Arcanist playtest

[ForeverSlayer]

Because that decision is not influenced by the presence of the sphere. The damage has already been delivered. Staying or moving away will result in exactly the same amount of damage.

Remember that the sphere is mobile and it only costs a move action to follow the enemy. Basically, with start-of-turn damage, it's ongoing damage that you can't save against.

That's what's wrong with start-of-turn damage. It's a good blaster effect, but a bad controller effect.

Ummmm no. Start of the turn is a lot better at control because you actually get best of both worlds. Also with end of turn effects you are just drawing out combat. It's nice to set up those combos but you are only delaying the combat, wasting resources, and taking the chance of getting killed more.

Let's take Flaming Sphere for example. If you keep the end of turn effect and you move the sphere close to say three enemies. At the beginning of their turn all they need to do is take a 5-foot step and do what they need to do. If it remains beginning of their turn they take damage right off the bat, those that don't have enough HP are dead, the others are hurt and then they can decide to take that 5 footer.

I don't think some people have seemed to grasp the concept on Controller. Dragging out battles in order to actually make use of your abilities is not control I'm afraid. I've been playing Wizards since day one so I do know a little bit about them.

 

[Oldtimer]

Ummmm no. Start of the turn is a lot better at control because you actually get best of both worlds.

Ummmm no. You only get damage. No control.

Let's take Flaming Sphere for example. If you keep the end of turn effect and you move the sphere close to say three enemies. At the beginning of their turn all they need to do is take a 5-foot step and do what they need to do. If it remains beginning of their turn they take damage right off the bat, those that don't have enough HP are dead, the others are hurt and then they can decide to take that 5 footer.

But what if they can't take those 5-foot steps? What if they can't do what they need to do from their new positions? Just moving your sphere in a random way won't give you much control. You want to force the enemy into positions less favourable for them.

I don't think some people have seemed to grasp the concept on Controller. Dragging out battles in order to actually make use of your abilities is not control I'm afraid. I've been playing Wizards since day one so I do know a little bit about them.

Good for you. But please don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[mneme]

Ummmm no. You only get damage. No control.

NO. Damage at EOT means the -monster- gets control. Your control is greater with BOT damage.

BOT damage is greater control than EOT damage -- because BOT damage first hits the monster (making the next turn's BOT damage matter -more-) then presents the monster with the threat of even more damage next turn. Sure; that threat is hard to avoid. But it's not gaurunteed; if I've got too much to do, I might very well not have a move action to move the sphere (particularly if a monster is in my face).

Lets look at the basics for a moment:

1. Dead is the best control. This isn't hyperbole -- it's the core of why "move or I'll smack you" is control at all. So you need this as a foundation or you might as well argue that fire wizards (and other damage-based types) don't work at all.

2. The monster always (within reason) does what is best for it. And if it doesn't, that ok, because what's bad for it is good for the party.

3. To be effective control, the damage on damage based control must be better for the party than the control. This is a natural result of #2 -- without this, the monster will always choose the damage, and no control will result.

4. 3+2 = It is better if the monster takes the damage. If the monster is expected to choose the control, and it always chooses what is best for it, it is better for the -party- if it takes the damage. It's ok if it takes the control; that's really what the effect is intended to do, but if it always takes the damage, that's actually better.

5. Therefore, old Flaming Sphere is simply a more powerful spell than new FS. It does more damage, the damage matters more, and it exerts more control, as the future damage matters more and the damage is, itself control.

This doesn't mean, btw, that new FS is a worse spell for the -game- than old FS. Just less powerful, and even a less powerful controller effect. The thing about damage-based wizards is that as above, they need to have the "I'll just take the damage" option be the -worse- option. This means that, all things being equal, sucking up a wizard's punishment damage should be worse than sitting there and sucking up a striker's damage -- the striker has unconditional damage; the wizard has conditional damage that might be, for instance, trying to convince the monsters not to mob the striker.

