Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell?

[WhatGravitas]

Try again.

Okay: Forced movement is control, yes? So forced movement abilities represents a part of the different abilities to control, among other things, like AoE damage, status effects, and battlefield shaping. By comparing these abilities, we get to see how the classes stack up in these particular aspects.

From the comparison: The cleric has higher quality ones, but can use them less often - this is very similar to the situation in the AoE effect department, which leads to this, since the wizard has better status effects and battlefield shaping:

I've come to the conclusion that Wizards are still better controllers then Clerics. Frequency of control in conjunction with better control powers overall but not in every single instance.

I also agree with the people who think that Clerics have too much control ability in comparison to the Wizard's low amount of "leader-esque" abilities.

Which is probably the main point - sure, the wizard will always remain a better controller, simply due to his access to controllish powers at-will, unlike the cleric.

But, as with the quality of firestorm compared to the wizard's spells, it's at least a reasonable position to say that cleric and wizards have some overlap - and the crux is: How much overlap can you have without stepping on each other's toes, especially if the toe stepping is one-directional.

Of course, the leader role, unlike the other roles, is a bit lacking all on its own - hence it must have other abilities. The warlord does that by being a "defender-light", whereas the cleric is a "controller-light". However, looking at these points of comparison, it's possible that the cleric is more "controllerish" than the warlord is "defenderish".

Cheers, LT.

 

[Lamoni]

I like the fact that each class can do a little bit in each role. I don't want adventures with only 3 PC's to be impossible to play. I also agree that a class should not get a power that fills another's role better than a class specializing in that role. From this thread I can see three problems:

1. Firestorm is too good for a non-controller class
2. Astral Storm is also too good for a non-controller class
3. The Wizard gets too few powers that can fill any other role.

You might still disagree that the above are actually problems, but if you do agree, what are the best fixes?

My initial ideas are:
1. Reduce Firestorm damage from 5d10 to 4d10 initial damage. This leaves the cleric with the ability to control, but reduces the power slightly to prevent jealousy from the wizard.
2. Change the Astral Storm sustain from minor to standard. It will still be a very good initial damage spell, but be more difficult to sustain the effect. I'd also raise the meteor storm damage from 8d6 to 9d6 to make it slightly more appealing when compared to Legion's Hold.
3. I don't know if I would care to fix this... at least not without a whole lot of playtesting to see if it was actually necessary.

Are there better fixes that you'd recommend?

 

[Samurai]

Well said Theziner, your comparisons of Shield vs Shield of Faith are right on.

You mentioned opportunity costs and it got me thinking. You are right, a wizard has to control, it's his job, so a power like shield works for him because it keeps him controlling. On the whole though, the typical Wizard has to choose between control powers and damage avoidance powers or he has to burn 2 powers in a single round to get both at the same time.

But if you look at the Cleric, he can have his cake and eat it too.
1. He has the best all out AoE damage strikes in the game, period.
2. He doesn't have to choose between doing damage and healing, there are plenty of powers that do both at the same time. Some even do damage, control, and buff all in one power.
3. All his AoE's work around friendlies
4. All his AoE's can be buffed using a single damage buff feat: Astral Fire.
5. He has a free feat at level 21 compared to the wizard.

The typical wizard will take at least 2 damage buffing feats if not more (i.e. cold, thunder, fire, etc) plus the Spell Accuracy feat to stay competitive.

Heck, just having 2 or 3 extra feats is a major advantage. Calculate the opportunity cost in that.

And on top of all that, there's still the better weapons proficiencies, much better armor proficiences, better hit points, etc that a cleric gets. Previously, that was because the Wizard was meant to be a glass cannon... best offensive power in the game, balanced by the worst defenses in the game. That is no longer the case. All classes can now do a great deal of damage, and several classes can do MORE damage than the Wizard, such as the Ranger and, at times, the Cleric. Now, if the offensive powers were merely equal between these classes and the Wizard, you'd still then have to ask why shouldn't the wizard then get equally good armor, weapons, and hit points? No, the point is, the Wizard is supposed to do MORE damage than any other class, in order to make up for those deficiencies... otherwise, why not let them start with better HP, armor, and weapons like all the other classes get?

 

[Samurai]

I like the fact that each class can do a little bit in each role. I don't want adventures with only 3 PC's to be impossible to play. I also agree that a class should not get a power that fills another's role better than a class specializing in that role. From this thread I can see three problems:

1. Firestorm is too good for a non-controller class
2. Astral Storm is also too good for a non-controller class
3. The Wizard gets too few powers that can fill any other role.

You might still disagree that the above are actually problems, but if you do agree, what are the best fixes?

My initial ideas are:
1. Reduce Firestorm damage from 5d10 to 4d10 initial damage. This leaves the cleric with the ability to control, but reduces the power slightly to prevent jealousy from the wizard.
2. Change the Astral Storm sustain from minor to standard. It will still be a very good initial damage spell, but be more difficult to sustain the effect. I'd also raise the meteor storm damage from 8d6 to 9d6 to make it slightly more appealing when compared to Legion's Hold.
3. I don't know if I would care to fix this... at least not without a whole lot of playtesting to see if it was actually necessary.

Are there better fixes that you'd recommend?

