Dragon 370 - Invoker Preview

[EasyT]

When comparing at-wills for controllers, the wizard has some issues. His at-wills focus more on damage than control. The consensus is that controllers need a little more, well, control in their at-wills than we've handed out so far.

Vanguard's lightning is what I'd see as a baseline controller at-will, with scorching burst slightly *below* baseline. That little extra bit on vanguard's lightning is precisely the kind of thing that makes controllers go - they limit/mess up the enemy's plans.

Mearls, thank you for posting. Always good to see devs participating in a discussion and giving us a peak behind the scenes.

But I have a hard time getting behind your argument. While I really like the idea that a controller is the opposite of a leader, I don't see support for the belief that Scorching Burst might be slightly below baseline. It seems widely regarded as the best Wizard at-will power, nearly reaching "must have" status and generally accepted as one of the best 1st level at-will powers in the game. And while it's good that Vanguard's Lightning provides incentive for enemies to behave in a certain way, thus playing more towards the new vision of what constitutes a controller, why must this incentive take the form of extra damage on top of the kind of damage already dealt out by another controller's at-will power? Said another way, if Wizards were made to deal damage over an area, and it was decided that this is not what should define the role of controller, why give a new controller even more damage over an area than a Wizard? Why not instead have the new power deal less damage up-front? Or have a range of 5 instead of 10? Or basically let Scorching Burst shine over Vanguard's Lightning in any single way?

I can't help but compare to the Druid's at-will powers Chill Wind and Call of the Beast. Both are area powers that do more to control the enemy's actions than Scorching Burst, but they balance this by dealing less direct damage (or even no direct damage in the case of Call). They do a great job of meeting the new definition of controller without taking away from or overshadowing the Wizard.

I applaud these Druid powers for this accomplishment. As a general rule of thumb, I would think and hope that a new class's powers would be created with an eye towards not completely overshadowing an existing class's powers. Every class should be able to shine in their own way. And while the idea behind the role of controller may change, it seems that this could be done without taking anything away from the Wizard. Perhaps the Wizard is the controller the specializes at doing area damage from a distance, and does this better than any other controller? Wouldn't this allow the Wizard to retain his own unique style while leaving plenty of space for other controllers to grow into the new vision for that role?

 

[Dionysos]

Mearls, thank you for posting. Always good to see devs participating in a discussion and giving us a peak behind the scenes.

But I have a hard time getting behind your argument. While I really like the idea that a controller is the opposite of a leader, I don't see support for the belief that Scorching Burst might be slightly below baseline. It seems widely regarded as the best Wizard at-will power, nearly reaching "must have" status and generally accepted as one of the best 1st level at-will powers in the game. And while it's good that Vanguard's Lightning provides incentive for enemies to behave in a certain way, thus playing more towards the new vision of what constitutes a controller, why must this incentive take the form of extra damage on top of the kind of damage already dealt out by another controller's at-will power? Said another way, if Wizards were made to deal damage over an area, and it was decided that this is not what should define the role of controller, why give a new controller even more damage over an area than a Wizard? Why not instead have the new power deal less damage up-front? Or have a range of 5 instead of 10? Or basically let Scorching Burst shine over Vanguard's Lightning in any single way?

I can't help but compare to the Druid's at-will powers Chill Wind and Call of the Beast. Both are area powers that do more to control the enemy's actions than Scorching Burst, but they balance this by dealing less direct damage (or even no direct damage in the case of Call). They do a great job of meeting the new definition of controller without taking away from or overshadowing the Wizard.

I applaud these Druid powers for this accomplishment. As a general rule of thumb, I would think and hope that a new class's powers would be created with an eye towards not completely overshadowing an existing class's powers. Every class should be able to shine in their own way. And while the idea behind the role of controller may change, it seems that this could be done without taking anything away from the Wizard. Perhaps the Wizard is the controller the specializes at doing area damage from a distance, and does this better than any other controller? Wouldn't this allow the Wizard to retain his own unique role while leaving plenty of space for other controllers to grow into the new vision for that role?

I hadn't considered this point before, but you are absolutely right. Rather than decide "Scorching Burst doesn't have a control component, so we will revise this power later", it would be much better to lower the damage or range on Vanguard's Lightning (thus giving Scorching Burst a raison d'etre) and add in a control oriented AoE or two for the Wizard in Arcane power.

This is a much more elegant solution, as it invalidates nothing and simply adds more options. I sure hope Mr. Mearls sees your thought and considers that option. After all, it is not too late to revise Vanguard's Lightning before the book sees print.

 

[gribble]

The Invoker is acting like a Divine mercenary. He'll pray to anybody as long as they give him what he wants (blowing up doods and whathaveyou). The power his prayers are giving the God isn't, in my opinion, worth the juice he's asking for. The Cleric works for the God, spreads the God's word, he has an intimate relationship with that God; he deserves the God's divine power fresh, on tap.

You see, I just don't see that in the fluff that has been presented. Seems to me there are 2 types of Invoker, one that is devoted to a single god, and one that is more devoted to a pantheon or group of gods.