So if you build a damage specced wizard, she should (if monsters completely ignore her as a controller) do more damage than a damage specced rogue. This doesn't happen, but that's not important now; what's important is that in order for this to be the case, her damage needs to be -actually- conditional on monsters ignoring her control (or on clever player plans ignoring multiple characters working in concert, but that just means the monsters need to ignore -someone-'s control). Otherwise, she can be a better-striker-than-a-striker all the time, and a controller when she absoluteley has to.

The problem with Flaming Sphere is that as a controller effect, it was much closer to a striker ability with a control rider. This means that either it was doing too much damage (full controllery damage where the monsters desperately were trying to avoid it, but getting smacked anyway) or too little (other spells might have been like this, but not IMO Flaming Sphere, because it gets full bonuses to damage rolls). So it was just sitting in the wrong place in the design continuum.

But it certainly wasn't being worse control than the playtest FS. It was being better control -- but also too powerful as a striker ability.

 

[Moorcrys]

Since when did the Wizard's daily powers need balancing? It seems to me that the only time anyone talks about inbalance is when the designers change something and people try and justify those changes. There were no balance issues with daily powers.

Meh. I have seen players challenged/mocked in LFR for NOT choosing flaming sphere or stinking cloud. Including myself. I agree with wizards design philosophy... if it's a no brainer for its level, it's probably overpowered.

Just because people aren't gnashing teeth and screaming at the top of their lungs about it all the time doesn't mean it's balanced.

 

[Oldtimer]

NO. Damage at EOT means the -monster- gets control. Your control is greater with BOT damage.

BOT damage is greater control than EOT damage -- because BOT damage first hits the monster (making the next turn's BOT damage matter -more-) then presents the monster with the threat of even more damage next turn. Sure; that threat is hard to avoid. But it's not gaurunteed; if I've got too much to do, I might very well not have a move action to move the sphere (particularly if a monster is in my face).

This is the same discussion I had last year in my original thread. I still don't understand it.

Maybe we just have a different definition of control. I don't consider damage to be control. Sure, a dead monster is very controlled, but control for me is managing how it spends its time before it dies.

Start-of-turn damage first wounds the monster and then presents a very weak threat. There is very little the monster can do to mitigate that threat. You say that the wizard might not have a move action to use on his turn - but that is not something the monster can control. How the monster spends his turn does not affect future damage to any great extent.

End-of-turn damage, on the other hand, presents a very clear choice for the monster - leave or take damage. There is nothing vague about that choice.

So I really don't understand your reasoning that start-of-turn damage gives more control to the wizard. End-of-turn damage doesn't give the monster control. It gives the monster a choice. It's not forced movement, but it's encouraged movement. With start-of-turn damage there is very little encouragement to move. It's just damage.

 

[Raikun]

Oldtimer is exactly right here.

With Beginning of Turn, monsters have little reason to feel the need to move...the Sphere can just follow them around and keep damaging them no matter if they move or not. Thus, monsters are usually better off just positioning themselves how they want to do what they can while taking the unavoidable damage.

With End of Turn, the monsters have a vastly increased benefit to moving, thus making it actually a Controller-ish spell.

 

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

Meh. I have seen players challenged/mocked in LFR for NOT choosing flaming sphere or stinking cloud. Including myself. I agree with wizards design philosophy... if it's a no brainer for its level, it's probably overpowered.

Just because people aren't gnashing teeth and screaming at the top of their lungs about it all the time doesn't mean it's balanced.

