• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Mearls on Controller design and At-Will balance

brehobit

Explorer
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.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rechan

Adventurer
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.
 


Cryptos

First Post
brehobbit said:
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.
 
Last edited:

Hambot

First Post
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.
 

Mal Malenkirk

First Post
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).

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.
 

Rechan

Adventurer
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.
 


Mal Malenkirk

First Post
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.

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:

Rechan

Adventurer
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.
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.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top