Dragon 370 - Invoker Preview

[pawsplay]

Heh. "Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me" indeed.

 

[Squizzle]

Correction: He succeeded at having balder murdered. He also directly and indirectly committed a number of evil acts, including fighting against the gods during ragnarok, giving birth to the midgar worm and the freakin' fenris wolf, and some more stuff i cant even recall off the top of my head. He was evil. Pure, Chaotic Evil by any stretch of the imagination.

To be perfectly fair, a lot of this is Prose Edda content. Loki was a far more minor and less archvillainous figure before Sturluson (a Christian) banged the myths into a shape that more fit his religious worldview.

 

[mearls]

Hi Mr. Mearls,

How do you feel about EasyT's idea to lower the damage or range of the Invoker's Lightning Vanguard power (even if only slightly) just so that Scorching Burst is not overshadowed by it completely, then just introducing more control-oriented at-wills for the Wizard in Arcane Power? It seems like a great solution to the problem, as it does not leave behind any completely obsolete powers. I would love to hear what you think of that.

Dropping the damage to 1d4 makes the power a little too weak, IMO. I think at that point, you really have to rely on the target to make an opportunity attack to get half-decent damage, and there are plenty of situations where an opportunity attack isn't really in play.

It also takes enough of the sting out of the attack that a target might as well make the opportunity attack and take that damage. Especially at high levels, the damage on opportunity attacks is low enough that it's hard to justify reducing the power's overall damage.

IME, on a fight by fight basis the invoker doesn't come out too far ahead of the wizard. I'd wager there are plenty of fights (at least half) where the damage output between the two powers is identical.

The big balancing factor is that both spells target all creatures in their AoE. If you use vanguard's lighting to shut down opportunity attacks, you'll tend to hit fewer targets than the wizard simply because shutting down opportunity attacks is best in situations where the characters and monsters are mobbed together.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The big balancing factor is that both spells target all creatures in their AoE. If you use vanguard's lighting to shut down opportunity attacks, you'll tend to hit fewer targets than the wizard simply because shutting down opportunity attacks is best in situations where the characters and monsters are mobbed together.

my half elf swordmage tells our wizard to blast him with scorching burst all the time...especialy when i am surrounded...or in a swarm...or both (bad day for him...don't ask)

in another game I use to joke that my wizard just keep locking onto our fighter with all my AOEs....


In both cases shutting down opp atts would change my tactics...neatther blasting nor saying to blast me...

 

[Staffan]

Basically, I think the dual-element feats are very comparable to Weapon Focus. Yes, Weapon Focus increases damage by +1 per tier, but as I mentioned before, there are more element-based Close and Area attacks than there are Weapon-based Close and Area attacks.

There are three things that IMO make the dual-element feats inferior to Weapon Proficiency in a superior weapon.

1. Stat requirements. Astral Fire requires Dex/Cha, Burning Blizzard requires Int/Wis, Dark Fury requires Con/Wis, and Raging Storm requires Con/Dex. Weapon proficiency doesn't require anything.
2. Scope. There's very little incentive for a weapon-user to diversify his weapon skills - things like skeletons being resistant to edged weapons are pretty much gone. As such, the extra damage (or other benefit) you get from a superior weapon is going to apply to pretty much all your powers. But there is plenty of incentive for a wizard to diversify his spells - you have monsters with resistances, and different status effects will likely be linked to different damage types. So any given dual-element feat will probably only apply to, say, half your spells unless you go out of your way to only select powers that match up (in which case you're limited in another fashion).
3. Scaling. Sure, you have the per-tier scaling on the dual-element feats. But you don't have the per-power scaling that superior weapons have. With Tide of Iron, your damage gets upgraded from 1d8 to 1d10 when using a bastard sword instead of a longsword, but when using Brutal Strike it gets upgraded from 3d8 to 3d10. A wizard's Scorching Burst gets upgraded from 1d6 to 1d6+1 with Astral Fire, but Burning Hands only goes from 2d6 to 2d6+1.

I'm not sure what to do about the first two, but the last one could be fixed by removing the per-tier scaling and replacing it with a per-die bonus instead.

 

[Cadfan]

Are there ANY per die bonuses, in all of D&D?

I don't think we're going to get per die bonuses.

 

[Obryn]

There are three things that IMO make the dual-element feats inferior to Weapon Proficiency in a superior weapon.

Sorry to cut off your reply - but I agree, 100%, that they're weaker than a Superior Weapon proficiency for increasing damage. Then again, as far as I'm concerned, pretty much everything is. I have a thread elsewhere wherein I mention that almost every single weapon-using PC in my game (save the Rogue) has a superior weapon. Once AV opened up the playing field to more weapons than spiked chains & bastard swords, it became a clear choice.

I'm arguing they're similar to Weapon Focus in potency, where the lack of a damage increase by tier is offset by more (power-based) opportunities to affect multiple foes.

-O

 

[gribble]

Dropping the damage to 1d4 makes the power a little too weak, IMO.

How about a more subtle change, such as making it target Fort instead of Ref? I think it's generally considered that attacks targeting Fort are "weaker" than those targeting Ref, and it also helps to reinforce the mechanical distinction between Invokers (most attacks target Fort but have extra effects) and Wizards (most attacks target Ref).

 

[RefinedBean]

Eh?

Aheh. That's what I get for posting while tired.

Basically, I was saying that a good god could have every reason to give divine aid to an Invoker who is also using another, more sinister god's help. Gods have long-term plans that most mortals can't fathom, and the Invoker could be playing a role in many gods' schemes.

 

[Dionysos]

Dropping the damage to 1d4 makes the power a little too weak, IMO. I think at that point, you really have to rely on the target to make an opportunity attack to get half-decent damage, and there are plenty of situations where an opportunity attack isn't really in play.

It also takes enough of the sting out of the attack that a target might as well make the opportunity attack and take that damage. Especially at high levels, the damage on opportunity attacks is low enough that it's hard to justify reducing the power's overall damage.

IME, on a fight by fight basis the invoker doesn't come out too far ahead of the wizard. I'd wager there are plenty of fights (at least half) where the damage output between the two powers is identical.

The big balancing factor is that both spells target all creatures in their AoE. If you use vanguard's lighting to shut down opportunity attacks, you'll tend to hit fewer targets than the wizard simply because shutting down opportunity attacks is best in situations where the characters and monsters are mobbed together.

I definitely see your point. Gribble's idea (just a couple posts above) to have Lightning Vanguard target Fortitude instead of Reflex is also intriguing.

All that aside, I think it is excellent that you have been addressing this fan feedback directly. Even if we end up not agreeing on the outcome, it speaks really well of your respect for the fanbase that you have taken time from your schedule to give us insight into your thinking on these matters of game balance. Thanks!