D&D 5E 5e fireballs

[KarinsDad]

The Wizard doesn't need massive defenses in 4e because, aside from the 3e Knight, 4e is the first edition where Defender classes can actually protect their allies (when there isn't a 5' doorway to stand in). Paladins and Fighters have high hp and defenses because they're soaking up the damage in lieu of the Wizard (and other squishies).

4e is well balanced. Everyone gets to save the day some of the time, and everyone needs everyone else to do so. The wizard's save the day abilities are nonetheless some of the most potent, often ruining the ability for entire groups of creatures to coordinate themselves effectively.

The Wizard's Daily powers are impressive. Daily powers are a very small subset of his used powers though.

As for Wizards not needing massive defenses, I guess that's true if your DM throws most of your bad guys at the Defenders, and never or rarely attacks from the rear or attacks from all directions simultaneously. Every Wizard I've seen, though, does the feat/power tax of taking defensive abilities to protect his butt because the game system doesn't do that straight up. Paladins and Fighter? Nope. The game system protects them straight up AND gives them good powers.

In my experience with DMs who challenge the party, it's pretty darn easy to take down a 4E Wizard if the bad guys are intelligent and the DM runs them that way. If your DM doesn't do that and allows the PC Defenders to lock down a bunch of bad guys most encounters, then yeah, I can relate to your POV here. That's just not my experience in both PBP and in home games. The Defenders tend to lock down 1 to 2 foes at most (average per round, some rounds are higher), everyone else in the party is fair game.


Example:

Int 18 Con 12 Wizard with AC 14 and 22 HP vs. Con 12 Fighter with AC 19 and 27 HP

First level foes with +5 to hit and D8+4 or 8.5 average damage, 12 on a crit.

It takes ~4.2 attacks to take out the Wizard. It takes ~8.6 attacks to take out the Fighter.

Granted, the Fighter will often get attacked more often, but during those rounds or encounters were the Wizard is the focus, he's boned. On rounds or encounters that the Fighter is the focus, he's not boned.

Against foes 3 levels higher, it's 2.5 attacks (which can easily be a single round to unconsciousness with decent DM dice rolls) for the Wizard vs. 4.6 rounds for the Fighter. Usually, the Fighter, even against higher level foes, can react to the situation. The Wizard cannot always do so, especially if he is unconscious.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I don't think I count as a newer/younger player - born 1971, started playing in 1982 with Moldvay Basic, started playing AD&D in 1984. But I prefer the "level advancement as backdrop" approach of 4e to the "level advancement as achievement" approach of AD&D. Even back when I was using classic D&D as a system, I wasn't playing it in that way - we took it for granted that if you turned up and played your PC, you would gradually gain levels. We never treated XP as a reward in that Gygaxian sense.

Whether I therefore refute your conjecture, or just count as an outlier, I don't know.

I'm with you on this one.

Born in 1969 and I've completely stopped using XP altogether.

I've also always felt this way, but I would most likely count as a younger player (born in 1984, started playing in 1994). My old 2e/3e group never treated XP as a reward and we dropped XP altogether very early into 3e. But now I'm bringing it back because of player demand: my 4e group, who I introduced to D&D last year and are all born in 1987, want XP and they want it now. They want to feel like they're earning their levels. The group had this discussion just last week. Starting next session, they'll get their XP awards.

There might be a generational split in what people are used to, but I think that's as far as it goes.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The Wizard's Daily powers are impressive. Daily powers are a very small subset of his used powers though.

As for Wizards not needing massive defenses, I guess that's true if your DM throws most of your bad guys at the Defenders, and never or rarely attacks from the rear or attacks from all directions simultaneously. Every Wizard I've seen, though, does the feat/power tax of taking defensive abilities to protect his butt because the game system doesn't do that straight up. Paladins and Fighter? Nope. The game system protects them straight up AND gives them good powers.

