Arcanist playtest

[ForeverSlayer]

What you're really saying is "it was stronger before, so the PCs will suffer for it being weaker now." This may be true, but that's totally independent of whether it is control or not. Also, damage/death is not control. To say that it is is silly. You can argue it is BETTER than control, but that itself is not clear. If I as a controller reshape the battlefield such that my side wins and wins more easily than some striker that might theoretically be in my place then obviously my control was superior. This IME is often the case. Time and time again I've seen wizards drive the enemy out of an otherwise unassailable position, delay the arrival of a monster in an effective combat position by multiple rounds, etc. Not to even mention things like just tossing a BBEG off a bridge into a bottomless pit with Spectral Ram (yeah, flying BBEG, so what, it was knocked prone...). It may SEEM like damage is the best thing there is in the whole world, but quite often you'd just rather force the enemy to be HERE instead of THERE.

Here is the problem. You talk about death isn't control but it actually is. Death is dealt in different ways but it's all done with damage. What you are saying is that essentially the Wizard needs to do more controlling at the expense of anything else. "Sure I could have killed that goblin over there, but I fulfilled my role better by shuffling him around the board some and enabled him to be killed next round by the rogue".

I'm sorry but it's more about defeating the enemy than fulfilling the role. No teamwork is lost with the original Wizard and he does his controller job just fine.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You guys have it backwards. BOT damage from FS is neigh unavoidable. I've DMed 4e for its full run and run plenty of games. In no case have I yet seen the monsters avoid FS except a couple situations where the spell really shouldn't have been used.

And the only exceptions I can think of are special cases - when my wizard wanted to secure a 5 foot corridor against overwhelming odds and was already using his storm pillar, his illusionary storm pillar, and his spirit companion to block corridors against what should be overwhelming odds. The "Where were the reinforcements planning to come from?" approach.

With EOT damage I'm likely to ACTUALLY think about moving. Unless that thought enters my head there's no control involved, just damage.

Absolutely with the sole exception of spreading out so the FS can only pick one target. But it's mostly "Run and the sphere catches you. Jackpot damage."

 

[BobTheNob]

Changes sound good to me.

Especially the Bloodmage. Take that you encounter smashing, ill-considered paragon path!

 

[Neverfate]

I think the community and WotC will just have differing ideas on what "control" is and what a Controller is. The community largely believes that control is spreading damage and increasing damage and that a Pyromancer is always going to be a better controller than the Enchanter. WotC believes that damage should be relegated to Strikers. And that their version of control remains on Controllers instead of Clerics. Personally I find both parties responsible. WotC for not giving more options to complete challenges and for the community for never thinking outside the damage box that WotC gift wrapped them in.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem, however, is that it does constitute a nerf to powers that didn't need it.

Other than the daggers (which used to be a good power - highest single target damage wizard attack) which ones were nerfed? Other than the two stand-out spells we are discussing (Flaming Sphere and Stinking cloud). And if you're built for control, both are still more than viable.

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.

There is nothing wrong with start of turn damage as a controller effect. It's simply shaping the battlefield. Where the problems lie is with movable start of turn damage. Where if the monsters try to run you just park the zone straight back on top of them. With static start of turn damage, the problem is keeping the monsters in the zone. With movable end of turn damage the challenge is keeping the monsters from leaving the zone without being penalised badly. But with movable start of turn damage there is no problem either way. It's just too easy unless the bad guys are specifically themed round forced movement.

Well, the taste of damage is when the enemy is actually attacked by the sphere. That's where the primary damage comes from.

Other than casting the Sphere I have seldom attacked with it. 2d6+Int damage doesn't stand up to an enlarged freezing burst with orb expertise - bunch most targets in a burst 2 up then roll the sphere into the middle of them. Multiple crispies.

And as for that being the "primary damage", no. The primary attack hits 75% of the time (I'm being generous) for 2d6+statics against one target. The autodamage used to hit automatically, 100% of the time for d4+statics.

d4+statics= .75*(2d6+statics).
d4+.25*statics=2d6*.75
2.5+.25*statics=21/4
10+statics = 21
statics = 11

So if the static damage is 11 or more, counting all bonusses (staff of ruin, int, implement focus, dual implement spellcaster, etc.), the minor action for the flaming sphere is doing as much damage per round to a single target as the standard action would. And as enlarged freezing burst to set more targets for the sphere is pretty obvious, I don't see where the claim comes from at all.

And for the record I still consider Stinking Cloud a top tier wizard daily even post nerf. Flaming Sphere I'm not so sure about due to the fact people can just run past it. I'd add Int mod damage for people who try to run past.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Here is the problem. You talk about death isn't control but it actually is. Death is dealt in different ways but it's all done with damage. What you are saying is that essentially the Wizard needs to do more controlling at the expense of anything else. "Sure I could have killed that goblin over there, but I fulfilled my role better by shuffling him around the board some and enabled him to be killed next round by the rogue".

I'm sorry but it's more about defeating the enemy than fulfilling the role. No teamwork is lost with the original Wizard and he does his controller job just fine.

True.

However, unless you can kill a goblin THIS TURN, a wizard that puts an enemy out of the fight for turn is better than a wizard that helps to make a monster dead a couple turns from now.

The roles are important. Strikers try to eliminate monsters fast. If they can get 1 monster out of the fight on the first turn, that's 1 less monster to fight the whole battle.

