Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell?

[Ahglock]

Yes that part is very simple. Which is why I am so perplexed at how you are able to read into the power that this can only happen once ever and does not extend the duration of the power [even when it implicitly says it does and all other abilities work in the same way] and does not apply whenever the power does damage as the power says it does.
[/font]

Just as a point it does not say whenever a power deals damage. For it to be clear that your position was correct it would need to say something like, every time that use of a power causes damage the target takes damage equal to the damage you suffered.

It says when the power you use damages the target, you deal extra psychic damage equal to the damage you dealt to yourself.

That can be read as whenever you deal damage, or it can be read as the first time it does damage the when has occurred and therefore the power has been used up.

Both are valid readings and until there is a FAQ or errata no one is is really going to know what the answer is.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Yes there is, its the "definition of the power". Maybe you should read some of them.

You are confusing "hits" with "damages".

So just figure out when the power does damage. Prismatic Beam/Spray does damage twice on the first round, one for each hit. So it gets +4d10 on the first round. And on the second round it deals damage twice....

Again, Bolstering Blood does NOT damage on a "hit".

So by your logic, a target under the influence of Blood Pulse and Bolstering Blood who is pushed 7 squares takes 14-140 damage (+2d10 BB damage for each square) since each square is a separate automatic "hit" for 1d6.

Good luck with that.

how about you actually read sneak attack. The only reason that rogues do not add sneak attack damage to every single hit they put down is because Sneak Attack specifically says they cannot. Sneak attack is added to a one successful hit/round(after hits have been rollled) and not to a power.

And I never said otherwise

So when ongoing damage deals damage its not actually dealing damage? Oh wait, no its dealing damage and so qualifies for "when the power deals damage".

I never said it wasn't damage, but the PHB explicitly states that you CANNOT add damage through modifiers to ongoing damage, it's right there if you bother reading the book.

Its very simple, did they take damage? Yes? Was the damage from the power that was bolstered? Yes? Add the result of the 2d10 roll that you applied to bolster the spell.

Wrong yet again.

Please point to the passage that says that the "power was bolstered".

Nowhere on page 169 is there anything about Bolstering Blood enhancing or increasing any aspect of any power. When the right criteria are met, Bolstering Blood causes damage on it's own. Period.

Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, and Warlock's Curse essentially are the same as Bolstering Blood.

Sneak Attack is "extra damage" (pg 117)
Hunter's Quarry is "extra damage" (pg 104)
Warlock's Curse is "extra damage" (pg 131)
Bolstering Blood is "extra damage" (pg 169)

What you are erroneously thinking is that BB is a bonus or increase to damage rolls. It's not.

All powers and properties that have durations shorter than "all the time" say so explicitly.

Show me where it says that a Meteor Swarm only functions once a round.

Bolstering Blood is very explicit in its duration, which is the duration of the power it is used for.

Bolstering Blood is not "used for" any power just as Sneak Attack is not "used for" any attack.

Just because you say it is true does not make it so. You need a cogent argument to get anywhere near that, and you have none.

I'm not making anything up. It's all there in the PHB.

Your the one making stuff up. You say that Bolstering Blood "bolsters a power", yet it's not there. You say powers that have durations less than "all the time" say so explicitly, yet it's not there.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even have the right book.

Lord, do you even read what people write? In the post you are quoting a just gave you an example of a power that works more than one round without explicitly saying so. You are confusing a rule about powers with a rule about abilities. Specifically that powers are instantaneous unless otherwise described

But you are incorrectly assuming Bolstering Blood effects work for more than a single round.

Every other feature, ability or power that works longer than once or once a round explicitly says so. What you are telling me is that Bolstering Blood is the exception to that rule, and by giving me the example of Bolstering Blood instead of some other power, feature, ability that it must be true.

That makes no logical sense.

If you want to show that it's intended for Bolstering Blood to work for more than once or once a round without the text explicitly saying so, you should point to another power, feature, ability other than Bolstering Blood which does the same thing (i.e. works for more than one round w/o saying so) to support your argument.

But i guess corellions implement only works once ever

No, wrong analogy again.

Did I say Bolstering Blood can only be used only once EVER? Using a feature once a round and having the effect last more than once or once per round are two different things... *Mongolia scrolls up to see if he has* Nope... I never said that.