In either case I can't see anything that says the Invoker is less devoted than a Cleric, it's just that they have a different kind of devotion. As described, an Invoker's connection with their god(s) is a very primal, personal thing, whereas a Cleric's is much more dogmatic, and seen through the lens of an organised mortal religion. I see a Cleric learning specific rituals to perform and offerings/bargains to make to tap into a gods power, whereas an Invoker just intuitively knows how to tap into the same power. But I certainly don't see anything that says an Invoker is less devoted or deserving or that paints a picture of a "divine mercenary"...

Heck, it even says in the PHB that a Cleric can worship a pantheon as well! To put it in a human perspective, let's imagine a guy with a group of friends. One of them is always good to talk to when he has a problem. Another is really good for going out drinking with and having a fun time. A third is a fellow sports fanatic who enjoys watching sports with him. Can you honestly claim that he must be more devoted to one of these friends than the others? No, even though he gives (and receives) different things to/from each one, he can still be equally devoted to them all.

Actually, I like that analogy - it even describes an Invoker who worships a good and and evil god (such as Bahumat/Tiamat). The same guy could have two friends who dislike each other, but that doesn't mean he couldn't get on with them both. Of course, the three of them wouldn't likely hang out together, but he could still be equally devoted to them both and hang out with them individually.

And, in fact, contrasting the two class descriptions I'd say if anything the Cleric reads as the less devoted / more mercenary class...

Well, that's the way I see it anyway.

 

[gribble]

This is a much more elegant solution, as it invalidates nothing and simply adds more options. I sure hope Mr. Mearls sees your thought and considers that option. After all, it is not too late to revise Vanguard's Lightning before the book sees print.

I agree, this would have been a much better approach. Unfortunately, I think it probably is too late to revise the power - the reason why the article was published as a preview and not a playtest.

 

[Rechan]

If you guys think this is a better solution, I suggest emailing that feedback to dndinsider@wizards.com, so that they can see the suggestion much faster than combing through all this arguing.

 

[Rechan]

[sblock]

You see, I just don't see that in the fluff that has been presented. Seems to me there are 2 types of Invoker, one that is devoted to a single god, and one that is more devoted to a pantheon or group of gods.

I definitely get the Divine Mercenary approach from the quote I quoted from the staff blog from the guy who insisted his fluff be put in the PHB2. He didn't seem to have any primal affection for any deity.

Given the way he plays his character, and that he was the one pushing for that line of text, it comes off as that's his vision of how they are.
[/sblock]

 

[TwinBahamut]

And I have every right to that interpretation or opinion. Regardless on if this jives with any precedence, or how you run your game or how everyone else does.

The simple fact is this: I state that I am turned off by the fluff for the Invoker, how it makes me feel, and why. Everyone else just seems to want to prove my feelings are badwrongfun.

I never once stated that your views are "badwrongfun", or anything of the sort. Right at the very beginning, I just said that I disagree with you and that I simply have no basis for understanding why you think that the way you do. I then gave reasons why.

Go ahead and do things the way you want. Have as much fun as you want the way you want. It doesn't matter to me at all. However, don't expect me to agree with you, since I simply don't share those opinions and assumptions behind your dislike (not that I ever thought you were trying to get me to think your way).

After that point, it mostly became a matter of me defending my statement that the alternative was the historically accurate way polytheistic religions behave, while you tried to demonstrate otherwise, which I gave a rebuttal to (I have no idea how effective that was). There was also a bit of a matter of you trying to convince me that what I said didn't apply based on how Gods in D&D should and do behave, but that conversation didn't parse at all because we have totally opposing assumptions and ideas about how Gods in D&D work.

To make things more clear, I prescribe to the idea that there is a single, unified and finite pantheon of gods in a D&D campaign, and each individual culture simply worships these same gods, just under different names and in different ways. One group may hold Bahamut as the highest god and act almost totally monotheistic, and another group may list him as one of the many vassal gods serving Pelor, but either way they are worshipping the same Bahamut. What is more, the people of the world pray to the gods in the hope of earning the gods' favor, and this prayer is not inherently beneficial to the gods (other than appealing to their egos, I guess). The Gods possess a power in of themselves, and do not depend on the worship of mortals to sustain their divine might. A cleric, paladin, or invoker is given power because that individual having power and using it in a certain way furthers the goals of one or more gods, and such individuals are given power solely on their own suitability in the eyes of the gods, not because they prayed hard enough.

Under that context, Invokers work perfectly well, and a lot of your arguments really don't make any sense to me. I can understand that you might have a problem if you use different assumptions, but I don't really share those assumptions. I still disagree with you, but now at least I understand why you disagree with me (though I wish you didn't try to argue that historical religions didn't work the way they actually do).

 

[Obryn]

I absolutely love the Invoker flavor. While I've always liked the thought of clerics who worship a pantheon rather than a single god, this has a different tone even from that. It fits in with the gods-vs-primordials back-story, which I'm starting to like more and more.

