Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell?

[keterys]

I really can't comprehend taking Meteor Swarm over Legion's Hold. Under almost any circumstance.

Even if you can make it passable with a paragon path, epic destiny, and three feats. Legion's Hold still kicks its butt.

 

[Puggins]

Just as a reality check, the average standard 19th level monster is going to have around 200hp, the average elite monster will have 400, and the average solo is going to have 900. If firestorm does 39 damage on average and not have any other negative effects on a creature, how do you classify it as superior to a spell that can take multiples of these creatures out of action for several rounds?

This is not 3.5e- you can no longer take creatures out in a single round unless they are minions. I don't think there's much of a doubt that Evard's is a far superior spell to firestorm. Both take out minions equally well. Fire storm does a bit more damage while Evard's keep creatures out of combat. That's a no-brainer to me.

 

[Samurai]

Just as a reality check, the average standard 19th level monster is going to have around 200hp, the average elite monster will have 400, and the average solo is going to have 900. If firestorm does 39 damage on average and not have any other negative effects on a creature, how do you classify it as superior to a spell that can take multiples of these creatures out of action for several rounds?

This is not 3.5e- you can no longer take creatures out in a single round unless they are minions. I don't think there's much of a doubt that Evard's is a far superior spell to firestorm. Both take out minions equally well. Fire storm does a bit more damage while Evard's keep creatures out of combat. That's a no-brainer to me.

Because it also keeps your party out of the combat, or it hurts them as much as your enemies. In my party of 4, I'm the only real ranged attacker. One other character has a few ranged attacks, but then has to stitch to melee, and the other 2 characters are 100% melee. Preventing the rest of my party from using their abilities/powers leads to my party getting pissed off with me, and on multiple occasions charging through my damaging zones just to get at the foes, even though they suffer just as much as the enemies. The other characters have threatened to attack me if I put up another damaging zone in their way again, as they consider it to be "helping the enemy!"

The real major benefit of the Cleric spells, besides their greater damage, is the fact that they automatically only target enemies. You can throw an Astral Storm on top of a furious melee battle between the rest of your party and a half dozen enemies and neither you nor your allies has to worry 1 bit about collateral damage. The Wizard doesn't get that choice far too many times, even after taking an epic feat which leaves a few squares out of the effect (because an enemy might push, pull, or slide your ally into the effect and out of his "safe square", taking his place there instead!

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't care what the PHB says, damage in and of itself is not efficient and not control.

If you're not prepared to accept the PHB definition of control, I'm not sure what common ground there is to discuss on here!

Control as per 4e includes AoE damage. 4e couldn't be more plain on that matter.

 

[Mongolia Jones]

Just as a reality check, the average standard 19th level monster is going to have around 200hp, the average elite monster will have 400, and the average solo is going to have 900. If firestorm does 39 damage on average and not have any other negative effects on a creature, how do you classify it as superior to a spell that can take multiples of these creatures out of action for several rounds?

You can answer your own question by comparing what damage the wizard spells do of the same level. You may then realize what all the hub bub is about.

This is not 3.5e- you can no longer take creatures out in a single round unless they are minions. I don't think there's much of a doubt that Evard's is a far superior spell to firestorm. Both take out minions equally well. Fire storm does a bit more damage while Evard's keep creatures out of combat. That's a no-brainer to me.

The problem with using a power like Evard's at epic levels is that you will be fighting epic level monsters, many of which can push, pull, and slide your party members into you own Evard's just as easily.

Just think about it, if you saw an enemy cast an Evard's what would you do? I'll tell you what you would do, you would push pull and slide to use the power against the enemy.

At this level, if the defenders, leaders and strikers in your party can't control the battlefield then you probably shouldn't bother using Evard's cuz it will just make a bad situation even worse. If on the other hand your party can handle the situation, well then Evard's will just get in their way.

