D&D 5E 5e fireballs

[KarinsDad]

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.

I didn't say dog piling on the wizard. That's your spin on what I said.

I said to avoid the heavily armored PCs for the lightly armored ones. Once the NPCs know that some PCs are being productive (healing, strong control, or high damage), then the focus of attacks should be on the productive PC(s).

And note: I also said semi-intelligent NPCs, not every encounter.

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.

Interestingly enough, CAGI is 7th level. The PCs have to survive to get to that level (assuming the PCs start at level 1). Threatening Rush does mark multiple foes (at a lesser damage rate), but something that most DMs forget is that it's only the first NPC that might take damage when going off to attack other PCs. He shifts away, gets hit or not, and charges another lesser armored PC.

The rest of the marked NPCs can then shift away on their turns and charge different PCs, typically without retaliation from the Fighter. -2 mark, +1 charge, meh. An overall -1 to each attack is vastly preferable to attacking the high AC of the Fighter and at the same time, the Fighter typically hasn't done much more damage as if he had just attacked with a different At Will power.

Win win for the monsters.

Oh, the first NPC is bloodied? Then he delays instead so that a non-bloodied NPC can take the potential hit. Until a combat is nearing the end, this simple tactic works just fine most of the time. Course, the Fighter player doesn't have to use Combat Challenge on the first NPC that shifts away. Then again, there is no guarantee that saving CC will actually allow it to be used either.

Fighters are not nearly as sticky as many DMs make them out to be.

They force a creature to attack the defender by making it tactically inadvisable to do otherwise.

Force?

Actually, they don't. This control is mostly illusory and smart DMs know it. The designers thought that this is how it would work and it does work this way if the DM buys into the fallacy, but it's not actually true in fact if the DM plays his intelligent monsters intelligently.

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.

This is pretty much false, especially for powers like Threatening Rush. The NPCs actually average a lot more damage by attacking lower AC PCs at -2 to hit or charging lower AC PCs at -1 to hit than they are having multiple NPCs wasting attacks against a Fighter's higher AC.

It's not like the wizard can't take a hit or two. According to you it's more like four and a half.

4.2 attacks, not 4.5 hits. It's 2 to 3 successful hits and 2 hits if the DM's damage dice are hot, and that's if the monster is same level with only one attack per round. Having multiple monsters or even one monster with multiple attacks can easily take out a first level Wizard in a single round.

At a 60% chance to hit, such a situation will take out a low level Wizard about 20% to 25% of the time.

I've seen it done quite a few times. Granted, Wizard players who do not follow your advice and take feats like Unarmored Agility have a greater chance of single round attack survival.

Healing can extend that further.

Yes it can. Course, healing Wizards wastes a lot of hit points in healing. Both because the Wizard was easier to hit and hence takes more damage overall for the group, and because the Wizard heals less, so the heal is less effective overall for the group.

Again, win win for the monsters (or alternatively, lose lose for the PCs).

One exception to this is when the party is low on healing surges, but the Wizard is not. Then it really doesn't matter if the healing is done on the Wizard (shy of the Comrade's Succor ritual). This can happen, but it's a bit more rare in campaigns where the DM has intelligent foes avoid targeting the heavily armored PCs.

Other party members, even non-defenders, can interject on his behalf, immobilizing his foes or penalizing their attacks.

Possibly. If the Wizard isn't already unconscious or under a serious effect already. By the time other PCs or even Defenders can come to his aid, even a single monster attacking can reek a lot of havoc on a Wizard.

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.

Yes, but again, the things you point out here are due to the fact that the Wizard is practically FORCED to take defensive feats and/or powers (some other classes are not), just to allow himself to manage spurts of attention. By definition.

A Wizard PC cannot really be designed like a Fighter or a Striker only for heavy duty offense (not necessarily damage, but even control), otherwise just a little bit of NPC attention can be fatal. The Wizard is more or less forced to put resources towards defense in some manner or other, or it's just a matter of time.

One can consider this a feat tax or a power tax or both. It's still something that the player of the Wizard is at least forced to contemplate because the power and versatility of the Wizard doesn't compensate for his frailty.

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.

Did I complain once in that description? Nope. I merely was showing an example of the Defender not being able to protect the squishies. It happens a lot in 4E by challenging DMs, regardless of your claims to the contrary. Not just in harder encounters, but in similar level encounters with good monster placement/decisions and/or challenging terrain and other features.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Power scales differently in 3e and 4e.

A +3 encounter in 4e means a significantly larger xp budget, meaning that the PCs may very well be outnumbered. I very rarely use higher level creatures in a higher level encounter; using more equal level creatures typically ensures both a greater challenge and more enjoyability. These fights do significantly more damage because there are significantly more sources of damage and the encounter lasts longer because there are more hp on the monsters' side. They're much more difficult for PCs to manage because the PCs tend to be outnumbered and therefore it's harder for them to stay in control. Because it's harder to stay in control, the wizard is in greater danger.

