Why is Firestorm the best 19th level control spell?

[AtomicPope]

AtomicPope:

Excuse me, but you're quite wrong. I'm not participating in distractions here.



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.

Don't be so touchy fella. If you are so sure it doesn't apply to you then there's no reason to get your panties in such a twist. Right?


It's fairly obvious that you were not participating in distractions when you said:

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

Hmm?

 

[Goumindong]

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.

So basically you are saying that your description is useless. Well, thanks for being useless.

Also, please tell me whether or not high damage is valuable or high frequency, noting that the description does not differentiate and high frequency is what is valuable against minions and well, everything else.

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.

Besides Prismatic Burst doing much more damage than Flame Strike you might want to look at fire burst(lvl 7 encounter power), Winters Wrath(lvl 7 encounter), wall of motherfreaking fire(lvl 9 daily that does 3d6+int/round OR MORE with NO SAVE ENDS), Stinking Cloud(lvl 5 daily that does 1d10+int TWICE and continues to do so ongoing with NO SAVE ENDS), or Force Orb(lv 1 Encounter)

Flame Strike:

Lets use a level 5 daily since comparing it to wall of fire will just be unfair(3d6+int whenever they enter and at the start of their turn and their movement costs 3 squares AND the wizard has an at will knockback at his disposal? Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha that is 36 average damage on one round, let alone any further ones)

A hit with Stinking Cloud is 2d10[avg 11]+12 damage for 33 average damage(on the first round), A miss is 1d10+6 damage on the first round.

Second round its another 1d10+6, third round its another 1d10+6...

So if we assume that attacks are hitting(since your cleric said average of 33 damage and not an average of half that) and we average over 3 rounds(saves) where your guy averages 2 failed saves(which is a bit better than he would actually be doing since you don't have access to spell focus). Then Flame Strike does 33 average damage and Stinking Cloud averages 46 damage over that period.

If we figure a 50% hit rate then Flame Strike averages 21.5 damage and Stinking Cloud averages 40.25. Nearly twice as much before we figure that Stinking Cloud won't end until someone stuns the wizard. ED: Oh, and i can move the Stinking Cloud around to damage more enemies(and they will get hit twice on that move when they enter the zone, and when they start their turn in the zone increasing my damage farther)

Oh, and before you bring out Blade barrier, remember that ongoing damage of the same type does not stack, only the most damaging one applies, remember that blade barrier does not deal damage to adjacent enemies, remember that blade barrier is twice as easy to cross as a wall of flame, covers 3 less squares(I.E. wall of fire has 3 more squares to place before its extra damage on adjacent enemies), and doesn't block line of sight.

 

[Roxlimn]

AtomicPope:

Post arguments, not adhominems; whatever delaying tactics or ignoring tactics might be occuring is obvious - you do not have any need to comment on it.

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.

Ah, no. It doesn't do that. It only does 5+Wis damage ongoing. It's not a damage roll so implement bonuses don't apply to that.

Bear in mind that this is a Daily. For every instance of Firestorm the Cleric applies, the Wizard is applying some 4 or 5 applications of Fire Shroud, Lightning Bolt, and Force Orb, all of which also do not do Friendly Fire. Divine Glow's damage are range are inferior to Force Orb's (though it has other advantages) and it's just less powerful as a damage inflictor than Burning Hands (though it's easier to use).

Level 7 Encounter Powers and level 3 Encounter Powers don't feature area damage for Devoted Clerics. Does Firestorm do enough damage to make up for that, I wonder? If we layer on all level 1-7 Encounter Powers as area effects plus the level 9 Daily, who will win?

 

[Marshall]

Wizard powers HAVE to be considered in light of class features - things like implement mastery, Battle Mage Action or Bolstering Blood. This is EXACTLY the same as balancing a cleric healing power with his Healing Lore in mind, or designing a Rogue power with Sneak Attack in mind.

No. Thats like saying that you have to balance a wizard power with the fighters mark in mind, or a warlock power with the warlords inspiration in mind.
That leads to insanity and puts so many handcuffs on the designers that creativity goes out the window.

If you balance each piece of the puzzle with all the other comparable peices of the puzzle then it shouldnt matter what peice you place, you'll still get a balanced picture.

 

[Roxlimn]

Marshall:

You're so not getting it.

The Rogue's entire power suite SHOULD be balanced around the fact that he can gain Sneak Attack. If you don't include add-on powers like that, the actual play numbers will be off your estimates.

Likewise, considering BAB in a vacuum as a theoretical indicator of fighting prowess worked fine until you actually tried to make a Fighter/Wizard and then everything went to hell in a handbasket.

There's no substitute for playtesting but barring that, considering the big picture and making sure all the components interact correctly is the next best thing.

