Anyone care to allay my PHB2 concerns?

So, going by my the much leaner info about the PHB2 that's available to non-DDI-subscribers (mostly reading the info secondhand in forums), I've got a few niggling concerns about the PHB2. If you've got the inside scoop, tell me how justified they are:

Concern #1: The Wizard gets outshined by the two new controllers, because their AoE's will tend to target "all enemies" while the wizard's mostly targets "all creatures". Avoiding friendly fire is a huge deal when dropping a nuke. Another consideration is that the druid and invoker are both likely tougher than the wiz. What's the wizard got to tip the scales even?

Concern #2: The Sorcerer basically amounts to unofficially giving up on the Warlock as the arcane striker. The 'lock's damage output is suffiicently behind the curve of other strikers that I fear the designers may have deemed it a lost cause.

Concern #3: The [W] damage discrepency holds strong, or even broadens. Weapon users will continue to have a sizable boost in damage output over implement users. At first, I'd hoped the absence of martial characters in PHB2 would lead to righting the imbalance. However, on reflection, the only thing in the PHB2 that would really make a dent would be feats that reclaim some of the ground lost to superior weapons and various other weapon-boosting feats, or perhaps that help overcome Resists. Or something I just hadn't thought of.

Looking forward to hearing "oh ye of little faith..."

I do not have the book yet *shakes fist at gods of delivery and commerce*, but from what I have read/heard etc, it seems that the wizard still reigns supreme when it comes to size (it's those loose robes, ya know ) of the area of spells. Haven't played the Invoker, but playing the druid has surely convinced me that it is not broken, nor superior to the wizard. But definitely flexible and different.

When it comes to the striker issue, it is correct that the warlock's striker damage is quite weaker than the others, but it has other strengths. It is much more controller-ish than the other classes and play on other strengths. I still think it is a very viable class.

Felon said:

Concern #2: The Sorcerer basically amounts to unofficially giving up on the Warlock as the arcane striker. The 'lock's damage output is suffiicently behind the curve of other strikers that I fear the designers may have deemed it a lost cause.

Click to expand...

Considering that the most gleefully powerful players in the party I'm running for an adventure is a warlock (and I have a ranger and rogue as well) and the fact that the warlock has more extra content than any other 4e arcane class at this point (two expansions already - one from the FRPG and one from Dragon 366) I think you're worries are more or less unmerited. It's true that the sorcerer is a "purer" striker, but don't forget that it also, like the wizard as you mentioned, tends to fire with equal opportunity for allies and enemies. So while it might be more powerful than a warlock, it's more likely to hurt its allies while doing so and lacks some of the more "controllery" aspects of the warlock.

I think warlocks will do fine. If anything, they strike me as the designers' favorite arcane class, at the expense of wizards (who formerly occupied that position in 3e and prior editions).

I agree. Warlocks are closer to controllers than they are strikers. They do a lot of damage, but they probably do the least out of all the strikers so far. They make up for it with their ability to act like a controller.

Wizards are pretty weak. They continue to be pretty weak. I'm still a little concerned that Invoker pretty much just does the Wizard thing better than Wizard. However, everything I've seen so far limits the Invoker on how MANY targets they can hit. They are better at actually controlling the battlefield, but worse when there are 12 minions on the board and you need to get rid of them all quickly. They might be able to give 3 targets in a burst 1(due to being restricted by their powers) damage and -2 to hit. However, the Wizard is going to hit 5 or 6 targets in that same burst.

I'd say that Wizard is a Controller/Striker and Invoker is a Controller/Controller. There will be some people who liked Wizard because of its control aspects that will quickly abandon it for Invoker. Some people love the ability to do more total damage. They'll stick with Wizard.

As for the discrepancy between weapons and ranged powers, I don't see a huge difference right now. The advantage of the ranged attacks is pretty much that they ARE ranged and you save yourself from damage by using them, even if its a bit less damage.

Well....the PHB II seems to have a few feats designed to "fix" problems (like weapon expertise and martial training). My guess is that Arcane power will be chock full of material that brings the typical wizard* up to par, and offers the warlock plenty of additional balanced options.