Corellon's Implement can be used round to round just as Bolstering Blood can be used round to round.... try again.

and that spiral tower action only gives you an action point [did you mean "encounter power"?] till the end of your turn

No, again you messed up on yet another analogy.

You use an action point to gain an encounter power ONCE.

Power usage: Burn an action point.
Power effect: Gain ONE spent encounter power.

If I decided to abuse Spiral Tower Action like you want to abuse Bolstering Blood, I would spend an action point one round and get a new encounter power each and every round till I regained all my spent encounter powers.

Try again...

I'll give you a hint; try to look for a power, feature, or ability which effects work for more than once or once per round w/o explicitly saying so. It's one thing to USE a power multiple times during an encounter and it's another thing that the power effects run for more than once a round.

 

[Goumindong]

So by your logic, a target under the influence of Blood Pulse and Bolstering Blood who is pushed 7 squares takes 14-140 damage (+2d10 BB damage for each square) since each square is a separate automatic "hit" for 1d6.

No, blood pulse deals damage equal to 1d6 for every square it leaves. But powers are instantaneous, so it only deals damage once, unless multiple push, pull, or slide powers or effects are enacted upon the enemy as specified by the power.

When you blood pulse an enemy every separate push power is another +2d10.

You are confusing "hits" with "damages".

No, i am not. Maybe i should have continued and not figured that you would understand the implied portion of that. If a power deals no damage on a hit(I.E. sleep) then blood pulse would not enhance that.

And I never said otherwise

Yes you did say that all applications of abilities were only for one round as the basic understanding.

I never said it wasn't damage, but the PHB explicitly states that you CANNOT add damage through modifiers to ongoing damage, it's right there if you bother reading the book.

Blood pulse is not a modifier, its better than a modifier, it applies when the power does damage.

When a power deals ongoing damage is it dealing damage? Yes it is, so blood pulse adds damage.

Nowhere on page 169 is there anything about Bolstering Blood enhancing or increasing any aspect of any power. When the right criteria are met, Bolstering Blood causes damage on it's own. Period.

Page 169.

"When the power you use damages a target, you deal extra psychic damage equal to the damage you dealt yourself."

When does it work? When the power damages a target. On what powers does it work? Only on the power you used(I.E. you cannot use it to add to multiple powers in one application). What happens? Extra psychic damage is applied.

How can you not figure this extra damage as damage? Does it not exist? Is it a figment of our imagination? Is it temporary damage that can't bring an enemy past 0? Is it fake in some way?

No, it makes powers better, it has to be considered and it has to be considered correctly.

What you are erroneously thinking is that BB is a bonus or increase to damage rolls. It's not.

No, i am not saying its a bonus or increase to damage rolls, i am saying that the extra damage is applied when the power deals damage as the freaking description says!

Bolstering Blood is not "used for" any power just as Sneak Attack is not "used for" any attack.

Yes it is. You use Bolstering Blood just before you use a power, it only applies to that power, and it applies when that power deals damage.

Your semantic argument is irrelevant here, there is no question of semantics. It doesn't matter if there is a formal definition of "used for" because the ability explicitly says what it does and you do what the ability says.

Your the one making stuff up. You say that Bolstering Blood "bolsters a power", yet it's not there. You say powers that have durations less than "all the time" say so explicitly, yet it's not there.

Good lord no, i said that abilities that have durations less than "all the time" say so explicitly. Powers that have durations greater than instantaneously say so explicitly, not durations. Pg 58 and 278 for more info.

Show me an ability(not a power) that has a duration of less than "all the time" without saying so explicitly. Show me.

P.S. I love how the fighter only gets +1 to attack for the first roll he ever makes with his weapon because the power only functions once(your argument) and only functions when he makes an attack with the weapon choice he chose.(and not whenever, which incidentally means the same thing in this context because its an ability and not a power.)

Show me where it says that a Meteor Swarm only functions once a round.

Pg 58 and 278

"Unless otherwise noted a power is instantaneous and has no lasting effect"

Bolstering Blood is not a power, it is an ability or class feature.

I'll give you a hint; try to look for a power, feature, or ability which effects work for more than once or once per round w/o explicitly saying so. It's one thing to USE a power multiple times during an encounter and it's another thing that the power effects run for more than once a round.

This is the second freaking time i have said orb specialization, oh, and every other freaking class feature and ability in the game

There is no problem with with WoST gaining an encounter power using an action point and my argument. With my argument you would gain the encounter power and continue to have it. With yours you would gain the encounter power and then the next round when the effect ended you would no longer have it.

