Any decent wizard encounter 1's?

[kerbarian]

Why are you comparing Force Orb to Winged Horde?

Winged Horde was broken from day one. They shouldn't have allowed it. Period. Complaining that an Encounter multi-target power is about as strong as a broken At Will multi-target power doesn't make sense.

What I'm asking is: Given that Winged Horde is available, which encounter powers are worth taking? For planning a character in a game that allows Winged Horde (like LFR), that seems like a reasonable question to me.

If Winged Horde is sufficiently broken, I suppose you could say the answer is "Don't even bother choosing an encounter power, you'll never use it if you have Winged Horde available," but I don't think the situation is quite that extreme.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I expect the tarrasque to have very high fort (bull rush a tarrasque?) but 32 will is a bit low IMHO

On the other hand, while attacking fort with all your at wills is a poor decision, it is best for you to have powers which also target fort. When there are ranged attackers and fast skirmishers, having a good encounter or a third at will that targets fortitute is definitively a good choice, even if there is only one of those monsters every battle. I would say, havin a daily that attacks fort is even better, but in the wizards case, your encounters are filling then utility space, because your dailies are worth too much. You should however consider having a fort attacking spell in your spellbook, just in case...

Also you should a bit closer on the statistical average defenses... the tarrasque alone lowers average will and increase average fort by a bit... add in some bore brutes and maybe you see that attacks vs fort is not that bad in actual play... (maybe)

So i would recommend an attack that targets fortitude and has an effect that slows or pulls, since that is an effect which hinders attackers that rely on reflex (or will)

 

[Destil]

In general I find the Fort is bad Will is good argument to generally be BS, as it's entirely dependent on the DM. I was trying to be less acidic than that in my comments above. As a DM I make it a point to juggle defenses a lot over the course of games/encounters/campaigns. Since I print everything from campaign tools I just do a quick run-down and slide defenses up/down to make sure things are reasonable (as well as applying the expertise defense slides on my side).

It really comes down to how much attention kerbarian's DM pays to such things.

 

[LightPhoenix]

The Rules Update includes a list of sources that are getting... er... updated in the next update (March 2nd). They mention Dragon as one of the sources, so I fully expect it Winged Horde to be addressed in that update.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In general I find the Fort is bad Will is good argument to generally be BS, as it's entirely dependent on the DM. I was trying to be less acidic than that in my comments above. As a DM I make it a point to juggle defenses a lot over the course of games/encounters/campaigns. Since I print everything from campaign tools I just do a quick run-down and slide defenses up/down to make sure things are reasonable (as well as applying the expertise defense slides on my side).

It really comes down to how much attention kerbarian's DM pays to such things.

I looked through the books and yes, you can see that fort is generally rather high or better said, usually not lower than another defense.

The reason may be that monstrous humanoids need a good fortitude to survive their surroundings. But my opinion is, that players should be able to guess which defense is bad.

In most cases there is following choice, attack brutes with will attacks, soldiers with reflex attacks.

For controllers usually reflex is also the weakest defense and skirmishers often lack will too. fortitute is often not lower than one of the other defenses. This usually derives from a decent constitution score. So maybe wizards should create more monsters which are a bit more fragile. Some controllers or skirmishers could live with somewhat lower constition.

A lower constitution would also have a nice sidefeect in reducing the monsters hp a little bit.

 

[KarinsDad]

While this is a good explanation for why Fort saves are higher than Will saves on published monsters, I don't consider it a reasonable justification. There's no reason monsters should have ability scores modifying their defenses. Just make the non-AC defenses average 12+level, with some higher and some lower as seems appropriate.

This is a semi-reasonable thing to do. But, it is not the guideline.

If people actually follow the guideline, even when crafting their own monsters, there will be a propensity in most home brewed monsters to have higher Forts. It's the way the game is designed.


Granted, the Monster Builder does not follow the guideline. It has it's own new rules.

Creating a Tarrasque with it results in:

AC:42 Fort:43 Reflex: 42 Will: 41

In fact, every role ends up with these same scores except for AC. There, Artillery and Brute have AC 42, Soldier has AC 46 and everything else has AC 44. Boring.

But by default, Fort is higher with the Monster Builder, just like it is for published monsters.

And their new rule here appears to be (except for 3 roles) Fort = AC -1, Reflex = AC -2, and Will = AC -3 (which is a simplification and similar to Fort = AC -1.39, Reflex = AC -2.75, and Will = AC -3.31 average of the MM).

Ability scores modifying monster defenses is why there are monsters like the Tarrasque with 32 Will and 49 Fortitude. Not fun!

The difference between Str and Wis for a Tarrasque is 12, not 17. This is just an error. The defenses for a Tarrasque should have been:

Solo: Boost AC, Reflex, and Will by 2.

AC: Level 30 + 12 + 2 = 44 (MM 43)
Fort: Level 30 + 12 + Str (42-22) +10 = 52 (MM 49)
Reflex: Level 30 + 12 + Dex (26-22) +2 + 2 = 46 (MM 38)
Will: Level 30 + 12 + Wis (18-22) -2 + 2 = 42 (MM 32)

The difference should have been 10, not 17. Still a big chunk of a D20, but not quite as bad as it was printed. And I would have a lot less of a problem with a 52 Fort than with a 32 Will. Throw poison at this engine of death all day long and it does nothing.


Note: The DMG guideline should have been the average of the best Str/Con, Dex/Int, and Wis/Cha (i.e. the average scores used to determine defenses, not the overall average of all scores, those other scores are irrelevant to defense). Otherwise, the numbers climb too much for low stat extremes like a Tarrasque. Using this interpretation, the Tarrasque would have been AC: 44, Fort: 49, Reflex: 43 and Will: 39.