*the hyper-optimized orb wizard is actually ridiculously powerful and at level 30 can put Orcus and Tiamat into a mathematically inescapable permanent stun.

A couple things that wizards might be interested in popped up in the feat section (today's excerpt).

Coordinated Explosion - +1 to hit if allies is burst/blast
Distant Advantage - Get combat advantage for ranged/area if allies are flanking the target.

Echoes of Thunder, Oncoming Storm, Surging Flame - Some useful energy type based feats (with no prereqs).

There is also the Deva that is the first race with INT and WIS, so the orb wizard has the "perfect" race now.

Probably have to wait for arcane power to really "fix" the wizard, but there is a bit of help, especially in terms of having feat options (and those options not all having tons of stat restrictions).

Jack99 said:

When it comes to the striker issue, it is correct that the warlock's striker damage is quite weaker than the others, but it has other strengths. It is much more controller-ish than the other classes and play on other strengths.

Click to expand...

I think the notion of the warlock having a heavy control element is pretty exaggerated. Some powers have some rider effects--he might immobilize until his next turn or push them around--but that kind of stuff can be found in other classes; rogue powers, for instance, can hamstring opponents and trick them into moving.

*the hyper-optimized orb wizard is actually ridiculously powerful and at level 30 can put Orcus and Tiamat into a mathematically inescapable permanent stun.

Click to expand...

Well, the "orbizard" is broken due to the designers not grasping that things like cunning weapons and orbs of ultimate imposition are bad ideas. I suspect they'll go the way of vet's armor eventually.

Felon said:

I think the notion of the warlock having a heavy control element is pretty exaggerated. Some powers have some rider effects--he might immobilize until his next turn or push them around--but that kind of stuff can be found in other classes; rogue powers, for instance, can hamstring opponents and trick them into moving.

Click to expand...

One of my players have played a feylock from level 2-13, almost 200 hours. Between thief of five fates, mire of the mind, witchfire, otherwind stride, crown of madness, fey switch, bewitching whispers and will of the feywild, he does a very good job at hindering/locking down/controlling the placement of enemies, all while doing decent damage. So, if you define heavy as better than the wizard, you are indeed correct. If you define heavy as better than most of the other non-controller classes, then you are indeed wrong. IMO and BOAE (based on actual experience).

Cheers

Majoru Oakheart said:

As for the discrepancy between weapons and ranged powers, I don't see a huge difference right now. The advantage of the ranged attacks is pretty much that they ARE ranged and you save yourself from damage by using them, even if its a bit less damage.

Click to expand...

The discrepency isn't between weapons and ranged powers, the discrepency is between any power that uses a [W] as the basis of its damage and other attacks that have to use some set number. Usually, that can be broken down into weapon powers verssu implement powers. The implement damage tends to use a d6 or d8 as the baseline damage die, whereas most anyone using a weapon can handily upgrade to d10's, d12's, or 2d6 (the rogue, who's counting on his big sneak attack payload, is the major exception). That's all for the equivlent of a x1 attack that most at-wills run off of.

Start multiplying that for encounters and dailies. The difference is significant, and it is noticeable when a [W] defender or leader is hitting for 6d6 with a daily while across the table an implement striker's biggest gun might only be 3d8.

Jack99 said:

So, if you define heavy as better than the wizard, you are indeed correct. If you define heavy as better than most of the other non-controller classes, then you are indeed wrong. IMO and BOAE (based on actual experience).

Click to expand...

No, I'm talking about warlocks having riders just like other classes have riders, and you are simply wrong.

(See how just flatly asserting that someone else is wrong is sort of a dead end? Anybody can play that game.)

I play a warlock (infernal, not fey), and most of the attacks you mention aren't any more controllery than anything I can see a rogue doing, with more damage output to boot. Mire the mind makes the party invisible to an opponent. Can a rogue blind an opponent? Sure. Witchfire imposes a -2 to hit. Can a rogue penalize a person's attacks? Sure he can. I can see where Thief of Fates and Bewitching Whispers would make for a cutesy character that's trying to be annoying rather than deadly, and I guess annoyance can considered a form of control, but the same could be said of actual damage output (death being the ultimate form of control and all).