Its like a property on a weapon, its a class feature that has effect on the power, it modifies the power.

When does it deal damage? When the power does damage? Why would it not do damage when the power dealt damage without an explicit description of when it would not like all the other class features and abilities that do so?

 

[Roxlimn]

Alright, alright. Let's not get sidetracked here.

For the moment, let's accept that "when the power you use damages a target" does only a single instance of damage when the power damages a target. Let's say that Prismatic Spray "damages a target" only once in the first round. What about the subsequent rounds? Does Bolstering Blood apply there, as well? Each instance of ongoing damage is tracked separately. Does that mean that they're separate instances of damage?

Good catch on miss damage, Mongolia Jones. I'll be sure to figure that in.

I'm not interested in pushing all manner of cheese here. I'm just trying to establish ground rules for assessment with Mongolia Jones, and this is only to prove that Wizard do better multitarget damage.

Mongolia Jones:

Tell you what, I'll require that that my cleric use his healing word thrice per encounter (using up 3x minor actions), the maximum he can use it. As a matter of fact, I'll track the total healing potential through the use of all the clerics powers, standards and minors throughout the whole fight.

That's not necessary. We're not assessing overall class power here and it would be pointless anyway, since I won't be counting status effects, either. This is just about damage. Damage, damage, and only damage.

Two Encounters. 1 AP, use of all Encounter Powers, 2 Dailies (1 per encounter), and then the damage estimate ends for that character.

If we figure 1 daily power and 4 encounter powers for the Cleric, he's got 5 rounds, 4 when he uses the Action Point. Of those rounds, he'll spend 1 minor action every round for 3 rounds doing healing. So 1-2 rounds of minor action continuance per encounter on the part of the Cleric?

Does that do it for the ground rules? You do your optimized Cleric first; do you mind? I like having a target to shoot for.

 

[Roxlimn]

Old Gumphrey:

One the problems with that is that shifting now is a move action, so if you're converting your move actions into minor actions for sustaining effects, you're basically nailed to the mat, without even shifts. I hope you can appreciate how bad that is.

Marshall:

A Devoted Cleric essentially IS part Controller. Look at the Wisdom powers - most of them look like they're toned down Wizard powers. This is much like a Wizard is part Striker. Some of his powers tread exceedingly close to Striker territory.

Firestorm doesn't "vastly outclass" Closing Spell. They're about the same. Likewise, Astral Storm doesn't "vastly outclass" the Wizard's damage favorites: lower level powers Elemental Maw and Prismatic Spray. It's just a little bit better in the damge department (and much worse in almost every other way).

Equal level powers Legion's Hold and and Greater Ice Storm are fantastic action-denial powers.

Those are at-par assessments. We're NOT tacking on Wizard and Wizard Paragon Path class features, nor Archmage class features. Once those figure in, these powers do not compare at all.

 

[AtomicPope]

It's becoming more and more clear that many Wizard mass damage spells are simply being outdone by Clerics. For starters, those that disagree are playing an avoidance game. They say:

Multiple Target Damage isn't a Controller Ability - Simply absurd. You could also say that Wizards are do not have access to the Arcane power source but that would be incorrect as well. The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook provides the only definitions that are legitimate. All other definitions are as valid as House Rules in this forum.

What about other Class Features like Orbs? - The class feature game is not part of this discussion. This discussion focuses on a single facet of the Controller - Multiple Target Damage. The definition of Controller in the PHB on page 16 lists the combat roles of a Controller and Multiple Target Damage is one of them. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not Wizards are best at fulfilling all facets of their role as a Controller.

The more the topic strays the more convinced I am that Wizards are in need of a good house ruling to make their multiple target damage spells more competitive with Clerics. As it stands the opposition of late is providing a list of diversions rather than a comparison of like powers that fulfill the combat role of a Controller.

 

[Goumindong]

Multiple Target Damage isn't a Controller Ability - Simply absurd. You could also say that Wizards are do not have access to the Arcane power source but that would be incorrect as well. The Fourth Edition Player's Handbook provides the only definitions that are legitimate. All other definitions are as valid as House Rules in this forum.

Whether or not AoE damage is valuable as control is not something that can be defined by the PHB, but only defined by how the game plays.

It is also false that the cleric does more multiple target damage than the Wizard.