In my experience with DMs who challenge the party, it's pretty darn easy to take down a 4E Wizard if the bad guys are intelligent and the DM runs them that way. If your DM doesn't do that and allows the PC Defenders to lock down a bunch of bad guys most encounters, then yeah, I can relate to your POV here. That's just not my experience in both PBP and in home games. The Defenders tend to lock down 1 to 2 foes at most (average per round, some rounds are higher), everyone else in the party is fair game.


Example:

Int 18 Con 12 Wizard with AC 14 and 22 HP vs. Con 12 Fighter with AC 19 and 27 HP

First level foes with +5 to hit and D8+4 or 8.5 average damage, 12 on a crit.

It takes ~4.2 attacks to take out the Wizard. It takes ~8.6 attacks to take out the Fighter.

Granted, the Fighter will often get attacked more often, but during those rounds or encounters were the Wizard is the focus, he's boned. On rounds or encounters that the Fighter is the focus, he's not boned.

Against foes 3 levels higher, it's 2.5 attacks (which can easily be a single round to unconsciousness with decent DM dice rolls) for the Wizard vs. 4.6 rounds for the Fighter. Usually, the Fighter, even against higher level foes, can react to the situation. The Wizard cannot always do so, especially if he is unconscious.

It takes 4.2 attacks to take out the 4e Wizard, as opposed to, what, 1.5 attacks in earlier editions?

If the party is attacked from all sides, the fighter is probably close enough to the wizard to pop CAGI or use Threatening Rush to pull either most or all "aggro" from him.

Believe me, I have two intelligent, killer DMs that have shown time and again that characters can most definitely die in 4e. While neither defenders nor wizards are immune to death, in my experience it's strikers who are the most death prone. The rogue or barbarian who gets a little overeager about killing something and chases it to where the fighter and cleric can't help him, may die for his trouble.

Wizards can at least control their way out of a bad situation, or call for the defender to help. I've seen wizards who took defensive utility spells (after all, it's inevitable that you will get in trouble sometimes, unless the DM goes easy on you), but never anyone who spec'd their feats for defense.

A defender's class features are designed to make him the focus of attention in every encounter. That's why he's built to handle that focus. Wizards are at the opposite of that spectrum. With all of their control powers, they're designed to be able to keep creatures away from them if the defender can't manage it. They're not intended to be the focus. Part of good tactics is keeping the wizard safe, as it's always been.

As long as you have a defender who's looking out for you and knows what he's doing, defensive feats are a waste for a wizard. My guess is that the problem lies with the defenders you've been playing with. Keeping the wizard safe should be their number one priority.

 

[Lanefan]

Equal mix? Really? Take a 5th level MU in 1e. 1 3rd level spell, 2 2nd, 4 1st. ((IIRC)). You're going to tell me that out of those 7 spells, four will be utility spells and three with be combat spells? (or possibly reversed - that's close enough). Someone actually takes Water Breathing instead of Fireball or Lightning bolt if they have the choice?

Leo's Tiny Hut, again, going from memory, is a 3rd level spell. Someone's going to choose that over a combat spell at 3rd level. When you've just spent the rest of this thread talking about how great fireball is as an offensive spell, I'm thinking that it's probably higher on most people's list.

Sure, once the caster gets into higher levels, say 7+, you start taking more and more utility spells. But up to 6th level? Invisibility, sure. But unseen servant in 1e vs Magic Missile? Not likely.

Aaaaaaaand another fine example of why I have so much come to dislike pre-memorization.

One other aspect of spellcasting not yet mentioned that acts as a restriction on some spells is to force anyone casting a ranged spell to roll for aim, thus allowing for off-target spells - and outright fumbles in games that use such.

Lan-"no fan of 3e but Sorcerers are full of win"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Does Twist of Space teleport the targets? If so, you can't teleport into mid-air in 4E, can you? Haven't looked at the rules in a log time, but I thought you had to teleport to a stable surface.

As someone else said, it's a save to avoid being teleported into the air. Generally, the wizard in my game just teleports foes to ground level so as not to concede the save, but on this occasion there was a high ceiling, and the PCs were feeling a little bit under the pump, so he took the gamble . . .

In my experience with DMs who challenge the party, it's pretty darn easy to take down a 4E Wizard if the bad guys are intelligent and the DM runs them that way.

