Any decent wizard encounter 1's?


only have MM data that kerbarian compiled, but:

Fortitude - AC: -1.39
Reflex - AC: -2.75
Will - AC: -3.31

AC is about 1.39 higher than Fort. And Will is about 0.56 lower than Reflex and 1.92 lower than Fort (on average). Will attacks rule (AC second, Reflex third, and Fort comes in dead last).

I suspect that MM2 has similar numbers due to the fact that most monsters have decent Str/Con (in order to do melee or to survive attacks), a lesser number have decent Dex/Int (to do ranged), and even fewer have decent Wis/Cha. That's just how it works out.

No. They pretty much fixed it in MM2 (though it's even worse than MM1 in WotC adventures, so I hear).

log in or register to remove this ad

Aust Diamondew

First Post
Actually, a lot of low level monsters in the first monster manual have lower fortitude than reflex, such as many kobolds, goblins and elves (three groups of monsters I run into a lot).

So for a level 1 power, targeting fortitude can be to ones advantages (the power can be retrained when fort starts scaling higher). One can't look at the average defenses of monsters over the course of 30 levels to adequately judge what defenses are most likely easiest to hit at a given level.

It's d6 behind WH and has a better added effect. If being d6 behind means it is doing "diddly" then WH is only 3.5 damage more than "diddly". That doesn't even make sense.

Having a damage die to roll is a big deal. Without one you can't get much in the way of damage bonuses. 3.5 extra DPR is not all that trivial either. Especially when you're talking DPR 5 say vs DPR 8.5. I don't think that WH has a better effect either. That's a matter of opinion. They both have effects that in many cases will be marginal and could come in quite handy at different times. WH is the better spell.

Plus quarry and any weapon bonuses, crit bonuses. And the W can be d12, or brutal or whatever.

Except at d12 you're now comparing a power plus a feat to another power. I can increase damage from WH with feats too. Quarry is an added class feature of the ranger. He's a striker, his damage SHOULD be higher. DB also can get bonuses from the implement you use just like TS can get them from a weapon. You're stacking stuff on one and ignoring it for others and trying to compare a striker to a controller. DB is overpowered for a controller at-will if you ask me.

What about wizards makes it so they should have worse at wills than invokers? Do they have a daily at level 1 that is so good that the other 95% of the time they should be completely overshadowed by the invoker? Not that they do.

Ummmm, you haven't run a wizard have you? Flaming Sphere is practically a guaranteed encounter destroying power in a LOT of encounters. It can and will rack up loads of damage. It is ONLY the best daily at level 1 in the game, hands down. Go to 5th level. Stinking Cloud is again the best daily at its level in the game, hands down. Yeah, wizards are REALLY gimped. Sorry, not if you know how to play them. It is certainly a harder class to play well than the "easy mode" Invoker, but if you know how to do it the wizard rocks hard. I don't think WH is radically OP, but it is definitely breaking the power curve for wizards.

You know, you can even have an enemy flanked, drop a burst beside it and still not have any allies in the burst, right? You have to be seriously cluttered with allies in order to not be able to place burst 1s effectively. "Enemy only" is very nice to have and something that wizards are missing out on compared to other classes, but it doesn't put the power over the top.

Sure, sometimes you can. Lots of times you cannot. More to the point though its VERY common to have a choice of dropping an "all creatures" and only being able to hit 1 target vs an "enemies only" where you can hit 2-3 targets. That's the critical difference. I'll take a 25% damage reduction so I can hit 2 instead of 1 as a no-brainer. If that happens HALF the time then the enemies only spell was worth it. And as I said, you can always take say Scorching Burst as well for the other situation and have the best of both worlds.

WH really should be trimmed back a bit. It overshadows ALL other wizard at-wills and wizards really do not desperately need better at-wills. Wizards can trivially pump up their at-will powers a good bit with a single feat and with 2-3 feats they can make them a LOT more potent. Invokers at heroic can't do nearly as much in that direction. I still say you really cannot legitimately compare at-wills between classes, it just doesn't make sense. The whole concept of saying WH is not OP because DB is better (which is itself a marginal call) fails to understand that the at-wills of the two classes have different balance points.

Yes, it only gets problematic if you have powers everyone can take. Then you need to balance them with the worst class´s at wills. But since WotC decided against such powers... with good reason there is no need.

For the record, Invokers don't get Expand Spell. A 5*5 enemy only at will that does d6+Int-2 damage is scary enough on its own without the control effect. Then you start playing games with White Lotus feats (which don't look as powerful as Domain feats until you realise 1: They stack and 2: they affect all your At Wills).


Being able to put all the damage on a single target is a big deal. It helps action economy, as you mentioned (which alone is quite important), killing off monsters early lets the players shape the battlefield (more room to maneuver, gets rid of pesky controllers/artillery, etc.), and the damage can always be applied at full efficiency, even when there's only one target in an area.


Hand of Radiance can compete well with Twin Strike for overall damage, but I'd still consider Twin Strike the clearly stronger power. Of course, "weaker than Twin Strike" isn't saying much :).

Actually as I illustrated with 3 feat Twin Strike being about equal (slightly higher due to 2 strong possible crits vs. 3 weaker possible crits) to 0 feat Hand of Radiance for overall damage, I'd say that Twin Strike cannot quite compete with Hand of Radiance for overall damage. With a 50% hit chance, Hand of Radiance without feats does 9.975 dpr and Twin Strike without feats does 8.575 dpr and every time one adds a +1 bonus damage to Hand of Radiance and to Twin Strike, Hand of Radiance gains more.

I'd still consider Twin Strike better overall due to action economy, but one cannot shrug off the fact that a Controller At Will that is guaranteed to be able to target 3 foes per round if 3 foes are within range, averages more damage per round than the best Striker At Will (that is until late in the encounter when there might not be 3 foes remaining).

Nobody cared about Scorching Burst because a Wizard was lucky to target 3 foes once per encounter and two foes twice per encounter. Usually a Wizard got 4 foes max out of 2 rounds unless his party is real good at moving foes around so that they are all on one side of an encounter. But to be able to target 3 foes most rounds without any party assistance per encounter is potent.

Remove ads


Remove ads

Upcoming Releases