I'm hoping they get more Summons. I've been waiting for a good Summoner class.

-O

 

[gribble]

I definitely get the Divine Mercenary approach from the quote I quoted from the staff blog from the guy who insisted his fluff be put in the PHB2.

Yep, just went back and re-read it, and I definitely agree with you there. I take it you haven't read the full Invoker preview yet then? All I'll say is that my reading of it was what I described above and was very different from the WotC guys. I definitely didn't get any "lack of commitment/devotion" vibe from the class description, and re-reading it I'm not even sure that what he wrote in his blog is really supported by the fluff!

Here are a few sentences from the Invoker fluff:

• Through rites of investiture, avengers, clerics, and paladins gain the ability to manifest echoes of that power. You, however, channel your god's power directly
• You are among the gods' most trusted servants, bound to a covenant in which you swore to use divine power with great care

Does that sound like a divine mercenary to you?

I'm fairly certain that if you're ok with the Cleric fluff from the PHB in your cosmology then you'll be ok with the Invoker fluff as well.

 

[Rechan]

[sblock]

Yep, just went back and re-read it, and I definitely agree with you there. I take it you haven't read the full Invoker preview yet then?

I did, before I read the designer's comments. My first post (back on page 1) I said:

I dislike the fluff about Invokers being all old school, and all about Primordials vs. Gods; that's the first fluff I'd squash in my games. As I read though, I notice that the class has a warlock vibe to it, how close the individual is with the god. I could see this as the Divine version of the warlock, although I'm not sure how best to represent Invokers of the Fey, etc. It's easy for me to see specific ArchAngels giving Invokers power.

The main thing I disliked was how they're all 'old school' and the emphasis was on the Primordials battle. When I first read it, I was instead envisioning Invokers as prophets, operating outside the church, the ones who live alone on a hill and then come and nail a letter to the church door, or stomp up to a Pharaoh with divine justice in their eyes.

I'm fairly certain that if you're ok with the Cleric fluff from the PHB in your cosmology then you'll be ok with the Invoker fluff as well.

I actually don't like the PHB fluff for clerics either. As I said earlier, I dislike the 'Clerics don't really have any connection with their god; their powers are endowed by a little ritual another cleric grants, and then the cleric's power can't be revoked or has no reprecussions from their god'. For instance, a cleric of Pelor using his prayers to kill babies, and Pelor getting no real say in that.

I personally don't see clerics the way you do, mired in Church Bureaucracy and seeing it all as just ritual rather than a personal diefic connection. I personally find it difficult to be a getting divine power from a god if you don't have a personal connection to them. (This is different from archivists, mind you).

But I still like my preference for Invokers being more concerned with lower rung groups; Angelic Choirs, Exarchs/Demi-Gods/Saints, Arch Devils/Demon Princes, etc. Or possibly the Archivist's method of stealing power (although, they suck as Archivists; no dark knowledge powers).

I never once stated that your views are "badwrongfun", or anything of the sort.

I know you didn't state it. But that was the impression I was getting from you and a few others. Sorry I accused you of it. Words lack Tone, and that's pretty significant.

However, don't expect me to agree with you, since I simply don't share those opinions and assumptions behind your dislike (not that I ever thought you were trying to get me to think your way).

Thanks for that parenthesis bit. I do appreciate it.

To make things more clear, I prescribe to the idea that there is a single, unified and finite pantheon of gods in a D&D campaign, and each individual culture simply worships these same gods, just under different names and in different ways.

My one problem with this is that what defines a "pantheon"? Does every god exist in the pantheon?

There are a lot of things that the existing gods in The Pantheon don't have dominion over, that doesn't fit in their portfolio. So that means that either no one is responsible for this thing, a God in the pantheon control it and no one acknowledges it, or something else is responsible for it.

If Something Else is responsible for it, then you have to define it. Either as a God, or something Else, and you need to figure out what that Else is.

Suddenly, you have to mark everything down and make a bunch of more Gods. Or you need to give Pelor dominion over doors and cook fires, or wine, or any other minor things that people would want to pray about, so that everything under the sun has some reperesentation by the Gods.

And then you have things like Demi-Gods, Demon Princes/Arch Angels/Archfey, Primoridals, Ancestors, Spirits... do they fit in the pantheon?

Or, what if Culture A thinks that God 1 is responsible for Portfolio X, but Culture B and C have God 1 (by another name) who is not responsible for X (they don't even HAVE X.) Is God 1 now responsible for X, and Culture B and C don't know it? Or is something Else responsible?

Or what happens when you have a situation where Pelor is the God of the Sun, and he's a good god. But this culture over here, they think the God of the Sun is evil and he does terrible things; is Pelor really a bad guy to some people and a good guy to others? Or if it's just an Evil god being re-interpreted, then how come Pelor is letting him represent the Sun?

Now your pantheon is really freaking bloated. Sure, it may be on par with historical real world religions, but it's really not neat or tidy or easy to work with.

It comes off as a big muddled mess.[/sblock]