The beauty of Fire Storm is that it can never be used against you. It will work just about in any situation. And don't dismiss the damage, 40 points plus 18 points per round against to 6 to 10, 180 hit point, n-2 monsters should not be dismissed so easily.

In an epic level fight, where a push, pull, and slide can come just as easily from both sides of the battlefield, I choose Fire Storm over Evard's or Cloudkill any day or any place.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Control as per 4e includes AoE damage. 4e couldn't be more plain on that matter.

To expand on that: In 3E, damage spells weren't control, because there were so many spells that simply shut down targets, whereas damage doesn't deny any actions before it kills the target - and actions are vital in D&D, i.e. action economy-wise, damage spells often did nothing.

In 3E, control is the denial of actions.

In principle, that hasn't changed in 4E - BUT: 4E shifts to a team effort and there are less hard status effects. Due to this, you don't have as much other spells to shut down targets completely. In 4E, you can usually hinder them but not deny your opponents actions (Legion's Hold is an impressive exception is hence probably the best control spell around - and more powerful than Astral Storm, as encounter spell even more so).

In 4E, control is more about making the actions of the enemy group less good or the actions of your group better.

The status effects achieve that rather impressively, damage does it more subtly:

You soften up targets for the strikers - in 3E, that wasn't necessary as the frontline hitters had enough damage output AND because shutting down complete is so much more useful. In 4E, monsters have a lot of extra hit points - even a dedicated striker will need several attacks to bring it down.

If you soften it up, you sort of get "extra actions" for the striker (and possibly high-damage defenders), because he can kill targets with less attacks.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Samurai]

You know, I keep seeing people go on and on about Legion's Hold... it really isn't that great except in the rare occasions you are literally facing a massive army of creatures that stretch to the edge of the battlemat and beyond.

Most large area spells are "Burst 5 within 20 (or 10)". That means an 11 x 11 square of effect. How many times have you really faced opponents where large numbers of them were more than 11 squares away from each other? In my experience, not very often at all, especially not in dungeons and such. Many buffs also have a range of 10, meaning creatures 12+ spaces away from the leader aren't getting any benefits, heals, etc. So even if there were room for creatures to spread out 12+ spaces from each other, doing so may not be beneficial.

So, with that in mind, just how often will a 41 x 41 square of effect really be needed? How many additional targets will you be able to catch that an 11 x 11 square would miss? Is doing only 1/3 to 1/2 the damage expected of a spell that level worth the increased area, which may well not even be needed? Ok, it stuns or dazes targets, which is nice, but there are other powers which can do that too. Legion's Hold is an ok spell, it has its place, but you'll very seldom need the huge area, meaning the level 20 Destructive Salutation (which is 10 levels lower, does twice as much damage and stuns in a 7 x 7 sq. area) might work just as well if not better, as might other similar powers.

 

[WhatGravitas]

You know, I keep seeing people go on and on about Legion's Hold...

It is the best among the level 29 spells.

The advantage over Destructive Salutation is: Better area - it will almost always hit all opponents in the combat, the salutation may miss some (for example if some are behind you, even if that shouldn't happen). Furthermore, it is a Close burst, so no OAs.

And it has a "save ends" effect on a miss unlike the salutation, with spell focus that's possibly an extra turn of combat advantage, no OAs, and flanking.

But you're right - Destructive Salutation is nothing to scoff at!

Cheers, LT.

 

[Minigiant]

People are forgeting how the cleric and wizard use AOE damage and can'y see why Firestorm and Astral Storm aren't control.

Short answer: Clerics have to drop their AOE on enemies currently attacking their allies.

Long answer: There is 2 ways to use AOE damaging in 4E.

1) Target the enemies around your allies.

2) Target any group of enemies

Clerics are good at type 1 and can rarely perform type 2. Their AOE doesn't harm allies so they can drop it right on top of allies in melee with enemies.

Wizards are good at type 2 and type 1. Unlike the cleric they can slow and bunch up enemies. this allows them to hit a group again.