I haven't kept a running tally, but I think the fighter and paladin in my game are bloodied more often than the wizard, and the fighter is the only one to take Toughness and (Dwarven) Durability - the wizard had Durability at 1st level but trained out of it ASAP.

The sorcerer has Unarmd Agility, whereas the wizard just uses Expeditious Retreat (rather than Shield), Wizard's Escape and distance. I've found that I can put pressure on the wizard so as to provoke a response, without immediately dropping him. But I probably don't count as a killer GM.

 

[KarinsDad]

As long as you have a defender who's looking out for you and knows what he's doing, defensive feats are a waste for a wizard. My guess is that the problem lies with the defenders you've been playing with. Keeping the wizard safe should be their number one priority.

Yeah, I think you assume too much about how the game is SUPPOSED to be played by DMs and players as opposed to how it really should be handled by intelligent or outnumbering foes.

As one example:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-eberron/311263-adventure-rhapsody-part-2-judge-renau1g-9.html

This was an N+3 encounter. The Warden got bloodied, but the Wizard and the Invoker got knocked unconscious once each. The animal companion (who are significantly lower in hit points than PCs) got killed 3 times. The Warden tried to keep foes away from the other PCs as did the Shaman|Druid with summoned and conjured creatures, but the problem comes in when Wizards and other squishy PCs just don't have room to run away, or to get a cover bonus, and/or one or more foes concentrate on them.


Sure, in small rooms with an equal number of foes max, a Defender can often hold off enough foes so that the other PCs can handle the rest. And, Defenders also tend to have powers to bring some foes to them or to penalize a foe for attacking someone else other than the Defender. Defenders work especially well against solos.

But, the concept that there is balance here between the classes only works if the DM is willing to play his NPCs in a certain (rather stupid metagaming) ways, both in NPC decision making and in dungeon design. A reasonably intelligent NPC with a melee attack should rarely try to go toe to toe with a heavily armored PC. Does it make sense to do so? But I sometimes see some DMs have even mobile NPCs go up and do just that encounter after encounter.

In 4E since they changed the charge rules, it makes sense for most semi-intelligent melee NPCs (and even ranged NPCs) to ignore anyone who looks hard to take out, move around them and charge/focus on the PCs that look easiest to take out. Dumb NPCs? Sure. They should often target the closest PC.

Extremely intelligent NPCs should shout directions out to allies to attack certain dangerous and/or lightly armored PCs (which if you go read the attached link, that is what my leader type NPCs do a lot). As an example, once a PC heals other PCs, that PC should become a prime target candidate. If a PC (really, not just minorly) locks down a few NPCs, that PC should become a prime target candidate. If a PC starts doing a lot of damage, that PC should become a prime target candidate. But until the NPCs can tell which PCs are doing what, they should focus on the softest looking PCs. I cannot think of many reasons that a Defender PC should become a prime target, but I can think of a lot of ways for many NPCs to get around Defenders.


And, my analysis above only took into account damage. Another major problem with low defenses for squishy PCs is the rider effects that can occur with a hit. The first level Wizard getting hit 60% of the time compared to the Fighter at 35% of the time means that the Wizard has a higher chance of getting some effect on him. The concept that Wizards shouldn't use defensive feats and should be more cannon and less glass won't work in a game where the DM challenges all of his players.

So yes, there is nothing wrong with having squishy PCs as long as the squishy PCs get over compensated such that they are taking out (either with damage or nearly total control) more NPCs than the non-squishy PCs. I just don't see that with 4E Wizards unless that Wizard uses a Daily attack power and they only get at most 2 of those per day until level 10. Dazing or slowing or knocking down or even moving an NPC around usually just doesn't cut it with respect to power and/or versatility in comparison to how defensively weak Wizards are designed to be.