 

[Ahglock]

No. Thats like saying that you have to balance a wizard power with the fighters mark in mind, or a warlock power with the warlords inspiration in mind.
That leads to insanity and puts so many handcuffs on the designers that creativity goes out the window.

If you balance each piece of the puzzle with all the other comparable peices of the puzzle then it shouldnt matter what peice you place, you'll still get a balanced picture.

I could accept class features as a balancing factor if they were built into the base class. So I do not mind adding in things like a mark. I generally think things should be balanced separately, I just could accept the argument that you can balance things looking at the whole class if you were talking about the core class and not optional features. I don't accept it when you are talking about builds like paragon or epic paths.

Unfortunately wizards have virtually nothing built into there base class that helps with the fight,. Orb is about it and that helps vs a single target, which is the exact opposite of what a wizard is supposed to be focusing on.

If the class is supposed to be the king of AoE damage they should beat out all other classes without taking a paragon path or epic destiny. Another class should have to take a paragon path and epic destiny in order to come close to equaling a wizard who hasn't focussed on this at all.

 

[Ahglock]

Marshall:

You're so not getting it.

The Rogue's entire power suite SHOULD be balanced around the fact that he can gain Sneak Attack. If you don't include add-on powers like that, the actual play numbers will be off your estimates.

Likewise, considering BAB in a vacuum as a theoretical indicator of fighting prowess worked fine until you actually tried to make a Fighter/Wizard and then everything went to hell in a handbasket.

There's no substitute for playtesting but barring that, considering the big picture and making sure all the components interact correctly is the next best thing.

I disagree. Sure for balancing things overall you have to look at all the things that go together. So in order to check that a combination of powers isn't too good, sure look at how everything works together.

But if a striker is supposed to be the best at single target damage, that is supposed to be what they are best at. Classes which aren't strikers should not have powers that beat the rogue in single target damage at there base.

So yes a rogue might have some ability that pushes it past a fighters X move in damage, but the rogue might not. And if the rogue doesn't you have a non-striker without any mods beating a striker without any mods at single target damage, and that is wrong.

Also when you try to go and look at everything at the core like you suggest you end up unbalancing things by a much larger margin down the road. What happens when they add a single dude smack down path to the fighter, now his single target damage out classes every class in the game.

So sure always pay attention to what is there so some loophole isn't found in uber damage cheat#37. But balance things independently so down the road you have more flexibility in adding new powers, feats, paths, and destines.

 

[Roxlimn]

Ahglock:

That kind of design philosophy is doomed to failure. Parts that aren't designed to take other parts into account are MORE likely to fail just at the outset, never mind expansions.

When you design Rogue powers, you take Sneak Attack into account because every Rogue is going to have Sneak Attack! When you design Wizard powers, you specifically see how each of them work with each of your release Paragon Paths, Powers, and Epic Destinies, else you risk none of them working as planned.

Should a Wizard have a base power that can deal more damage than a Rogue base power? Why not? As long as the Wizard doesn't outclass a Warlock or Rogue in striking (and he doesn't), then you don't have a problem. It's not the power that counts. It's how you're using it.

 

[Ahglock]

Ahglock:

That kind of design philosophy is doomed to failure. Parts that aren't designed to take other parts into account are MORE likely to fail just at the outset, never mind expansions.

When you design Rogue powers, you take Sneak Attack into account because every Rogue is going to have Sneak Attack! When you design Wizard powers, you specifically see how each of them work with each of your release Paragon Paths, Powers, and Epic Destinies, else you risk none of them working as planned.

Should a Wizard have a base power that can deal more damage than a Rogue base power? Why not? As long as the Wizard doesn't outclass a Warlock or Rogue in striking (and he doesn't), then you don't have a problem. It's not the power that counts. It's how you're using it.

I think your method is doomed to failure actually. I don't disagree with looking at everything when balancing things, I just think you have to balance the individual parts as well in order for that to work.

If something is balanced only because of a delicate web of abilities its much harder to see where the balance is and mistakes in balance in future supplements are easier to create.

So no a wizard should not have a base power that deals more damage to a single target as a rogue power. Since you are relying on some web of abilities to make the rogues abilities competitive, you limit rogue options when someone is trying to perform its base role. And you make it harder to balance future wizard abilities since you have to compare it to the web of possible rogue builds instead of just its powers.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

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.

Not very. You're standing in a firestorm that doesn't hurt you. As long as enemies remain in the firestorm, it is worthwhile to stand in it without moving. If they leave the firestorm, you stop sustaining your power. It's really simple. Laser clerics are awesome.

If you need to shift so badly that using a move to sustain firestorm or pass a heal is not acceptable, then your allies weren't doing the best job protecting you, anyway. In that clutch situation you can use your standard to shift if it means life or death.