to take one or more AC feats to stay on par with most other PCs.

Wizards are the squishiest PC in the game system.

The only two significant advantages Wizards have are that they can sometimes affect more than one creature with a single attack, and they can sometimes control the battle field a bit.

Do we really want to add more MAD to the most fragile PC in the game system as well?

Scholar & Brutalman · Jul 11, 2008

KarinsDad said:
Wizards get the crappiest hit points in the game.
Wizards are tied for the fewest healing surges in the game.
Wizards do not even get the best control spells in the game.
And although their AC is ok due to Int, they have to take one or more AC feats to stay on par with most other PCs.

Wizards are the squishiest PC in the game system.

Yeah, this is puzzling me as well. I can see why the defenders need more hit points; in fact any melee class can justify extra hit points because they will be exposed to a greater number of attacks. But why is the 4e Wizard squishier than the the ranged strikers like the Warlock or the archer Ranger?

Falling Icicle · Jul 11, 2008

It's also worth noting that Wizards already suffer from horrible MAD due to their arcane implement mastery plus the various feats that require 13's in miscellanious ability scores. Compare all the +1 damage to two types of spells feats with weapon focus, for example. A wizard would need a 13+ in 5 abilities plus have to take 6 feats and that wouldn't even equal the benefit a fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue, etc gets from the single feat, weapon focus. And WF doesn't even have any ability requirements! And don't even get me started on Spell Focus, and what a load of crap the Cha requirement on that is!

Wizards have more than enough MAD already! Give them a break!

Switchback · Jul 11, 2008

Falling Icicle said:
And don't even get me started on Spell Focus, and what a load of crap the Cha requirement on that is!

I cannot make heads or tales of any rational way that certain stats affect abilities. What does Charisma have to do with focusing for your spells? They could just assume make it take strength as a requirement and it would be no less obvious. The way stats tie into abilities in 4e is very abstract.

Goumindong · Jul 11, 2008

KarinsDad said:
Wizards do not even get the best control spells in the game.

I think you need to reread the PHB. Wizards have the best control powers at every level that you gain powers.

small pumpkin man · Jul 11, 2008

Please, the Wizard does not have MAD, even the 4e Paladin doesn't have real MAD. With the exception of Spell Focus, most of those feats aren't very good (or at least aren't worth the stat by themself), and the bonus they provide don't scale as those stats get higher, making you at least feel like you've wasted your points at higher levels, even if you haven't actually.

Making the bonus from the Jump spell Constitution based or the amount of enemies hit by lightning bolt dexterity based (or creating new spells that worked like that) would provide nice bonuses for the characters who are allready putting a decent amount into their appropriate implement stat, bonuses beyond the once per encounter base abilities.

Secondary ability benefits - why the wizard inconsistency?

Scholar & Brutalman

First Post

Kzach

Banned

erik_the_guy

First Post

Goumindong

First Post

KarinsDad

Adventurer

Scholar & Brutalman

First Post

Falling Icicle

Adventurer

Switchback

First Post

Goumindong

First Post

small pumpkin man

Explorer

Similar Threads

Pets & Sidekicks