A CR +4 encounter in 3e was, IME, usually against one or two creatures of greater level. It tended to be a fairly quick fight, as either the PCs would manage to burn down the enemy before it could inflict losses, or they died. If the wizard was targeted in this type of encounter he was typically one-shot, unless he had active magical defenses that could save him.

What makes them similar, IMO, is that they're both defined as hard encounters in the DMG. A DM who uses an encounter of that caliber should be prepared for the possibility that one or more PCs might die. They're certainly different, but I'd say that the difficulty is approximately on par.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I didn't say dog piling on the wizard. That's your spin on what I said.

I said to avoid the heavily armored PCs for the lightly armored ones. Once the NPCs know that some PCs are being productive (healing, strong control, or high damage), then the focus of attacks should be on the productive PC(s).

And note: I also said semi-intelligent NPCs, not every encounter.



Interestingly enough, CAGI is 7th level. The PCs have to survive to get to that level (assuming the PCs start at level 1). Threatening Rush does mark multiple foes (at a lesser damage rate), but something that most DMs forget is that it's only the first NPC that might take damage when going off to attack other PCs. He shifts away, gets hit or not, and charges another lesser armored PC.

The rest of the marked NPCs can then shift away on their turns and charge different PCs, typically without retaliation from the Fighter. -2 mark, +1 charge, meh. An overall -1 to each attack is vastly preferable to attacking the high AC of the Fighter and at the same time, the Fighter typically hasn't done much more damage as if he had just attacked with a different At Will power.

Win win for the monsters.

Oh, the first NPC is bloodied? Then he delays instead so that a non-bloodied NPC can take the potential hit. Until a combat is nearing the end, this simple tactic works just fine most of the time. Course, the Fighter player doesn't have to use Combat Challenge on the first NPC that shifts away. Then again, there is no guarantee that saving CC will actually allow it to be used either.

Fighters are not nearly as sticky as many DMs make them out to be.



Force?

Actually, they don't. This control is mostly illusory and smart DMs know it. The designers thought that this is how it would work and it does work this way if the DM buys into the fallacy, but it's not actually true in fact if the DM plays his intelligent monsters intelligently.



This is pretty much false, especially for powers like Threatening Rush. The NPCs actually average a lot more damage by attacking lower AC PCs at -2 to hit or charging lower AC PCs at -1 to hit than they are having multiple NPCs wasting attacks against a Fighter's higher AC.



4.2 attacks, not 4.5 hits. It's 2 to 3 successful hits and 2 hits if the DM's damage dice are hot, and that's if the monster is same level with only one attack per round. Having multiple monsters or even one monster with multiple attacks can easily take out a first level Wizard in a single round.

At a 60% chance to hit, such a situation will take out a low level Wizard about 20% to 25% of the time.

I've seen it done quite a few times. Granted, Wizard players who do not follow your advice and take feats like Unarmored Agility have a greater chance of single round attack survival.



Yes it can. Course, healing Wizards wastes a lot of hit points in healing. Both because the Wizard was easier to hit and hence takes more damage overall for the group, and because the Wizard heals less, so the heal is less effective overall for the group.

Again, win win for the monsters (or alternatively, lose lose for the PCs).

One exception to this is when the party is low on healing surges, but the Wizard is not. Then it really doesn't matter if the healing is done on the Wizard (shy of the Comrade's Succor ritual). This can happen, but it's a bit more rare in campaigns where the DM has intelligent foes avoid targeting the heavily armored PCs.



Possibly. If the Wizard isn't already unconscious or under a serious effect already. By the time other PCs or even Defenders can come to his aid, even a single monster attacking can reek a lot of havoc on a Wizard.



Yes, but again, the things you point out here are due to the fact that the Wizard is practically FORCED to take defensive feats and/or powers (some other classes are not), just to allow himself to manage spurts of attention. By definition.

A Wizard PC cannot really be designed like a Fighter or a Striker only for heavy duty offense (not necessarily damage, but even control), otherwise just a little bit of NPC attention can be fatal. The Wizard is more or less forced to put resources towards defense in some manner or other, or it's just a matter of time.

One can consider this a feat tax or a power tax or both. It's still something that the player of the Wizard is at least forced to contemplate because the power and versatility of the Wizard doesn't compensate for his frailty.



Did I complain once in that description? Nope. I merely was showing an example of the Defender not being able to protect the squishies. It happens a lot in 4E by challenging DMs, regardless of your claims to the contrary. Not just in harder encounters, but in similar level encounters with good monster placement/decisions and/or challenging terrain and other features.