Once you cast firestorm, the enemies might move away from each other. Now you can't do AOE damage anymore.And they beat up on you. Since the cleric can't slow, he must rely on allies to hold his targets in the fire.

Wizard don't need help. While his allies take the right flank, the wizard has the left flank in a painful loop of AOE damage and Movement conditions (damage, immobilized, damage, prone on difficult terrian, damage, slow). Let's see them get out of Web, then Icy rays, then Icy terrain, then Scorching Burst (action pointed Ray of Cold on the guy who makes save) before their buddies die. Or Necrotic Web (or legion's hold), Thunderclap, then Titan's Fist.

 

[DemonLord57]

To expand on that: In 3E, damage spells weren't control, because there were so many spells that simply shut down targets, whereas damage doesn't deny any actions before it kills the target - and actions are vital in D&D, i.e. action economy-wise, damage spells often did nothing.

In 3E, control is the denial of actions.

In principle, that hasn't changed in 4E - BUT: 4E shifts to a team effort and there are less hard status effects. Due to this, you don't have as much other spells to shut down targets completely. In 4E, you can usually hinder them but not deny your opponents actions (Legion's Hold is an impressive exception is hence probably the best control spell around - and more powerful than Astral Storm, as encounter spell even more so).

In 4E, control is more about making the actions of the enemy group less good or the actions of your group better.

The status effects achieve that rather impressively, damage does it more subtly:

You soften up targets for the strikers - in 3E, that wasn't necessary as the frontline hitters had enough damage output AND because shutting down complete is so much more useful. In 4E, monsters have a lot of extra hit points - even a dedicated striker will need several attacks to bring it down.

If you soften it up, you sort of get "extra actions" for the striker (and possibly high-damage defenders), because he can kill targets with less attacks.

Cheers, LT.

Ah, that's what I meant when I said control. Hmm, interesting idea as to why damage constitutes control. So using a higher damage spell gives your party the effect of an "extra action" worth of damage on each target. I still don't see that as as good as actual, bonifide control, though. Control in the sense of denying/limiting enemies' actions takes away those enemies' turns, or at least limits their actions, and if you hit a significant enough portion of enemies, or a significant enough enemy, that can be like giving half of your team another action, even with an "until the end of your next turn" effect.

I also think that it's less like an extra action for the striker because he will likely use something with a nice, debilitating status effect instead of purely damaging the opponent (not to mention that the difference in damage between a "control" spell and "pure damage" spell is likely half or less of his damage)

I think I may see now what the PHB was talking about. Yes, if you are hitting 3 or more enemies, you can easily outstrip the damage of the striker. However, using a pure damage spell does too little extra damage over a control spell to justify using it. So yes, doing area damage is part of your job, but not (IMO) the most important part...

Lemme see if I can explain this differently... Let's call "potential damage" the sum of your actual damage and the damage you've effectively created through denying opponents actions. Control spells often do less actual damage, but create more "potential damage" through their effects. This is why they are better than pure damage spells. The point of denying/limiting actions isn't simply to stand there and laugh, it's to smack them in the face while they're down.

Because it also keeps your party out of the combat, or it hurts them as much as your enemies. In my party of 4, I'm the only real ranged attacker. One other character has a few ranged attacks, but then has to stitch to melee, and the other 2 characters are 100% melee. Preventing the rest of my party from using their abilities/powers leads to my party getting pissed off with me, and on multiple occasions charging through my damaging zones just to get at the foes, even though they suffer just as much as the enemies. The other characters have threatened to attack me if I put up another damaging zone in their way again, as they consider it to be "helping the enemy!"

Well that sucks... I guess your party doesn't want to play like a team, then yeah, Wizard has a huge disadvantage... though, you are unlikely to freeze all enemies in the effects. If you do, you are hugely controlling the battle already, and the actions of a couple of your teammates *may* not be too harmful to your overwhelming victory. If they decide to move next to the immobilized melee monsters inside an Evard's.... get some new teammates...