Dragon 382 - Controllers: Breaking the utility power paradigm

[dbm]

I've just read the Controller article from Dragon 382 and it seems to me that they have fundamentally broken the Utility power paradigm. As I understand it, the whole point of Utility powers were that they were a resource you couldn't spend on killing things. You could only use these powers to buff yourself / allies or provide creative options (e.g. movement powers, skill powers etc.). The reason behind this was to save players from theirselves, stopping them throwing all the other things out the window and simply focussing on out and out combat power.

This Dragon article has several feats which allow you to exchange one of your existing utility powers for a combat enhancing power. For example, one of the powers allow you to effectively add 'Brutal 2' to the attack power you are currently using.

OK, so the cost is quite high (Feat put Utility Power slot) but it seems to me that this kind of power will become mandatory for any combat min-maxer, especially given how weak most of the existing feats which add damage to spells are.

What do people think?

Cheers,
Dan

 

[Starfox]

If there ever was a Utility Power Paradigm, it was broken already in PH1. Check out the Fighter utility powers - barely one per level is an actual utility, the rest are all combat.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If there ever was a Utility Power Paradigm, it was broken already in PH1. Check out the Fighter utility powers - barely one per level is an actual utility, the rest are all combat.

Yup. I think the error started with not having an explicit non-combat power system. Utility Powers in a way are almost the last vestige (aside from feats, I suppose) in 4E where you still choose between combat and non-combat ability.

 

[Henrix]

I thought the idea of utility powers was to not be attack powers, not that they shouldn't be combat powers.

 

[Stalker0]

As far as I can see, utility powers have never been solely about out of combat power. These powers seem in the ballpark of normal utility powers.

Frankly, I don't even think the new utilities are that good. Considering they cost a feat, I think I'll stick with my badass wizard utilities.

 

[Khur]

As far as I can see, utility powers have never been solely about out of combat power. These powers seem in the ballpark of normal utility powers.

This. Utility powers don't usually deal damage by themselves, but many of them are combat-oriented powers. The powers in the article are essentially self-buffs and along the lines of other similar powers.

 

[MrMyth]

I've just read the Controller article from Dragon 382 and it seems to me that they have fundamentally broken the Utility power paradigm. As I understand it, the whole point of Utility powers were that they were a resource you couldn't spend on killing things. You could only use these powers to buff yourself / allies or provide creative options (e.g. movement powers, skill powers etc.).

As others have mentioned, this has never been true. From the very first, Utility powers were primarily combat-relevant abilities, with many providing ways to help 'kill things'. Not all, of course - many were more indirect, and others could be relevant in or out of combat, and some few were entirely non-combat abilities. I like those, certainly, but I don't think the goal was ever for them all to be such - I think the plan was more to use Utility Powers as a catch-all for non-attack based effects. Buffs, movement, skill enhancements, power enhancements, etc. This article doesn't in any way change that paradigm.

 

[LightPhoenix]

As far as I can see, utility powers have never been solely about out of combat power. These powers seem in the ballpark of normal utility powers.

IMO, utility powers have never been about out of combat power. Sure, there were a few that hinged on skill challenges. However, the vast majority were designed to be used in combat situations. The only reason some of the utility powers are designed to last five minutes is to provide a simple answer to the desire to use them out of combat.

With regards to non-combat "powers", that is the realm of rituals and skills.

Frankly, I don't even think the new utilities are that good. Considering they cost a feat, I think I'll stick with my badass wizard utilities.

They're pretty awful for a Wizard, in fact. There's no way I would choose one of them over a Wizard utility. That said, Wizard utilities are pretty awesome. However, I have considered some of the Skill Utilities for a Wizard, so I think it's more these suck than the Wizard utilities are too good.

 

[Starfox]

What WAS said early on was that there should be different silos for combat and non-combat capabilities in the game. So that everyone has a combat role and a non-combat role, and lack of combat ability should not be balanced with superior non-combat ability and vice versa. Frankly, I think that failed as well. Examples:

Fighters: 3 trained skills and very few noncombat utilities, balanced by superb combat abilities.

Bards: Superior non-combat utility and versatility (many skills, non-trained skill bonus, multiclassing to get discount on new skills) balanced by poor combat abilities even for a leader.

Utility Powers: As there are selections of either combat or noncombat utility powers, we clearly have a competition between combat and noncombat silos here - you have to give up one to become better atthe other.

Feats: the main source of noncombat skills, but shares the silo with so many combat-related must-haves that few people ever choose them.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Bards: Superior non-combat utility and versatility (many skills, non-trained skill bonus, multiclassing to get discount on new skills) balanced by poor combat abilities even for a leader.

*blink*

You're kidding, right? I'm playing a bard in my current game, and while he doesn't have a lot that he can do against multiple foes at once, when focused against a single foe at a time, he's ferociously effective in combat.