 

[Banshee16]

Extremely intelligent NPCs should shout directions out to allies to attack certain dangerous and/or lightly armored PCs (which if you go read the attached link, that is what my leader type NPCs do a lot). As an example, once a PC heals other PCs, that PC should become a prime target candidate. If a PC (really, not just minorly) locks down a few NPCs, that PC should become a prime target candidate. If a PC starts doing a lot of damage, that PC should become a prime target candidate. But until the NPCs can tell which PCs are doing what, they should focus on the softest looking PCs. I cannot think of many reasons that a Defender PC should become a prime target, but I can think of a lot of ways for many NPCs to get around Defenders.


So yes, there is nothing wrong with having squishy PCs as long as the squishy PCs get over compensated such that they are taking out (either with damage or nearly total control) more NPCs than the non-squishy PCs. I just don't see that with 4E Wizards unless that Wizard uses a Daily attack power and they only get at most 2 of those per day until level 10. Dazing or slowing or knocking down or even moving an NPC around usually just doesn't cut it with respect to power and/or versatility in comparison to how defensively weak Wizards are designed to be.

I've experienced the same thing in 3E. Wizards could be powerful, but if the opponents are played intelligently, they often didn't get a chance to use that power, because they were put continuously on a defense/healing cycle.

As GM, I usually rule it according to a few things:

1-How intelligent are the opponents (in terms of experience and intelligence scores)?

2-Are the PCs identifiable within their roles?

3-What's the terrain layout?

Based on those factors, if the opponents were smart, such that they recognized the threat that wizards posed, and that they recognized the wizard in the party, they'd make his life miserable.

One key caveat......in my games, I frequently ran encounters appropriate for the party level, but composed of larger numbers of lower level opponents, whose total CR added up the appropriate level. As such, often situations were such that the fighter couldn't just pin down a single opponent, with the wizard standing off and throwing spells into the battle.

The wizard and sorcerer ended up bleeding on the ground often enough. The only times they didn't is when they had space to work. Distance between them and the targets, and a few rounds to get their defenses up.

My players didn't practice the scry/teleport/nova paradigm.

Banshee

 

[Hussar]

Does Twist of Space teleport the targets? If so, you can't teleport into mid-air in 4E, can you? Haven't looked at the rules in a log time, but I thought you had to teleport to a stable surface.

Interesting question, so I looked it up:

Destination Space: The destination of the teleportation must be an unoccupied space that is at least the same size as the target. For instance, a Large creature cannot be teleported into a space that is only 1 square wide.
If arriving in the destination space would cause the target to fall or if that space is hindering terrain, the target can immediately make a saving throw. On a save, the teleportation is negated. Otherwise, the target arrives in the destination space.
If a prone creature teleports, it arrives in the destination space still prone.

So, the tactic would be valid, although you'd need to roll saving throws same as if you try to push a target into damaging situations.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yeah, I think you assume too much about how the game is SUPPOSED to be played by DMs and players as opposed to how it really should be handled by intelligent or outnumbering foes.

As one example:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/living-eberron/311263-adventure-rhapsody-part-2-judge-renau1g-9.html

This was an N+3 encounter. The Warden got bloodied, but the Wizard and the Invoker got knocked unconscious once each. The animal companion (who are significantly lower in hit points than PCs) got killed 3 times. The Warden tried to keep foes away from the other PCs as did the Shaman|Druid with summoned and conjured creatures, but the problem comes in when Wizards and other squishy PCs just don't have room to run away, or to get a cover bonus, and/or one or more foes concentrate on them.


Sure, in small rooms with an equal number of foes max, a Defender can often hold off enough foes so that the other PCs can handle the rest. And, Defenders also tend to have powers to bring some foes to them or to penalize a foe for attacking someone else other than the Defender. Defenders work especially well against solos.

But, the concept that there is balance here between the classes only works if the DM is willing to play his NPCs in a certain (rather stupid metagaming) ways, both in NPC decision making and in dungeon design. A reasonably intelligent NPC with a melee attack should rarely try to go toe to toe with a heavily armored PC. Does it make sense to do so? But I sometimes see some DMs have even mobile NPCs go up and do just that encounter after encounter.

In 4E since they changed the charge rules, it makes sense for most semi-intelligent melee NPCs (and even ranged NPCs) to ignore anyone who looks hard to take out, move around them and charge/focus on the PCs that look easiest to take out. Dumb NPCs? Sure. They should often target the closest PC.