Look at the Godforged Colossus:

Elite: Boost AC, Fort (best defense for Elites), and Reflex by 2.

AC: Level 29 + 12 + 2 = 43 (MM 43)
Fort: Level 29 + 12 + Str (40-25) +7 + 2 = 47 (MM 48)
Reflex: Level 29 + 12 + Dex (21-25) -2 + 2 = 41 (MM 40)
Will: Level 29 + 12 + Wis (34-25) +4 = 45 (MM 45)

The numbers are reasonable using the DMG guideline (AC: 44, Fort: 44, Reflex: 40 and Will: 42 with what the DMG should have been). The numbers are less reasonable for a Tarrasque since it has so many really low stats to bring down the average.


But, I do think that a huge stupid brute Tarrasque should be a lot more susceptible to Will attacks than Fort Attacks. Not necessarily by 17, but easily by 8 or so.


And I think the default AC:44 Fort:43 Reflex: 42 Will: 41 from the Monster Builder is just plain boring and too similar, shy of DM intervention. Yawn. Faster monsters should have higher Reflex, tougher monsters should have higher Fort, and higher strength of will monsters should have higher Will. And the DM shouldn't have to tweak this in the Monster Builder to get a reasonable result. IMO.

 

[kerbarian]

The Rules Update includes a list of sources that are getting... er... updated in the next update (March 2nd). They mention Dragon as one of the sources, so I fully expect it Winged Horde to be addressed in that update.

Yeah, I'm curious if it will get nerfed or not. There were cries of it being broken immediately after the Dragon article came out -- I'm sure the folks at WotC were equally capable of realizing its power. Since then, they've had two chances to revise it: the compiled version of Dragon 381 and the December rules update (which did update Dragon).

So it was no mistake that they released a major upgrade for wizard at-wills, and a lot of people seemed to think that scorching burst needed an upgrade. Now it's just a question of whether, after a few months of feedback, they decide they've gone too far.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i am not sure you know what average means... monsters also use paired attributes...

if con is very high but strength extremely low, the monster still has high constitution. You just compare the average constitution of a monster of a certain role with the monster in question and increase or decrease accordingly.

the tarrasque suffers from a matched pair of very low stats. Wis and charisma.

 

[KarinsDad]

So it was no mistake that they released a major upgrade for wizard at-wills, and a lot of people seemed to think that scorching burst needed an upgrade. Now it's just a question of whether, after a few months of feedback, they decide they've gone too far.

I don't see where Scorching Burst needed a serious upgrade. Nearly every At Will first level area Controller power is on par with it. The only issue for Scorching Burst is that it has no control. They could have fixed that by putting a very minor control aspect on it.


Fort; each creature; Grasping Tide; 1d6+Wis; if creature leaves burst, hit to knock prone
Will; each enemy; Call of the Beast; 5+Wis creature decides; no combat advantage and damage if attack other
Fort; each creature; Chill Wind; 1d6; slide target 1 square
Fort; each creature; wis; Grasping Shards; target slowed
Refl: each creature; 1d6+Wis; Vanguard's Lightning; opportunity takes int damage
Fort; each enemy; Chilling Cloud; int; -2 to attack rolls

Refl: each creature; 1d6+int; Scorching Burst

When compared to Scorching Burst:

Grasping Tide, less chance to hit, opponent has control over control
Call of the Beast, avoids allies, less chance to hit, slight protection, opponent controls damage
Chill Wind, less damage, very slight control
Grasping Shards, less damage, very slight control
Vanguard's Lightning, potentially more damage
Chilling Cloud, avoids allies, less damage, slight protection


With the exception of Vanguard's Lightning, all of these powers are basically on par with Scorching Burst and Vanguard's Lightning is only slightly better. If WotC boosts Scorching Burst to Winged Horde, they should also boost the rest of these powers.


On the other hand, Winged Horde is better compared to all of these Controller powers:

Will; each enemy; Winged Horde; 1d6+int; no opportunity attacks

Winged Horde, best chance to hit, avoids allies, same damage, slight protection

 

[KarinsDad]

i am not sure you know what average means... monsters also use paired attributes...

I am not sure you read the DMG. It doesn't state which average they are discussing.

A given defense based on an average ability score is equal to 12 + the monster’s level. For every 2 points the ability score varies from the average, adjust the defense by +1 (if higher) or –1 (if lower).

You just compare the average constitution of a monster of a certain role with the monster in question and increase or decrease accordingly.

Uh huh. Where exactly does one find "the average constitution of a monster of a certain role"?

You made this up, right?



What might the average be? The DMG does not state.

It could be:

Str 42 | Con 36, average = 39, +1

Dex 26 | Int 3, average = 14.5, +5

Wis 18 | Cha 7, average = 12.5, +2

resulting in:

AC: Level 30 + 12 + 2 = 44 (MM 43)
Fort: Level 30 + 12 + Str (42-39) +1 = 43 (MM 49)
Reflex: Level 30 + 12 + Dex (26-14.5) +5 + 2 = 49 (MM 38)
Will: Level 30 + 12 + Wis (18-12.5) +2 + 2 = 46 (MM 32)

But this doesn't make any sense. It does the opposite of the intent.


The only thing that makes sense is either:

1) Take the sum of all of the ability scores for the monster, divide by 6 to get the average ability score.

or

2) Take the highest of each defense pair, sum them, divide by 3 to get the average ability score used to calculate a defense.

#2 makes more sense because it determines the current defense on the average defenses for that particular monster, but it looks like they used #1 in some cases in the MM.