Technically, .000751% for random chance of two things happening on specific days of the year....but hey whose counting
-
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
- Thread starter Rechan
- Start date
Technically, .000751% for random chance of two things happening on specific days of the year....but hey whose counting
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."
"King of damage", by role, should mean "Striker."
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
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.
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.
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."
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
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:
Mal Malenkirk
First Post
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:
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.
I think that's the big issue.
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'.
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.
firesnakearies
Explorer
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?
$
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?
$
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
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.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