Personally, my fixes include:

1) Reduce Firestorm's initial damage to 3d10.
2) Reduce Astral Storm's initial damage to 4d10
2a) Rebalance some other spells in the game to help even things out, strengthening some (knockdown on Meteor Swarm) and weakening others.
3) Right now, I'm not going to try giving Wizards powers that step on other classes toes, for several reasons. First, I think the Wizard's flexibility lies mainly in their Spellbook rather than powers that cross roles. Second, I'm sure that before long we'll have more Wizard spells added to their list, some of which might well help in other roles.

 

[Marshall]

A few things:
Why does everyone decide to compare Meteor Storm and Astral Storm? How about comparing Meteor Storm and Godstrike. One is much better, and I'll give you a hint, it's not Godstrike. Every level has crappy options and good options, and that's going to continue. As has been said (and should be obvious), only the best power in any level matters.

Absolutely correct.
And the Strikers should have the best Striker powers, the Leaders should have the best Leader powers, the Controller should have the best Controller powers, etc. When the Leader has the best Controller power at a given level, thats a problem.

 

[Minigiant]

Absolutely correct.
And the Strikers should have the best Striker powers, the Leaders should have the best Leader powers, the Controller should have the best Controller powers, etc. When the Leader has the best Controller power at a given level, thats a problem.

I actually disagree. I wouldn't care if the paladin had the most powerful leader power in the game. Or a fighter with the highest damage "move and smackdown" power. As long as they couldn't do it often. I would say the classes of a role would have the MOST (in frequency and versatility) powers of that role.

A cleric has 2 of the strongest AOE he can fire once a day each and no good way to hold enemies in it. Good for him.

 

[DemonLord57]

<snip>
When the Leader has the best Controller power at a given level, thats a problem.

They don't have the best Controller power at any level. They have the best AoE damage power at two levels. AoE damage is not what the wizard should be doing. A competent wizard will use actual control, (Legion's Hold is awesome) just like a competent cleric will choose Astral Storm instead of Godstrike. Doing damage, for the last time, does not constitute control.

Let's go over why pure damage is ineffective by looking at roles and what they are supposed to do: (btw, my definition of debuff = imposing negative effects on enemies)
Leader - buff (includes healing) team, possibly debuff enemies as well, with a little control
Defender - make the enemies not attack your teammates, through marking, defender features, and debuffing.
Striker - do damage to the weak enemies, while debuffing them.
Controller - control the battlefield, do AoE effects, including debuffing.

Now, why does every class have debuffing powers? Because they are how you help accomplish your role, regardless of what it is. Defenders slow enemies, mark them, and impose penalties on them when they attack other people. Leaders help their teammates out by buffing and by debuffing. Wizard being attacked? Daze him, and the wizard can escape freely.

Strikers and Controllers have the most potent debuffing powers because they are the ones whose role depends on them. Strikers disable a potent enemy who would otherwise be hard to get at from the fight. How? Killing while imposing negative effects. They can't accomplish much while dazed, weakened, and -5 to attack rolls. Controllers use debuffs to control the battlefield, to keep the enemies from doing what they want to and making them go where a controller wants them to. They do this in an area, which can effectively change a potentially challenging encounter into simply two easy encounters with little time in between, or (even better) one very easy encounter (enemies stunned).

You could, of course, decide to go the damage route as a controller. That way, you could start off an encounter by doing an extra 10 or so damage to the enemies with 300 hp, but still leave them able to fight effectively instead of dazing or immobilizing them... Congratulations...

I do agree, though that Fire Storm is a good damage spell. Damage has its place, since you do need to kill your enemies. It's just that a controller should not be focusing at all at doing damage, since it is not control. Thus, Firestorm is not the best control spell of its level.

 

[Ahglock]

Doing damage, for the last time, does not constitute control.

In 4e D&D yes it freakin does for the last time. Read the dang PH pg 16, the first paragraph it describes what a controller does.
Heck I will quote it part of it, since were not supposed to quote large swaths.
"They favor offense over defense, using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once, as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay there foes."

So yes, slow effects, bad terrain mods are control effects, but in 4e D&D so it out right area of effect damage.

Lets look at the leader role, two paragraphs down.
"Leaders have good defense, but there strength lies in powers that protect their companions and target specific foes for the party to concentrate on."

Heck by that description Leaders should barely step on the controllers toes since they are supposed to be focusing on specific targets making them more back up strikers than back up controllers. So AoE damage is totally out of there role, and is a complete secondary task to them while being a primary task given to the controller. At no point should they exceed the controller in damage from AoE, adding in that there is no friendly fire is just an additional kick in the pants.

 

[DemonLord57]

In 4e D&D yes it freakin does for the last time. Read the dang PH pg 16, the first paragraph it describes what a controller does.
Heck I will quote it part of it, since were not supposed to quote large swaths.
"They favor offense over defense, using powers that deal damage to multiple foes at once, as well as subtler powers that weaken, confuse, or delay there foes."

I don't care what the PHB says, damage in and of itself is not efficient and not control. If they define control to include that and you refuse to accept the word control to mean what I use it to mean, then when I refer to control, substitute it with what I use control to mean.

Wizards doesn't exactly make the best evaluations about what is or should be a lot of the time. They did a remarkably good job this time, but that is an incorrect evaluation of what constitutes control past the first few levels, IMO. After you get through a few levels, damage from a single AoE simply isn't enough to do a significant portion of an enemies health in damage, and thus is not effective at control.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Irregardless, it seems monsters get classified as controllers just 'cos they have a power that deals damage to multiple targets.