Dragon 370 - Invoker Preview

[Felon]

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).

Hmm. I don't know how "generally-considered" that is, or how valid such a consideration is even if a lot of people believe it, but it's not a basis for balance because even if high-Fort creatures currently outnumber high-Ref creatures, that number will not be reliable over time. Indeed, if a defense discrepency was consistently the case, it probably bears rebalancing itself.

For Vanguard's Whatever, I'd consider just using a different method of damage allocation, like adding in an ability score other than Wisdom, or perhaps just use a big die for damage with no ability score mod tossed in.

 

[gribble]

Hmm. I don't know how "generally-considered" that is, or how valid such a consideration is even if a lot of people believe it, but it's not a basis for balance because even if high-Fort creatures currently outnumber high-Ref creatures, that number will not be reliable over time. Indeed, if a defense discrepency was consistently the case, it probably bears rebalancing itself.

Well, I think it's more a case of "statistical analysis shows". While I haven't done the analysis myself, I believe some people have and (based on the MM) Ref defences are usually lower than Fort.

I agree that it isn't necessarily a great balancing point if this is just a statistical anomaly and not something inherent to the rules, but unfortunately only the D&D design/development team know whether it's something inherent or not!

 

[Ander00]

I think it's unfortunate that Scorching Burst isn't all it could've been (and the same goes for some other at-will powers), but Vanguard's Lightning is fine, and not so much better that wizard players should lose much sleep over the issue.

If it was up to me, I'd say full steam ahead into a brighter future with at-will powers that actually give you something interesting to do every turn.


cheers

 

[Dionysos]

I think it's unfortunate that Scorching Burst isn't all it could've been (and the same goes for some other at-will powers), but Vanguard's Lightning is fine, and not so much better that wizard players should lose much sleep over the issue.

If it was up to me, I'd say full steam ahead into a brighter future with at-will powers that actually give you something interesting to do every turn.


cheers

I don't think we disagree with that. We are saying that it is possible to add more interesting Wizard at-wills in the future, even as Scorching burst retains its own niche vs. the powers of other controllers.

 

[Vael]

Another way would be to leave the wizard's at-wills, but introduce augmenting feats that enhance them.

For example, "Enhanced Ray of Frost" allows you to apply the slow effect to enemies adjacent to the target of the power.

"Enhanced Scorching Burst" would leave a zone that does extra damage to those that linger within it's effect. IOW, any target that is hit by the Scorching Burst that doesn't move out of the zone before the end of it's next turn takes more damage.

 

[Rechan]

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.

So that then depends on the God's scheme. That also doesn't answer the issue of petty gods who take offense to that, too. Now you're rebuffing based on situational and/or plot related schemes.

 

[Rechan]

Another way would be to leave the wizard's at-wills, but introduce augmenting feats that enhance them.

For example, "Enhanced Ray of Frost" allows you to apply the slow effect to enemies adjacent to the target of the power.

"Enhanced Scorching Burst" would leave a zone that does extra damage to those that linger within it's effect. IOW, any target that is hit by the Scorching Burst that doesn't move out of the zone before the end of it's next turn takes more damage.

On the other hand, you're forced tot ake a feat just to improve your at-wills compared to the next guy who starts the game with superior at wills to you.

It's a feat tax.

 

[EasyT]

Scorching burst is a power that we'll leave alone, and going forward I'd be surprised if we just created a better version. Of the at-will wizard powers that I know of that are in the pipeline, none of them are simply scorching burst with more bells and whistles.

Mearls,

But isn't Vanguard's Lightning essentially Scorching Burst with an extra whistle tacked on, albeit a small one?

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.

I generally agree with your take that VL isn't much more powerful than SB. But I don't think you've made the case for why it should be even slightly more powerful in the first place. SB is, again, widely accepted as one of the best at-will powers, and I've heard no argument against that. So why is the Invoker given a power that is basically "SB plus a little more"?

You seem against reducing the up-front damage of VL, a point which I think is debatable, but for the sake of argument let's say that you're right and that up-front damage should not be reduced. But while you addressed that one specific angle, I haven't heard any reason why other adjustments could not be made. You could replace "Area attack" with "Range attack" (which would allow concealment to still apply), or change "bust 1" to "1 square" (perhaps while increasing up-front damage), or you could reduce range. Or you could even have the Invoker unable to make OAs themselves for a turn after casting VL. Or any number of other possibilities that would differentiate VL from SB without simply making it flat always better.

I'm not actually advocating any of these changes specifically, nor do I really expect you to address any of them specifically. These are all simply examples of the general question: why take an at-wil power that is already regarded as excellent, and make another power that is strictly better? Why not find a way to allow the original power to continue shine in some particular way?

I understand that you're a designer and not a developer, and I respect that this sort of thing isn't really your direct responsibility. But I nevertheless want to bring my opinion to the table. That VL is "only a little better" is not an explanation that I find satisfying. I'd rather that VL be only a little better in some situations, while being only a little worse in others.

 

[RefinedBean]

So that then depends on the God's scheme. That also doesn't answer the issue of petty gods who take offense to that, too. Now you're rebuffing based on situational and/or plot related schemes.

Hey, buddy, didn't mean to offend. Just offering potential ways to make the Invoker fluff a bit more fun for all. Tog e go bog e, hakuna matata, etc. etc!

Although aren't all character backgrounds situational/plot related, usually? Perhaps the Invoker's fluff just lends itself to a close discussion with the DM regarding how they're going about doing that voodoo they do.

 

[Fifth Element]

On the other hand, you're forced tot ake a feat just to improve your at-wills compared to the next guy who starts the game with superior at wills to you.

It's a feat tax.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having inferior at-wills. As long as your encounters/dailies/utilities are superior enough to make up for it, there's no issue. You can't just look at one type of power.