The greatest of stars: Wizard

[Scarface6174]

Hurrah for Scarface6174! You did almost exactly what I was talking about. Now I have a few follow-up questions for you:

1. What race did you pick?

2. As your Wis score must be high for good Thunderwave pinball action, are you going for some sort of War/Control hybrid?

3. How often did you feel the need to back off behind the tanks?

4. Do you think the concept would have worked as well if you had started at level 1?

5. Do you think your concept "plays" more fun than a back-ranks Wizard?

6. What did your front line usually end up looking like? Were you usually flanked by two other characters, or did you spread out a bit to allow flanking by the other PCs?

1. I picked human. I wanted the extra at will and the +1 to defenses.

2. My wis is at 16. I initally wanted to go for a control wizard, but because of an earlier campaign AC and HP was a big issue. So I opted for the staff instead of the orb like I wanted.

My main idea after the change was to drop an area effect spell on some baddies and either AP thunderwave baddies back into it after they left it, or just do it the next round before the effect stopped.

3. Actually, I never did back off behind the tanks. I've found that more aggression in better than playing it safe in 4e. I know i was gonna take hits, so I gave myself extra HP for it.

4. I think it would have. Thunderwave is a great tool for a close in wizo and it has worked well so far! The most devistating attack so far was freezing cloud + thunderwave for a total of at LEAST 2D8+5 (not hit by thunderwave) and if I'm lucky and they moved, 3D8+5 AND 1D6+5 That's a 4D daily for multiple enemies if you get the right conditions!

Yes, I got the right conditions

5. I think it does! Of course, he thinks that only he is real and everything else is a figment of his imagination, and playing that up during combat is FUN! Makes him fearless.... kinda.

6. In the last combat we had, the rest of the team was within 3 squares of each other, with me holding down the south flank from zombies about 4-5 squares away. A lot of the combat I was pushing baddies away from the cleric (who did necrotic damage...... don't ask). I think that me and the rogue moved the most, but our Warforged Fighter mainly stayed still and took on 5 at once. The minatour Warlord (we were doign planescape. Weird stuff was allowed. he was the only wierd race. The rest were human) went last usually and got into position to guard the useless cleric or put the rogue in a flank.

We pretty much have a front line party except for the cleric.

During all of the encounters, I was never flanked by other charaters, but did push baddies inbetween two PCs so that the Rogue could get SA!

Hope this helps a little.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I seem to have missed something. How is the rogue hitting on 2+? Best I can figure a 1st level rogue won't have more than a +11 to hit(+5 dex, +3 prof., +1 rogue weapon talent, +2 combat advantage). The DMG tells me that AC for first level monsters ranges from 13-17, depending on role. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the rogue will only attack monsters at the bottom of that range.

Use piercing strike and target reflex instead, which is typically 2 points lower than ac.

Incidentally, I changed my post - the 1d6 in the initial attack should have been 1d4, and the 3+ on ranged attacks should be 4+.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

Yeah...wizards don't do even close to the amount of damage that strikers deal. Archim the ranger is working with 8-22 damage with an at-will; Elincia the rogue is packing 13-32 with combat advantage; poor Gebble could deal as much as 7-13, but he didn't pick magic missile. He has to settle for 5-11 over a 3x3 area. If that area is filled with monsters and he hits all of them, then he's dealing equal damage, but that is oft not the case.

 

[NeoNick]

As I find a few replies to BreHobit verges on being a bit too criticizing, I want to say that I very much apreciate to read his and other peoples view on different game-balances. (That said, I still apreciate the general politensess on these forums, I like it when people discuss constructively.)

I think different camapigns can be run quite differently. It depends on a groups play style and especially the DM and the adventures. This can explain why people get different experiences between how good a class is.

But still, I read these posts to get new perspectives on game-issues and sometimes to learn how others run their character strategies.