I've yet to fully analyze the material, but a few powers that were nerfed are the ones that were pretty much "auto-takes," as cited on the optimization boards, and it's pretty boring when a power is an "auto-take," imo- I myself like having to make decisions when character building, especially for powers. And not "Yay, it's my turn to gain Flaming Sphere the Class Feature." Sometimes I make characters just for fun, and even then, it's still hard not to take the powers that significantly outdo the others. Thus, I'm happy about the change to Flaming Sphere and Prismatic Beams. I am curious to see if Flaming Sphere will be more controler-y as a result, and that will be an added change for the better as well.
I don't really know why they nerfed Cloud of Daggers though. i don't think I've ever seen anyone take that power. Again, even when I make characters for fun, I don't think I've ever taken that power still, even then.
I was hoping to see some sort of Buff for Wand of Accuracy (albeit, I also agree with the idea that there needs to be some better magical wands, in general). The whole WoA uses Dexterity kind of bothers me, I mean, there isn't much of a point for most wizards to invest in Intelligence and Dexterity other than for WoA itself, and that steems to be a steep price to pay in doing so.
All that said, I still wish they'd buff some powers that are rarely taken by any kind of build.

 

[Balesir]

Damage at EOT means the -monster- gets control. Your control is greater with BOT damage.

Rubbish. Especially if, as you darned well ought to be with 4E, you are acting as a coordinated party instead of some bunch of prima donna solo assassins. What the monster should get "control" over is whether to get the heck out of your zone (preferably taking OA and/or CS strikes en route) or get hit. On that last score I do agree with one of your points - but the answer isn't 'start-of-turn-in-zone' damage, either way.

BOT damage is greater control than EOT damage -- because BOT damage first hits the monster (making the next turn's BOT damage matter -more-) then presents the monster with the threat of even more damage next turn. Sure; that threat is hard to avoid. But it's not gaurunteed; if I've got too much to do, I might very well not have a move action to move the sphere (particularly if a monster is in my face).

So, the monster is expected to spend a move action on the off-chance you won't have one next turn? I know some monsters are pretty dumb, but not all of them are this stupid.

The original flaming sphere is a nice power, but it does damage, and that's all it does.

1. Dead is the best control. This isn't hyperbole -- it's the core of why "move or I'll smack you" is control at all. So you need this as a foundation or you might as well argue that fire wizards (and other damage-based types) don't work at all.

Yawn, yes I have heard this all ways to Christmas. And it's true within its own bounds, of course - most especially if you are acting as a lone operator against the monsters. But well coordinated parties in 4E should be greater than the sum of their parts. The Wizard should be working with Strikers and Defenders to give monsters in zones some really killer (literally) choices. Lone guns will always work on a basic level; one of the real joys of 4E, though, is rising above that through party synergies.

2. The monster always (within reason) does what is best for it. And if it doesn't, that ok, because what's bad for it is good for the party.

Or should be - and this is where I think you have a point...

3. To be effective control, the damage on damage based control must be better for the party than the control. This is a natural result of #2 -- without this, the monster will always choose the damage, and no control will result.

Right - absolutely. Which is why the effects that are moved to the end-of-turn-in-zone should be boosted, either with more damage or, preferably, with statuses.

Flaming sphere zone damage, for example, could be ongoing. This not only works well in a fluff sense - if you just stand next to a ball of fire you catch fire - but it also gives a more serious incentive to move away, even if doing so will get you belted by a defender you are adjacent to.

5. Therefore, old Flaming Sphere is simply a more powerful spell than new FS. It does more damage, the damage matters more, and it exerts more control, as the future damage matters more and the damage is, itself control.

The old Flaming Sphere does more damage, but almost no control. The playtest version almost manages control, but really needs a harsher penalty for ignoring it.

And, as a final comment on the suggestion that zones should be ally-friendly: heavens, no! Allies have the option to move away, too, and if they are careless enough to get shoved into a zone they just need to look out more

 

[Riastlin]

Forced and/or Encouraged movement are good forms of control. My runepriest for example, loves it when the mage moves the monsters so that the fit into his Burst and Blast 3 zones (which they otherwise wouldn't).

The old flaming sphere though didn't really encourage monsters to move. Sure, they took damage, but the vast majority of the time they'd take the damage anyway because the sphere just follows them around.

Sure, dead is indeed the best control state. But then, we don't call rangers controllers do we?

 

[Aegeri]

Good riddance to Destructive Salutation. I do not regret that power getting nerfed into the ground one bit.