There are plenty of powers that work better than marks. You keep trying to take everything out of context. 4e is less about the individual PC and more about the party. If the DM is focusing on attacking the squishies, then it's everyone's job to take abilities that neutralize his ability to do so.

Shift and charge isn't worth much if the Aegis on the creature makes it hit like a commoner, nor does shift and charge work if you're being grabbed by a brawling fighter. Take lots of abilities that slow and immobilize (and if you slow something, be smart and move outside it's range). Take abilities that penalize enemies more than a mark. Take evasive abilities. Take extra healing. Stand near the fighter in such a way that enemies have a hard time shifting to a place they can charge from.

The simple fact is that if the DM is going to play the meta-gaming arms race game, then the PCs need to do the same if they're going to keep pace, but that's true of any edition. The simple fact is that the players have the upper hand here. As long as you coordinate, you're several minds against one. I prefer to avoid the arms race and don't take this behavior to absurd lengths though. As long as you remember to challenge everyone, I think you're being a good DM.

I've seen it done. It works fine. So what if the Wizard needs a few powers for defense? It would be boring if the fighter always held every creature. It would be even more boring if the fighter didn't need to because everyone else was just as strong as the fighter. And if someone is really having that much trouble, they should be able to get a very competitive AC with a few feats and Staff of Defense. I still don't think you should need it if you have a good party dynamic though.

A greatweapon fighter has his downsides too. When he needs to tank hard (CAGI) he'll have a much harder time staying on his feet than his friend who focused on defense. Someone who doesn't focus on defense will always have a harder time staying on his feet than someone who does; that just makes sense.

As to the N + 3 encounter, my point is that it's a hard encounter. If it ends without someone going unconscious, the PCs got lucky. Show me a typical N + 0 encounter where the squishies are all bleeding on the ground and I might actually agree with you.

 

[KarinsDad]

There are plenty of powers that work better than marks. You keep trying to take everything out of context.

No, I'm just making more sense with my arguments than you are.

4e is less about the individual PC and more about the party. If the DM is focusing on attacking the squishies, then it's everyone's job to take abilities that neutralize his ability to do so.

Sure, the players can change their powers. Course, that doesn't help at the point in time where the squishies are actually getting attacked. It only helps if the PC squishies survive the attacks in order to go off and change their abilities.

Shift and charge isn't worth much if the Aegis on the creature makes it hit like a commoner, nor does shift and charge work if you're being grabbed by a brawling fighter.

Most shielding swordmages decrease the damage, but they don't stop effects from affecting the squishies, nor are most shielding marks affecting more than one NPC at a time. So, have multiple NPCs attack the high AC swordmage at full damage and low chance to hit and put on an effect, or attack the low AC squishy, potentially do less damage to one of them, but increase the chance of doing damage and adding an effect with more of the NPC attacks.

No brainer really.

Most brawling Fighters can only grab one foe at at time, at least at low level. I'm not seeing where your examples here are proving your point. Switching Defender type doesn't really improve your argument much.

Bottom line, Defenders are only truly sticky if the DM allows them to be. Otherwise, they just get some minor benefit or damage, and NPCs are pretty much free to attack whomever they want and increase the NPC overall damage and chance to apply effects.

Sorry, but you are just plain mistaken on this point. Defenders are not very sticky and can rarely force NPCs to attack them.

Take lots of abilities that slow and immobilize (and if you slow something, be smart and move outside it's range). Take abilities that penalize enemies more than a mark. Take evasive abilities. Take extra healing. Stand near the fighter in such a way that enemies have a hard time shifting to a place they can charge from.

Yes, all of these things can (and often are) done. They don't change the fact that the Wizard is pretty much a lame class with limited versatility and power in 4E.

The simple fact is that if the DM is going to play the meta-gaming arms race game, then the PCs need to do the same if they're going to keep pace, but that's true of any edition.

We weren't talking about that. We were merely talking about playing intelligent monsters intelligently. If a DM gets into the arms race, he can easily wipe out any party. I'm just talking about a DM taking an encounter and playing the NPCs smart enough to challenge his PCs. It's not that hard to do.

The simple fact is that the players have the upper hand here. As long as you coordinate, you're several minds against one. I prefer to avoid the arms race and don't take this behavior to absurd lengths though. As long as you remember to challenge everyone, I think you're being a good DM.

Agreed on the second count, but the first one is dependent on how tactically capable the DM is in both creating encounters and running them. The DM has typically seen all of the PC powers, tricks, and tactics, but every encounter should have something a little bit new or unique that the players haven't yet seen. Advantage DM, at least for tactically capable DMs.