Extremely intelligent NPCs should shout directions out to allies to attack certain dangerous and/or lightly armored PCs (which if you go read the attached link, that is what my leader type NPCs do a lot). As an example, once a PC heals other PCs, that PC should become a prime target candidate. If a PC (really, not just minorly) locks down a few NPCs, that PC should become a prime target candidate. If a PC starts doing a lot of damage, that PC should become a prime target candidate. But until the NPCs can tell which PCs are doing what, they should focus on the softest looking PCs. I cannot think of many reasons that a Defender PC should become a prime target, but I can think of a lot of ways for many NPCs to get around Defenders.


And, my analysis above only took into account damage. Another major problem with low defenses for squishy PCs is the rider effects that can occur with a hit. The first level Wizard getting hit 60% of the time compared to the Fighter at 35% of the time means that the Wizard has a higher chance of getting some effect on him. The concept that Wizards shouldn't use defensive feats and should be more cannon and less glass won't work in a game where the DM challenges all of his players.

So yes, there is nothing wrong with having squishy PCs as long as the squishy PCs get over compensated such that they are taking out (either with damage or nearly total control) more NPCs than the non-squishy PCs. I just don't see that with 4E Wizards unless that Wizard uses a Daily attack power and they only get at most 2 of those per day until level 10. Dazing or slowing or knocking down or even moving an NPC around usually just doesn't cut it with respect to power and/or versatility in comparison to how defensively weak Wizards are designed to be.

No, I'm not assuming how the game is supposed to be played. I'm working off of experience, having played with two no-holds-barred, tactical 4e DMs, and having DM'd it myself.

In our games monsters never take the defender as their preferred target. One creature will go after him, to try to keep him occupied, while the rest will concentrate their attacks on the squishies. However, that doesn't tend to work out for them because the defender will typically use abilities that allow him to grab the attention of at least 2, and sometimes more, creatures.

Dog piling on the wizard every encounter, however, isn't smart play; it's plain meta-gaming sadism. You dog pile on any one character, even the fighter, every encounter and I can guarantee that the guy will die sooner than later.

On the other hand, if one or two creatures decide to go after the wizard, the defender ought to be able to handle that. That's what things like CAGI, Threatening Rush, and numerous other defender powers are designed to do. They force a creature to attack the defender by making it tactically inadvisable to do otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I recommend provoking fighter's marks. It makes combat more exciting for everyone involved. But the penalties also tend to make is so that the creature doesn't last long enough to take the squishies down.

It's not like the wizard can't take a hit or two. According to you it's more like four and a half. Healing can extend that further. Other party members, even non-defenders, can interject on his behalf, immobilizing his foes or penalizing their attacks. Wizards also have a number of spells that allow them to push an enemy away or immobilize them. They have utility spells like shield and dimension door to manage spurts of attention. A wizard should be able to handle himself, he just can't tank the encounter. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also, regarding your example, a level + 3 encounter is intended to be hard! That's like complaining that the PCs had a hard time with a CR +4 encounter in 3e. If you don't like that level of challenge play encounters closer to your level and the problem is solved.

 

[Hussar]

Fanaelialae - to be fair, an Level +3 Encounter in 4e isn't actually the same as a EL+4 encounter in 3e. The monsters don't scale that quickly. +3 levels is what, +1 to defenses, +3 to hit and +1 damage and (roughly) about 30 more HP/critter. That's a whole lot less than what you get in an EL +4 encounter where you basically can triple the number of base monsters you use.

But, OTOH, I do agree with the rest of what you said. If you completely ignore the heavily armored guys and focus on the wizard, then no wonder the defenders are having a field day. Hrm, I'm granting bonus attacks to the defenders for ignoring them (and granting +2 defense bonuses to the guy I'm attacking), allowing the defenders to flank up quite easily and not tying the defenders down with any status effects.

Or, to put it another way, stunning the wizard five times is one heck of a lot less effective than doing less damage to each, but stunning 3 PC's.