 

[Leatherhead]

Against a solo, you just drop one of the sustainable dallies for auto-damage. You can do 100% for sure damage with a minor and move. Plus your normal attack. At first level that's something like 7.5 damage from a flaming sphere _per round_ plus the magic missile for 10 points that hits about half the time or an average of 12.5.

If you cast Flaming Sphere, you should be attacking with Flaming Sphere. 2d6+int > 2d4+int.

But anyway, I don't think many of you have seen the damage output of a ranger. Especially a bugbear ranger.

 

[Runestar]

I have no idea why they even bothered giving the wizard area-affect damage only spells. It is clear that it is meant to be played as a controller (and lock down the battlefield with orb-augmented control spells), and its damage capabilities are generally inferior to that of the cleric.

Seems like another trap if there ever was one...

 

[KarinsDad]

I have no idea why they even bothered giving the wizard area-affect damage only spells. It is clear that it is meant to be played as a controller (and lock down the battlefield with orb-augmented control spells), and its damage capabilities are generally inferior to that of the cleric.

Seems like another trap if there ever was one...

Orb augmented control spells?

An Orb can augment a single spell per encounter and even that spell probably won't last the entire encounter.

Personally, I find Orb Wizards boring, especially hard control. Sort of like playing MtG.

I'd much rather play a Staff Wizard who can actually survive a counterattack.

 

[Cadfan]

I have no idea why they even bothered giving the wizard area-affect damage only spells. It is clear that it is meant to be played as a controller (and lock down the battlefield with orb-augmented control spells), and its damage capabilities are generally inferior to that of the cleric.

Seems like another trap if there ever was one...

Oh for goodness sake.

The damage for the cleric's best ranged at will is 1d8+wis+implement.

The damage for the wizard's best ranged at will is A*(1d6+int+implement), where A is equal to the number of targets caught in the blast zone.

If A>1, then the wizard exceeds the cleric's damage.

 

[Runestar]

An Orb can augment a single spell per encounter and even that spell probably won't last the entire encounter.

With a high enough wis, and spell focus at epic lvs, it can. In an extreme case, a wizard with wis28 and spell focus forces the target to take a -11 penalty on his saves. For normal foes, this means they can never succeed on the saving throw to negate the effect (not even on a natural 20), basically locking them down for the duration of the entire fight.

At lv21+, you can look forward to your favourite encounter spell lasting for 5-6 rounds at least (assuming it connects).

Even at lower lvs, the save penalty should be sufficient to let you effectively extend the spell's duration by an extra round or even 2. It is just that good.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I have no idea why they even bothered giving the wizard area-affect damage only spells. It is clear that it is meant to be played as a controller (and lock down the battlefield with orb-augmented control spells), and its damage capabilities are generally inferior to that of the cleric.

Seems like another trap if there ever was one...

I suspect the orb-augmented control spells exist primarily to allow wizards to be effective against Solos, Elites and other BBEGs. So it's not "Huh, no minions in this encounter. Hey DM, have my wizard cast Magic Missile every round while I call the pizza place."

As for the AoE spells, they were probably thinking of the old tactical dichotomy: bunching is good some of the time, dispersal is good some of the time. If your AoE capability forces the monsters to disperse, it neutralizes some types of tactics.

The problem is that 4e doesn't usually feature massed tank formations or pike squares, the most obvious "real world" cases where bunching is a good idea. (Note: that's "most obvious" to me.)

Ignoring the trivial case where "there are so many critters they pack into the room like sardines", there are only two cases where I can see bunching as an effective monster tactic:

1. The monsters form a defensive perimeter around a powerful, soft target like the BBEG. Since the usual command of a BBEG is "Kill them all" and not "Keep them off of me", I doubt if that would be very common.

2. The monsters swamp a front-line fighter. Now this really will be quite common, but because the fighter is in the middle of the throng, it cuts down the practicality of laying an AoE into them. You might be able to slice away one edge, but that's about it.

Am I missing a case?