 

[Roxlimn]

AtomicPope:

Excuse me, but you're quite wrong. I'm not participating in distractions here. In fact, I've already provided estimates that show how much better a Wizard is in terms of dealing damage as a sole means of control. I'm also moving that this Blood Pulse discussion thing be either stopped or forked, so that's not a fair accusation to be leveling,

I am NOT playing an avoidance game. I'm taking the bull squarely by the horns and wrestling it to the ground. If you want you can do the same.

So far, the only multitarget spells that the Cleric can show that's in any way competitive with Wizard powers in terms of multitarget effects are two dailies: Firestorm and Astral Storm. Even Mongolia Jones who's doing this comparison with me going on the Cleric side believes that while these powers do damage well, they are nowhere near the same level of power as their Wizard counterparts.

If you want to show new data or make a comparison we haven't seen yet, please do so. Otherwise, you are not contributing meaningfully.

 

[AtomicPope]

The misstep in the Development stage was to look at Wizard Spells through a two dimensional lense. The WotC developers overcompensated for too many editions of Wizards simply running the game. It becomes apparent when you compare spells that are suppose to "improve." Compare Stinking Cloud(5) and Cloud Kill(19):
1) Damage - Their damage is exactly the same. In fourteen levels the damage hasn't improved one bit. That is unacceptable. In fourteen levels a monster's HP will have increased over 4 times as much. Furthermore, it still affects your allies.
2) Area - The area of the spell has increased by 3. However, the movement of the spell's cloud effect has decreased by 3. Therefore, the spell has grown larger and more clumsy.
3) Additional Effects - The Stinking Cloud blocks LOS which is good for controllers because their AoE can still target them w/o penalty (AoE's ignore concealment penalties). Blocking LOS provides an additional benefit to counter enemy artillery. Cloudkill provides no additional effects.

As is stands the improved version of a Controller multiple target damage spell hasn't improved much at all. There is nothing unique about this either. In fact, there is a distinct trend among Wizard MT damage spells that their "improvements" vary from non-existant to minor. For Example: Fireburst (7) to Combust (17) sees an increase in damage by a mere 2D6 with no increase in size whatsoever. There are no effects added either. Just a 66% increase in damage while Monster hitpoints are quadrupling.

The real problem is that Wizards are best at maintaining spell effects but their pure damage spells do not incorporate any damage over time. If maintaining spell effects is the purview of Wizards then Wizards should have the best DoT. Currently the Cleric AoE damage spells have three very distinct advantages:
1) More base damage
2) More damage over time
3) Only targets enemies

Being safer and more effective is a valid cause for concern. If Wizard AoE damage spells are capable of hurting party members they will always be less effective because it requires leaving enemies out to leave party members out. When a spell is capable of hitting enemies and friendlies alike it should be more powerful ala Risk vs Reward.

This is not the forum for House Rules but my own will address Damage Over Time, Targets, and Effects as compared to Clerics. Wizards need to be the best Controllers otherwise what's the point?

 

[AtomicPope]

Whether or not AoE damage is valuable as control is not something that can be defined by the PHB, but only defined by how the game plays.

Wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally wrong. It is defined by the only valid source of 4e Class information in existence. You are in a hopeless state of denial to think that the PHB cannot define something it created. Whether or not it plays out in the game is irrelevant. Game play has nothing to do with definitions. Game play is indicative of how well the developers followed those definitions during the design process.

It is also false that the cleric does more multiple target damage than the Wizard.

Also wrong. Flame Strike does 2D10+Wis plus an additional 5+Wis in ongoing damage. A Wizard spell won't do equivalent damage for another 6 levels with Prismatic Burst. That's a long time to play catch-up. It starts at 9th level and doesn't stop. Next it's Firestorm. Finally, Astral Storm. Pure damage goes to Clerics. Flame Strike average damage scales higher because some developer thought it would be a good idea to incorporate Attack Stat + Implement Damage with ongoing effects.

Flame Strike:
+5 Wis (starts with 18 and raises twice)
+2 Implement Bonus
2D10 averages to 11
Ongoing 5+5+2
Average Damage = 30pts of fire damage only to enemies

It does more damage than Ice Storm and is easier to use because it only affects enemy targets. Easier to use goes a long way. It means, more often than not, you'll attack more enemies simply because you don't have to rely on a high initiative to target them before they swarm your party.