I've seen it done. It works fine. So what if the Wizard needs a few powers for defense? It would be boring if the fighter always held every creature. It would be even more boring if the fighter didn't need to because everyone else was just as strong as the fighter. And if someone is really having that much trouble, they should be able to get a very competitive AC with a few feats and Staff of Defense. I still don't think you should need it if you have a good party dynamic though.

Actually, the main problem I have with Wizards is the feat tax. The difference between AC 14 and AC 20 of a Paladin at level one is huge. In earlier editions, Wizards had many other ways (e.g. a small percentage of their spells, scrolls, and more permanent magic items) to handle this issue. 3E Wizards didn't have to use a feat, just to not be wiped out in two rounds except at the very lowest of levels.

As to the N + 3 encounter, my point is that it's a hard encounter. If it ends without someone going unconscious, the PCs got lucky. Show me a typical N + 0 encounter where the squishies are all bleeding on the ground and I might actually agree with you.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/living...er-most-foul-part-2-judge-evolutionkb-16.html

That was easy. And this was before the damage increase by WotC in the January 2011 errata.

Encounter 3: 1150 XP

400 1 Genasi Stormmaster (level 9)
400 2 Eladrin Arcane Archers (level 5)
350 Hazard, Extremely Long Dark Room (level 5)

5 Level 6 PCs. N+0 is 1250 XP.

Two PCs are over 75% damaged in round 2.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5370764-post267.html

Three PCs are bloodied, one at 1 hit point and prone in round 3.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5375381-post279.html

One PC unconscious, one bloodied in round 6.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5389889-post322.html

A different PC unconscious in round 12.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5423179-post371.html


Granted, the players didn't realize that a simple sunrod would have negated a lot of this grief until much later in the encounter, but players sometimes make mistakes. This wasn't even an n+0 encounter, it was before the increased damage system, there were only 3 actual foes against the PCs (2 of them lower level), the PCs are tricked out quite a bit (you see this a lot in Living Eberron, especially since the players pick most of the PC magic items and have access to nearly all feats and powers), and two PCs still went unconscious.

Course, your definition of a typical encounter might be different than mine. For me, a typical encounter at my table is an encounter with cool unusual elements to challenge players, not one that they've seen a bunch of times. In your parlance, that's boring.

 

[Jack99]

Under the current rules, an n+3 encounter is very likely a TPK in the hands of a DM that doesn't pull his punches. Luck or very competent players can of course affect the outcome.


This short message was brought to you by Tapatalk and my iPad

 

[KarinsDad]

Under the current rules, an n+3 encounter is very likely a TPK in the hands of a DM that doesn't pull his punches. Luck or very competent players can of course affect the outcome.

As can Dailies and Action Points.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Do 5e fireballs expand to fill their entire volume if cast in an enclosed space?

 

[Ichneumon]

Do 5e fireballs expand to fill their entire volume if cast in an enclosed space?

Possibly. There's also a chance that each item carried by the PCs has to make a save.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, with the new rules, a single lurker of a little bit higher lever but still actually a lesser challenge than a N+0 encounter can make a PC unconscious. This is what lurkers do. Take out the wizard in 2 hits.

 

[pemerton]

Wizard players who do not follow your advice and take feats like Unarmored Agility have a greater chance of single round attack survival.

<snip>

the Wizard is practically FORCED to take defensive feats and/or powers (some other classes are not), just to allow himself to manage spurts of attention.

As I already mentioned, the wizard PC in my game has made it from 1st to 15th level without taking defensive feats, or defensive powers other than Expeditious Retreat (which he uses to close as often as to retreat) and Wizards's Escape.

Fighters are not nearly as sticky as many DMs make them out to be.

Defenders are only truly sticky if the DM allows them to be.

The fighter in my game is very sticky, especially now that he has pinning challenge. But even without that, he stops movement on an oppy attack, and all the wizard has to do to avoid a charge is stay out of shift+charge distance, which is easy enough with the range of most wizard spells.

the first one is dependent on how tactically capable the DM is in both creating encounters and running them.

A +3 encounter in 4e means a significantly larger xp budget, meaning that the PCs may very well be outnumbered.

<snip>

A DM who uses an encounter of that caliber should be prepared for the possibility that one or more PCs might die.

Under the current rules, an n+3 encounter is very likely a TPK in the hands of a DM that doesn't pull his punches. Luck or very competent players can of course affect the outcome.

I am starting to think that I am a GM who pulls my punches, or who is not tactically capable. Or perhaps my players are very competent (I know from their dice rolls that they're not especially lucky!) But I run plenty of level + 3 encounters (using MM3 damage numbers) - typically in waves, though, or some other dynamic set up - and rarely come close to TPKing.

I get the feeling that there may be a lot of diversity in 4e play.