The defender/controller try to make some monsters useless (in some cases). If you can make 1 or 2 monsters useless for a couple of turns, while the party kills off 1 or 2 of the other monsters, a 5 on 5 fight becoes more of a 3 on 5 for the whole battle.

The leader is mostly a force multiplier, giving the rest of the party extra actions or more effectiveness.

You do ultimately want to kill everything.

However, how many people have done a 'wave' encounter? Where you fight say half the baddies, and about 3 rounds in, the other half show up. Generally speaking, unless you are wasteful with encounter/dailies, it's much easier than a full encounter. The 'defenderih' controller powers can make that happen. Unless you are putting a control effect on a creature you could have killed, it's not a waste. As long as someone kills the monster before it gets a turn, it doesn't matter if the monster was killed by the first PC to act or the last. So, there ARE some situations where pure damage is better than control effects, but rarely is the controller the only person that can finish the job.

The flaming sphere example ... the damage is 1d4+Int mod. Even with all the extra bonuses you get, a monster still has to be VERY near death for that to kill them. So you are talking about an extremely small corner case. The original version was more like ongoing damage than a 'do what I want you to in order to avoid taking damage' effect. The latter is a control effect, the former is a striker effect if anything. The goal of the errata isn't to make the power better, but to have it fit the role better, which is does.

Damage that you can control is 'better' than damage the enemy can decide to avoid, especially in the case of say, the Avenger's censures (since as a striker, you rather be a striker than a controller). BUT, damage the enemy can't avoid isn't going to cause the enemy to change it's actions, and thus, it isn't control. Yes, the 'last' turn, it's better to kill the enemy than to control it's actions. But for every other turn ... is making the enemy die in 4 more turns vs. 3 more turns better than making the enemy do nothing for a couple turns?

 

[Raikun]

I've always seen Control as managing the battlefield to help keep your party alive long enough to make the bad guys dead first. Damage of course is a part of that (according to the role description), but often it isn't.

"Sleep" when used correctly can be nearly an auto-win for the party, and it does no damage on it's own at all. That's control.

 

[Balesir]

Other than the daggers (which used to be a good power - highest single target damage wizard attack) which ones were nerfed? Other than the two stand-out spells we are discussing (Flaming Sphere and Stinking cloud). And if you're built for control, both are still more than viable.

All the powers that were changed from "creatures starting their turn in the zone/area/square/etc." to "creatures ending their turn in the zone/area/square/etc." were effectively nerfed because the damage becomes avoidable (most of the time). I'm saying that to (a) reduce the nerf) and (b) make the control effect really convincing these end-of-turn effects should stay end-of-turn (because it's more controller-y) but be boosted, either with increased damage or with status effects and the like.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The flaming sphere example ... the damage is 1d4+Int mod. Even with all the extra bonuses you get, a monster still has to be VERY near death for that to kill them. So you are talking about an extremely small corner case. The original version was more like ongoing damage than a 'do what I want you to in order to avoid taking damage' effect. The latter is a control effect, the former is a striker effect if anything. The goal of the errata isn't to make the power better, but to have it fit the role better, which is does.

I don't fully understand where this "striker" damage thing is coming from. Wizards have never been crossing over into the striker territory. The Wizard plays it role to the "T", you don't need to change something for the sake of change and that is what was done.

It's pure and simple:

Before: Initial damage + more damage(monsters turn) then monster decides what to do.

After: Initial damage + no damage + monster can do anything it wants + avoids any effects due to simple movement.

Using the Flaming Sphere example. Let's say your Wizard drops the Flaming Sphere on a group of enemies. If you use the nerf the goblins take initial damage and most likely no damage at the end of their next turn because they move. Okay your Wizard uses a minor action to sustain it and a move action to move it towards the enemies that moved. Well their next turn comes around and they move again before the end of their turn and they take no damage. All you are doing is just causing them to use a move action that they would normally take anyway.

The old way. Same as above but each time their turn came up they would take damage.

 

[Oldtimer]

I'll take one last stab at this, then I'll give up.

It's pure and simple:

Before: Initial damage + more damage(monsters turn) then monster decides what to do.

After: Initial damage + no damage + monster can do anything it wants + avoids any effects due to simple movement.

Or even purer and simpler:

Before: Initial damage + more damage(monsters turn) + monster can do anything it wants + monster doesn't need to move anywhere.

After: Initial damage + no damage + monster can do anything it wants + monster must move or receive more damage.

Using the Flaming Sphere example. Let's say your Wizard drops the Flaming Sphere on a group of enemies. If you use the nerf the goblins take initial damage and most likely no damage at the end of their next turn because they move. Okay your Wizard uses a minor action to sustain it and a move action to move it towards the enemies that moved. Well their next turn comes around and they move again before the end of their turn and they take no damage. All you are doing is just causing them to use a move action that they would normally take anyway.

Is this wizard alone against these goblins on an infinite feature-less plain? Why would the goblins take that movement normally anyway?

Yes, the changed Flaming Sphere will likely do less damage in itself, but the wizard can now encourage those pesky goblins to move, something they wouldn't need to do otherwise. I feel that this gives the wizard more control over the goblins' actions. If he uses that control wisely, his side might win the battle quicker and with less hurt.

I don't really understand how you can argue against this? You might not want to give up damage to gain more control, but surely you see that the changed Flaming Sphere influences the enemies actions more?