Those [2 damage types] +1 damage feats

[Sadrik]

Do those feats beyond suck or what?

+1 damage with two 13 stat requirements?

Why couldn't they have been just +1[W] with one damage type?

Then the wussy 8th level wizard wouldn't be doing 1d6+4 scorching bursts (+1 if they took the feat!!!)

How about 2d6+4 scorching bursts? Even at 1st level that does not seem too powerful. Make a +1[W] for each damage type. So what. +1 for two damage types is uber lame.

 

[Alkiera]

1d6+4 seems lame, except he can do it EVERY ROUND, to up to 9 targets.

You get 2d6+int scorching bursts for free at 21.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

+1d6 on an at-will 9-square effect for one feat?? That's a potential +9d6 damage! That's the outside case, but the typical isn't much better - easily +2d6-+4d6 for a single feat. That's so incredibly overpowered compared to every other feat it's not even funny.

Also, most of the powers that use those damage types don't even have [W] in them. Just picking nits.

 

[Surgoshan]

Why couldn't they have been just +1[W] with one damage type?

Because then they would have had to give the same to the fighter for weapon focus, and to the rogue for... something. And to the ranger. And the cleric. And the warlord. And then they would have to give the mobs more hit points to make up for it.

The +1 damage is helpful, but not so helpful that you have to take it. Whereas an extra 1[W] would have been enough that everyone would have to take it or else be nerfed in combat. Part of the design philosophy of 4e was that the feats are helpful, but not so good that they become necessary.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Because then they would have had to give the same to the fighter for weapon focus, and to the rogue for... something. And to the ranger. And the cleric. And the warlord. And then they would have to give the mobs more hit points to make up for it.

The +1 damage is helpful, but not so helpful that you have to take it. Whereas an extra 1[W] would have been enough that everyone would have to take it or else be nerfed in combat. Part of the design philosophy of 4e was that the feats are helpful, but not so good that they become necessary.

He said it better than me. +1 damage (per target) for most of your AOE effects is still a pretty awesome deal in 4e.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

some feats seem necessary. weapon focus for anyone using a weapon, and weapon focus with a two handed weapon.

 

[Sadrik]

The ranger can do very easily: 2d10+8+1d6 every round without breaking a sweat. going through KoTS means hitting a kobold at least 4 times (~30 hp) with the wizards 1d6+int powers. Also, that burst 1 spell is not usable every time, it would hit the party all too often and so that means switching to cloud of daggers.

yeah your [W] stands for weapon. How about +1d4 damage from X power source?

You guys are not addressing the concern: +1 damage for 2 13+ stat requirements is lame. You might not even hit the right damage types when selecting your spells!

 

[Cadfan]

They don't suck. Also, balance works differently now, and huge damage area of effects are a bad idea.

*shrugs*

The wizard's damage output is lower than it was in 3e because in 3e the balance was designed different. 3e wizard balance was about a spell conservation economy. In 4e everyone has the same ability conservation economy (or close to it), so instead balance is obtained through an action economy.

In 3e, a wizard could have a fireball that did ZOMGALOT of damage when he first learned it, because he could only do it once or twice. Eventually he ran out of spells and had to use a rickety crossbow, and his damage rate plummeted until he took a nap. Then the fighter types caught up. This created some flaws, namely the prevalence of narcolepsy amongst the magically inclined, but it was the theory.

In 4e, things are different. A wizard in 4e can vastly exceed the damage rate of most of his allies, IF he's hitting multiple targets per round. Compare a level 1 wizard with a level 1 ranger: the ranger is going to attack for about 1d10+1d6+4 to a single target, for an average damage per hit of 13 against a designated quarry. Scorching burst is going to do 1d6+4 damage, averaging 7.5 damage. That's a lot less. Unless, of course, the wizard hits two enemies at one time. Then he clocks in at 15 damage.

That's the key to playing a wizard. Remember that how much damage your spells do per target has to be multiplied by the number of targets you hit.

And using our hypothetical ranger and wizard, suppose the ranger takes Weapon Focus: Longbow. He'll be doing an average of 14 damage. The wizard could take Astral Fire- it won't work on every single spell he has. But it will improve his two-target damage with Scorching Burst to a total of 17. Twice the benefit.

Anyways, the +1 damage feats are ok. They're not must-have feats, but they're decent. I wouldn't go out of my way to mangle my ability scores to pick one up, but if I were playing a wizard who happened to qualify, or come close to qualifying, for one of them, I'd snag it. Why not?

 

[Mistwell]

They seem fine to me.

 

[Mistwell]

The ranger can do very easily: 2d10+8+1d6 every round without breaking a sweat. going through KoTS means hitting a kobold at least 4 times (~30 hp) with the wizards 1d6+int powers. Also, that burst 1 spell is not usable every time, it would hit the party all too often and so that means switching to cloud of daggers.

Ranger is a striker, meant to do a lot of damage to one or two targets.

Wizards are controllers, meant to kill minions and control the battlefield.

You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to do a lot of damage to one or two targets, don't choose wizard as your class.